Masochism: A Mixed-Method Analysis of Its Development, Psychological Function, and Conceptual Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviewed the concept of masochism by using a mixed-method approach to analyze 23 publications from 1924 to 2012 by authors from different psychoanalytic schools. Qualitative analysis showed that most authors emphasized painful early attachments, early injury of self-representation, identification with an abusing parent, and narcissistic injury as core experiences in the early childhood of patients with masochism. The main psychological function of masochism was described as a way of avoiding uncontrollable suffering by willingly undertaking other, milder, more controllable suffering. Quantitative analyses using standardized measures of conflicts, defenses, and motives revealed that most authors described early, global psychodynamic conflicts, developmentally early motives, and both action-level and neurotic defenses in masochism. Correlation analyses showed that although the main ideas in the concept of masochism remained stable over time, emphasis on certain aspects changed. The findings provide a conceptual overview of masochism and hypotheses for further clinical studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".