Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
Handbook of Evidence-Based Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Freud S (1894/1962). The neuro-psychoses of defence. The Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 2, Standard Edition. London, Hogarth Press, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Freud A (1937/1966). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense, Revised Edition. New York, International Universities Press, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Waelder R (1976). The principle of multiple function. In Guttman SA, (ed.), Psychoanalysis: Observation, Theory, Application. New York, International Universities Press. pp. 68–83.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schafer R (1968). Mechanisms of defense. Int J Psychoanal 49: 49–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hartmann H, Kris A, Lowenstein RM (1964). Essays on Ego Psychology: Selected Problems in Psychoanalytic Theory. New York, International Universities Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Haan N (1963). Proposed model of ego functioning: coping and defense mechanisms in relationship to IQ change. Psychol Monogr 77: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lazarus R, Folkman S (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Skinner EA, Edge K, Altman J, Sherwood H (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: a review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychol Bull 12: 216–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Perry JC, Ianni F (1998). Observer-rated measures of defense mechanisms. J Pers 66: 993–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kernberg OF (1967). Borderline personality organization. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 15: 641–685.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition. Washington, D.C., American Psychiatric Press, pp. 751–757.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Perry JC (1993). The study of defense mechanisms and their effects. In Miller N, Luborsky L, Barber J, Docherty J, (eds.), Psychodynamic Treatment Research: A Handbook for Clinical Practice. New York, Basic Books, pp. 276–308.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Perry JC, Bond M (2005). Defensive functioning [in personality disorders]. In The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Personality Disorders. Oldham J, Skodol AE, Bender D, (eds.), Washington, D.C., American Psychiatric Press Inc., Chapter 33, pp. 589–609.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vaillant GE (1993). The Wisdom of the Ego. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Freud S (1926/1959). Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety. The Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 20, Standard Edition. London, Hogarth Press, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Perry JC (2001). A pilot study of defenses in psychotherapy of personality disorders entering psychotherapy. J Nerv Ment Dis 189: 651–660.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Perry JC, Cooper SH (1987). Empirical studies of psychological defenses, In Michels R, Cavenar JO Jr., (eds.), Psychiatry, vol. 1. Philadelphia, J.B., Lippincott, Chapter 30, pp. 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vaillant GE (1976). Natural history of male psychological health: the relation of choice of ego mechanisms of defense to adult adjustment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 33, 535–545.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bader M, Perry JC (2001). Mécanismes de défense et épisodes relationnels lors de deux psychothérapies brèves mère-enfant. (Eng trans. Defense mechanisms and relationship episodes among two brief mother-infant psychotherapies). Psychothérapies 21: 123–131.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kernberg OF (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York, Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Perry JC, Cooper SH (1986). A Preliminary report on defenses and conflicts associated with borderline personality disorder. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 34: 863–893.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Perry JD, Perry JC (2004). Conflicts, defenses and the stability of narcissistic personality features. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes 67: 310–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bond M, Gardner ST, Christian J, Sigal JJ (1983). Empirical study of self-rated defense styles. Arch Gen Psychiatry 40: 333–338.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Perry JC, Cooper SH (1989). An empirical study of defense mechanisms: I. Clinical interview and life vignette ratings. Arch Gen Psychiatry 46: 444–452.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Skodol A, Perry JC (1993). Should an axis for defense mechanisms be included in DSM-IV? Compr Psychiatry 34: 108–119.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Perry JC (1990). Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS), 5th Edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts, published by author.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Perry JC, Hoglend P (1998). Convergent and discriminant validity of overall defensive functioning. J Nerv Ment Dis 186: 529–535.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Blais MA, Conboy CA, Wilcox N, Norman DK (1996). An empirical study of the DSM-IV Defensive Functioning Scale in personality disordered patients. Compr Psychiatry 37: 435–440.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hilsenroth MJ, Callahan KL, Eudell EM (2003). Further reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of overall defensive functioning. J Nerv Ment Dis 191: 730–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Perry JC, Henry M (2004). Studying defense mechanisms in psychotherapy using the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales. In Hentschel U, Smith G., Draguns J, Ehlers W, (eds.), Defense Mechanisms: Theoretical, Research and Clinical Perspectives. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Chapter 9, pp. 165–192.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Hoglend P, Perry JC (1998). Defensive functioning predicts improvement in major depressive episodes. J Nerv Ment Dis 186(4): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Waldron S, Helm F and the APS Research Group (2004). Psychodynamic features of two cognitive-behavioral and one psychodynamic treatments compared using the Analytic Process Scales. Can J Psychoanal 12(2): 346–368.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Beck S, Perry JC. An empirical assessment of interview structure in five types of psychiatric and psychotherapeutic interviews. Psychiatry: Journal of Biological and Interpersonal Processes (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Perry JC (2007). Cluster C personality disorders: Avoidant, obsessive-compulsive, and dependent. In: Gabbard G.O., (ed.), Glen Gabbard’s Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition. American Psychiatric Press, Inc., Washington, D.C., 2007, Chapter 55, pp 835–854.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Milbrath C, Bond M, Cooper S, Znoj HJ, Horowitz MJ, Perry JC (1999). Sequential consequences of therapists’ interventions. J Psychother Res Pract 8: 40–54.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Trijsburg RW, Semeniuk TT, Perry JC (2004). An empirical study of the differences in interventions between dynamic psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy for recurrent major depression. Can J Psychoanal 12: 325–345.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Despland J-N, Despars J, de Roten Y, Stiglar M, Perry JC (2001). Contribution of patient defense mechanisms and therapist interventions to the development of early therapeutic alliance in a Brief Psychodynamic Investigation J Psychother Pract Res 10: 155–164.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Christopher Perry MPH, MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Perry, J.C., Beck, S.M., Constantinides, P., Foley, J.E. (2009). Studying Change in Defensive Functioning in Psychotherapy Using the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales: Four Hypotheses, Four Cases. In: Levy, R.A., Ablon, J.S. (eds) Handbook of Evidence-Based Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. Current Clinical Psychiatry. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-444-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-444-5_6

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-934115-11-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-59745-444-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics