MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Studying Change in Defensive Functioning in Psychotherapy Using the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales: Four Hypotheses, Four Cases

2008· book-chapter· en· W68562720 on OpenAlex
J. Christopher Perry, Stephen Beck, Prometheas Constantinides, Joan E. Foley

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychological resilienceHierarchyClinical psychologyMechanism (biology)PersonalityDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defense mechanisms are one of the original and the most durable theoretical contributions of psychoanalysis to dynamic psychology. Research has shown that there is a hierarchy of the general level of adaptation of defenses, divided into seven levels, which can be summarized as the level of overall defensive functioning (ODF). This chapter examines how the quantitative assessment of defense mechanisms can yield indicators of the progress and outcome in psychotherapy research. Four cases are presented with short- to long-term psychotherapy and one with very long follow-up. Each demonstrates how different aspects of defensive functioning change over different time periods and states (i.e., depressed vs. not depressed) exemplifying four hypotheses about how defenses change. The first is that as individuals change, they increase their overall level of defensive functioning, and at the same time, variability in defensive functioning tends to decrease, indicating increased resilience to stress. The second is that change in defense levels occurs in a stepwise fashion in which individuals trade off defenses lower on the hierarchy for those in the middle and only later developing those at the top of the hierarchy. The third is that individuals and groups have their own rates of change, which may vary across naturalistic and different treatment conditions, yet to be determined. Depressed states may be associated with initially large changes that then decelerate, whereas personality disorders (PDs) may have long initial periods of induction in the therapeutic process (“priming”), before change is initiated and becomes, more or less linear. Treatments that increase this rate of change are likely to be seen as more effective. Finally, in line with most of the research to date, as defensive functioning improves, symptoms will decrease and other aspects of functioning will improve. Although single cases do not prove a hypothesis, these cases offer some empirical support, while clearly demonstrating the value of research in this field. Furthermore, the identification of defenses in verbatim interviews and psychotherapy sessions permits the moment-to-moment analysis of the apparent effect of interventions on defensive functioning, also a topic worthy of further research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.348
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.024 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it