Thesis--University of Denver. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Bibliography: leaves [107]-119.

Thesis--University of Denver. / Bibliography: leaves [107]-119.

There were two purposes to the current set of studies. The first was to test the validity of the Adaptiveness of Defenses Scale (ADS), a new measure developed to assess variability within ego defense mechanisms. Study 1 addressed the validity of the ADS with a sample of 104 male undergraduates. The ADS was hypothesized to account for significant unique variance on dependent measures (the PAI, ECR, and final grade in introductory psychology) beyond that accounted for by the Defense-Q. Regression analyses showed that a different pattern emerged. The Defense-Q and ADS accounted for different aspects of the dependent variables, with the Defense-Q predicting PAI Somatization scale scores and the ADS predicting ECR avoidance scale scores. Study 2 addressed the validity of the ADS with a sample of 64 male federal inmates. The ADS was hypothesized to account for significant unique variance on dependent measures (the BPI, PCL-R, and PAS) beyond that accounted for by the Defense-Q. As with Study 1, the two measures tended to predict different aspects of the dependent measures. The Defense-Q predicted immature defense factor scores on the BPI as well as BPI total score, and it predicted affective instability factor scores on the PAS, as well as PAS total score. Conversely, the ADS predicted PCL-R total and Factor 1 scores. The relation between the Defense-Q ADP similarity score and the PCL-R interpersonal facet was significantly positive, while the relation between the ADS total score and this facet was significantly negative. The results of Studies 1 and 2 suggest that the ADS captures an aspect of defensive functioning different from that measured by the Defense-Q, likely related to interpersonal functioning. Study 3 examined the relation between defenses (measured by the Defense-Q and ADS) and correctional variables (offense history, institutional incidents, institutional charges, urinalysis outcomes, and correctional program outcomes), as well as examined Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal differences. The differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal inmates tended to show that non-Aboriginal inmates were older and had more aggressive criminal histories as well as higher PCL-R total and Factor 1 scores. They also tended to have more problematic institutional adjustments, likely because of their higher levels of psychopathy. The Defense-Q was significantly related to general offence history for Aboriginal inmates and the ADS was significantly related to violence history for non-Aboriginal inmates, but other significant relations were sparse. The results of the current series of studies provides preliminary support for the idea that individual defenses have their own ranges of adaptiveness, as the ADS scores male undergraduates and male inmates were significantly different for the same defenses. Given the pattern of the relations of the ADS to the dependent variables, it appears that the ADS is sensitive to interpersonal functioning.

There were two purposes to the current set of studies. The first was to test the validity of the Adaptiveness of Defenses Scale (ADS), a new measure developed to assess variability within ego defense mechanisms. Study 1 addressed the validity of the ADS with a sample of 104 male undergraduates. The ADS was hypothesized to account for significant unique variance on dependent measures (the PAI, ECR, and final grade in introductory psychology) beyond that accounted for by the Defense-Q. Regression analyses showed that a different pattern emerged. The Defense-Q and ADS accounted for different aspects of the dependent variables, with the Defense-Q predicting PAI Somatization scale scores and the ADS predicting ECR avoidance scale scores. Study 2 addressed the validity of the ADS with a sample of 64 male federal inmates. The ADS was hypothesized to account for significant unique variance on dependent measures (the BPI, PCL-R, and PAS) beyond that accounted for by the Defense-Q. As with Study 1, the two measures tended to predict different aspects of the dependent measures. The Defense-Q predicted immature defense factor scores on the BPI as well as BPI total score, and it predicted affective instability factor scores on the PAS, as well as PAS total score. Conversely, the ADS predicted PCL-R total and Factor 1 scores. The relation between the Defense-Q ADP similarity score and the PCL-R interpersonal facet was significantly positive, while the relation between the ADS total score and this facet was significantly negative. The results of Studies 1 and 2 suggest that the ADS captures an aspect of defensive functioning different from that measured by the Defense-Q, likely related to interpersonal functioning. Study 3 examined the relation between defenses (measured by the Defense-Q and ADS) and correctional variables (offense history, institutional incidents, institutional charges, urinalysis outcomes, and correctional program outcomes), as well as examined Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal differences. The differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal inmates tended to show that non-Aboriginal inmates were older and had more aggressive criminal histories as well as higher PCL-R total and Factor 1 scores. They also tended to have more problematic institutional adjustments, likely because of their higher levels of psychopathy. The Defense-Q was significantly related to general offence history for Aboriginal inmates and the ADS was significantly related to violence history for non-Aboriginal inmates, but other significant relations were sparse. The results of the current series of studies provides preliminary support for the idea that individual defenses have their own ranges of adaptiveness, as the ADS scores male undergraduates and male inmates were significantly different for the same defenses. Given the pattern of the relations of the ADS to the dependent variables, it appears that the ADS is sensitive to interpersonal functioning.

Dissertation (MHSc--Health Science) -- AUT University, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references. Also held in print (74 leaves ; 30 cm.) in North Shore Campus Theses Collection (T 616.8914 WIL)

No description available.

No description available.

This study was concerned with the relationships between the concepts of dogmatism, anxiety, and self-ideal discrepancy. In order to measure these relationships, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Cattell's IPAT Self Analysis Form, and Bill's Index of Adjustment and Values were utilized, Sex differences, as measured on the Dogmatism Scale, were also investigated.

Goal: The aim of the current studies was to evaluate the ability of individual defenses to differentiate Antisocial (APD) and Borderline (BPD) personalities. Because multiple defense measures were utilized, Study 1 was dedicated to evaluating the convergent validity between the measures used: Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ), Defense-Q, and Defense Mechanism Manual (DMM). Studies 2, 3, and 4, then evaluated the ability of the defenses to differentiate APD and BPD groups. Method: In Study 1, participants completed all defense measures and correlations were conducted between the individual defenses. In Studies 2, 3, and 4, groups of nonclinical participants were divided into APD and BPD groups based on scores from the Personality Assessment Inventory. They also completed the DSQ (Studies 2, 3, & 4), the Defense-Q (Study 3), and/or the DMM (Study 4).The groups were then examined for differences on defenses using MANOVA and DFA analyses. Results: Results from Study 1 revealed no significant correlations between the measures for any of the individual defenses. In Studies 2, 3, and 4, DSQ and Defense-Q results revealed that defenses were able to differentiate the APD and BPD groups, but the DMM results did not replicate these findings. Univariate analyses showed that many defenses differed between the groups (e.g., Acting Out, Denial, and Turning Against Self), while others showed no differences (e.g., Idealization). Conclusion: The results were discussed in relation to previous theory and research. The findings provided support for many theoretical expectations. For example, the results supported: Kernberg (1984) who posited both groups would use primitive defenses (e.g., Splitting, Denial); Perry and Cooper (1986) who posited BPD groups would internalize negative views towards the self; and Gacono and Meloy (1988) who believed Denial was characteristic of APD. Overall, the results suggested that APD and BPD groups demonstrated differences in defense use.

This essay presents a portrayal of Heathcliff, Catherine and Isabella from a psychoanalytical perspective with regard to four defense mechanisms; namely, repression, denial, sublimation and projection in order to see how these defense mechanisms have affected the characters’ decisions and behaviour, and led them to their destinations in life. It will include three major sections: repression in characters, denial in characters, and sublimation and projection in characters. These terms will be more clearly defined and explained in the subsequent sections.