Study Clum & Clum (1973): study US 1971
- Undergrates, San Diego State College, USA, 197?
- N = 55
- Non Response
- Questionnaire: Paper & Pencil Interview (PAPI)
- Authors's Label
- Defense mechanisms
- Our Classification
- Correlations were presented for males only. Among females no relationships were found, exept in the case of turning against others.
- Inventory containing 10 stories, dealing with the following conflict areas: authority, independence, masculinity (male form), feminity (female form), competition and situational. After reading each story each S was asked to respond to four questions corresponding to four types of behavior evoked by the situation described in the story:
-purpose actual behavior
-impulsive behavior (in fantasy)
Five responses are provided for each question, each response representing one of five defense mechanisms.
Each S marked a plus for the response most representative for his reaction and a minus for the one least representative. (Defense Mechanism Inventory; see Gleser & Ihilevich, 1969).
1. TURNING AGAINST OTHERS: Defenses that deal with conflict through
attacking a real or presumed exter-
nal frustration object (Turning
against Object cluster).
2. PROJECTION: Defenses which justify
the expression of agression towards
an external object through first
attributing negative intent or
characteristics to it (Projection
3. INTELLECTUALIZATION: Defenses that
deal with conflict through invoking
a general priciple that 'splits off'
affect from content and represses
the former; e.g. intellectualiza- tion, isolation, rationallization
4. TURNING AGAINST SELF: Defenses that
deal with conflict through directing
aggressive behavior towards S
himself; e.g. masochism and auto-
sadism (Turning against Self
5. REVERSAL: Defenses that deal with
conflict by responding in a positive
or neutral fashion to a frustrating
object which might be expected to
evoke negative reaction, e.g.
negation, denial, reaction forma-
tion, and repression (Reversal
Observed Relation with Happiness
Among females also a tendency for the defence turning against others to be negatively related to hedonic level.