COPING AND DEFENSE MECHANISMS RELATED TO PERSONALITY INVENTORIES 1

Transcription

1 Journal of Consultine Psychology Vol. 29, No. 4, COPING AND DEFENSE MECHANISMS RELATED TO PERSONALITY INVENTORIES 1 NORMA HAAN Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley Ratings of coping and defense mechanisms were made on the basis of intensive interviews with a sample of 99 men and women. Analyses of the Ss' California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) were conducted by contrasting the item responses of extreme groups based upon the ego-mechanism ratings. Comparisons based on the coping mechanisms produced more differentiating items on the CPI than on the MMPI, and comparisons based on the defense mechanisms produced more on the MMPI than on the CPI. Defense in general, however, is not so well handled by these procedures as coping. The sets of items which were found to characterize the coping and defense mechanisms were then intercorrelated with the standard CPI and MMPI scales. In several earlier papers, a model of ego functioning was proposed which includes both coping and defensive mechanisms (Haan, 1963, 1964, in press; Kroeber, 1963). This model was applied to longitudinal data on personality development, and various relationships of these ego functions to change in IQ and to social mobility and to Rorschach performance were reported (Haan, 1963, 1964, in press). Since this conceptualization of ego functioning yielded a number of logically consistent relationships with the Rorschach variables and with the two achievement-related variables, it seemed profitable to explore the relationships between the rated ego mechanisms and two widely used personality inventories, the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). The applicability of the conceptualization of ego mechanisms would clearly be greatly extended if scores based on personality inventories could be substituted for clinical ratings. However, the development of scales would require additional validation across other samples, which are not presently available, so that the present results are reported primarily for the information 1 The collection of adult material and the subsequent data analyses for this study were first supported by the Ford Foundation and later by Grant M-5300 from the National Institute of Mental Health, United States Public Health Service. M. B. Smith's suggestions in regard to this paper have been most helpful. 373 they provide as to the relationship between ego functioning and the CPI and the MMPI. This study specifically tested the assumption that the CPI would be more efficient in measuring competent and the MMPI pathological modes of ego functioning. Whether or not the CPI and the MMPI themselves contain items that reflect the various kinds of ego functioning has also been investigated, since the item pools may not contain appropriate items or evidence for some ego mechanisms may simply not be evoked by means of personality inventories. The paper-and-pencil situation in itself requires a modicum of ego control which may, for the occasion, supersede other ego functions essentially involving an appropriate suspension of control. Subjects METHOD The subjects for this study are an adult sample of the longitudinal Oakland Growth Study (OGS). Specifically, they are the 49 men and the SO women for whom follow-up interviews were completed during , when they were about 37 years old. These subjects had been studied intensively between the time they entered junior high school and were graduated from senior high school (Jones, Macfarlane, & Eichorn, 1959). Their range of gross emotional adequacy as adults is wide, from effective and successful individuals to some who have had one or more experiences as hospitalized psychotics. Ego Mechanisms Twenty ratings of ego functions (10 defense mechanisms and 10 coping mechanisms) were made

2 374 NORMA HAAN by interviewers and, independently, by other clinical psychologists on the basis of a typescript summary of the interviews, which dealt intensively with present status, past memory of self, and social interactions. These interviews required, on the average, 12.4 hours. The details of the interviewing, rating procedures, and the complete definitions of the ego mechanisms have been previously reported (Haan, 1963). To summarize the rationale for the ratings: coping behavior is distinguished from defensive behavior, since the latter by definition is rigid, compelled, reality distorting, and undifferentiated, whereas the former is flexible, purposive, reality oriented, and differentiated. Both kinds of ego functioning are assumed to handle conflict. The model attempts to avoid the difficulties inherent in using social criteria of health by focusing on the processes of defensive or coping behavior, irrespective of the content of impulses or motivation. The processes involved in the defense mechanisms are the classical ones, first suggested by Freud, elaborated by Anna Freud (1937), and now part of the common parlance of psychology. The coping processes are defined to parallel the defense processes: for example, projection involves a process of apprehending another's feelings as does empathy, its coping counterpart. But projection is rigid, compelled, distorting, and undifferentiated, whereas empathy is flexible, purposive, reality oriented, and differentiated. The defense mechanisms with their coping counterparts follow: isolation-objectivity, intellectualization-intellectuality, rationalization-logical analysis, doubt-tolerance of ambiguity, denial-concentration, projection-empathy, regressionregression in service of the ego, displacement-sublimation, reaction formation-substitution, repressionsuppression. Scores on these 10 defense and 10 coping mechanisms were derived by adding the interviewer's and the independent judge's ratings on 5-point scales. The judges were provided with a behavioral description thought to characterize the ends of the scale for each of the mechanisms. In addition to the 20 specific mechanisms, relationships will also be reported for two summary measures: (a) total coping (the summation of the 10 coping measures) and (b) total defense (the summation of the 10 defense measures). The mean reliability of the indexes of defense mechanisms, calculated by a z transformation, was.68 for the men and.55 for the women, and that of the indexes of the coping mechanisms was.68 for the men and.55 for the women (cf., Haan, 1963, for individual reliabilities). These means do not include the following ratings which were unreliable (<.36): for women isolation, tolerance of ambiguity, and substitution; for men reaction formation. Individual results will not be reported for these unreliably rated mechanisms, but they were included in order to maintain parallelism between the sexes in the two separate factor analyses conducted for each sex and in the summated measures described above. The inclusion of these unreliable measures in the analysis is attenuating but nonbiasing. Factor analyses of the basic 20 ratings yielded four factors with parallel structures for each sex and a fifth factor with loadings that were not similar for the sexes. The factor scores for the four parallel factors will be used along with the 20 specific mechanisms and the two summary measures. The inclusion of the factor scores and the summated measures in the design makes for some redundancy; however, this procedure seemed desirable since the individual ego mechanisms have more specific meanings than these general measures. The ego-mechanism loadings for the various factors have also previously been reported (Haan, 1963). Two factors related to defense that resulted were labeled primitive, anti-cognitive defense (high loadings on repression and denial), and structured defense (high loadings on projection, displacement, and rationalization). The remaining two factors reflected coping patterns and have been labeled controlled coping (high loadings on substitution, suppression, and concentration) and free expressive coping (high loadings on regression in the service of the ego, empathy, and tolerance of ambiguity). Personality Inventories At the time of the adult study, most of the subjects answered both a CPI and an MMPI. Both the items and the standard scales of these tests were employed in the present study. Several special MMPI scales are also included A (anxiety; Welsh, 1956), NOC (neurotic overcontrol; Block, 1953), NUC (neurotic undercontrol; Block, 1953), PN (psychoneurosis; Block, 1953), and SD (social desirability, revised; Edwards, 1957). Item Analyses RESULTS Coping Mechanisms. Contrast groups were constituted separately for men and women to represent the upper and lower 25% of the range for each coping mechanism; subsequently, these men's and women's groups were combined. A total of 35 groups resulted 13 for men, 11 for women, and 11 for combined sexes. The two unreliable coping ratings for women were not used to constitute groups. Comparisons were then made of the item responses of these various extreme groups (men, women, and the sexes combined) on the CPI and MMPI by means of the chi-square distribution or Fisher's exact test where an expected frequency was ^ 10. The number of items in each analysis achieving a nominal significance level of CIO,.05,.01 by this method were then subjected to a second test of significance derived from "Monte Carlo" procedures first suggested by Block (1960). As applied here, this approach involves SOO

3 COPING AND DEFENSE MECHANISMS 37S successive comparisons of randomly constituted groups of OGS subjects on the CPI items (and later the MMPI items) to obtain empirically the number of items which would show a significantly different pattern of response by chance. The size of the random groups was comparable to ego-mechanism groups. Empirical probability levels were then calculated from these results. Since 28 out of the 35 CPI analyses are significant (achieving an empirical significance level of ^.10 for the nominal.10,.os, or.01 levels) as compared to 17 of the 35 MMPI analyses, it appears that the item pool of the CPI is generally more effective in differentiating between high and low subgroups in terms of the coping dimensions than is the MMPI item pool. Consequently, efforts toward developing empirical scales of coping were limited to the CPI and to the combined groups only. This latter decision was made for the sake of simplicity and is permitted by the fact that a relatively small number of items characterized one sex only. Sublimation and expressive coping will not be studied further since significant relationships between these ratings and inventory items were not obtained for the combined groups. Tables A, B, C, and D which have been deposited with the American Documentation Institute 2 (ADI) present the detailed statistical information 2 The following supplementary information has been deposited with ADI: Table A: Item Analyses of CPI for High and Low Groups Based on Ratings of Coping Mechanisms; Table B: Item Analyses of MMPI for High and Low Groups Based on Ratings of Coping Mechanisms; Table C: Items of the Preliminary Coping Scales; Table D: Means and Standard Deviations of the Preliminary Coping Scales; Table E: Item Analyses of MMPI for High and Low Groups Based on Ratings of Defense Mechanisms; Table F: Item Analyses of CPI for High and Low Groups Based on Ratings of Defense Mechanisms; Table G: Items of the Preliminary Defense Scales; Table H: Means and Standard Deviations of the Preliminary Defense Scales; Table I: Correlations between Standard CPI Scales and Preliminary Coping Scales; Table J: Correlations between Standard MMPI Scales and Preliminary Defense Scales. Order Document No. 8429, from ADI Auxiliary Publications Project, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C Remit in advance $2.75 for microfilm or $7.50 for photocopies and make checks payable to: Chief, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress. and the differentiating items for these analyses. The extent of item intercorrelation resulting from an actual item overlap or redundancy in item meaning that is acceptable within an item pool is an arbitrary matter and depends upon the degree of specificity sought. Since the coping model is an attempt to seek greater specificity than can be obtained from more generalized concepts of psychological "goodness," such as adjustment, adaptivity, etc., a number of items, 43 in all, were dropped because they were related to three or more of the individual coping mechanisms. However, no items were dropped from the two more general scales Total Coping and Controlled Coping since they result from summing all the coping ratings in the first instance and from the factoring procedure in the second and necessarily reflect global conceptions of coping competence. The reliability of the preliminary coping inventory scales after the items were dropped was estimated by Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 with the following results: Objectivity,.64; Intellectuality,.74; Logical Analysis,.68; Concentration,.85; Tolerance of Ambiguity (men's group only),.48; Empathy,.59; Regression in the Service of the Ego,.57; Suppression,.83; Controlled Coping,.82; Total Coping, The lower reliability of the scales for empathy and regression in the service of the ego and of the scale for tolerance of ambiguity in men suggests difficulties either with the ego ratings or with this particular inventory item pool as it bears upon areas of ego adequacy involving appropriate suspension of control. Since these various sets of items can be manipulated statistically as if they were inventory scales, it will be convenient to refer to them as the coping scales, although their very preliminary stage of development must be kept in mind. Defense Mechanisms. Groups were constituted on the basis of their ratings on the defense mechanisms in a manner identical to that employed for the coping mechanisms. (A total of 35 groups again results, i.e., 12 for men, 12 for women, and 11 for the combined sexes. One defense rating, but not the same one, was unreliable for both men and women.)

4 376 NOEMA HAAN The item pool of the MMPI is more effective in differentiating between high and low groups on the defense dimensions than is the CPI item pool (18 out of the 35 MMPI analyses are significant as compared to 11 out of the 35 CPI analyses). Efforts toward developing empirical scales of defense were therefore limited to the MMPI, and again results are reported primarily for the combined groups. Rationalization, structured defense, and total defense will not be studied further since significant relationships between the ratings and the inventory items were not obtained. Again item listings and other supplementary information have been deposited with ADI as Tables E, F, G, and H. a Item overlap is not particularly great with the defense scales: 122 items are scored on only one of the various defense scales, 20 items on two scales, 4 items on three scales, and 2 items on four scales. Since this finding would indicate relative specificity for the various sets of items, no items were dropped from any of the scales. The fact that the more global measures, total defense and structured defense, did not result in a significant number of differentiating items would suggest that the MMPI item pool may contain specific rather than general potential for reflecting ego defensiveness. The Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliabilities of the preliminary defense scales were: Intellectualizing,.67; Doubt,.74; Denial,.81; Projection,.59; Regression,.83; Displacement,.75; Repression,.54; Primitive Defense, Although these results show that reliability is acceptable for these scales, it is somewhat low for Projection (.59) and Repression (.54). Correlations between Standard and Preliminary Scales CPI and Coping. When the preliminary coping scales are correlated with the standard CPI scales, it can be seen that the Total Coping scale is significantly related (p <.05) to 13 of the 18 standard CPI scales with a range of agreement from.35 to.75 and a mean of.51, calculated by the z transformation. Only the CPI scales, Socialization, Self Control, Good Impression, Communality, and Femininity, have insignificant correlations with Total Coping. In addition, the three cognitive coping scales Objectivity (9 significant r's, range from.31 to.71, mean of.52), Intellectuality (11 significant r's, range from.31 to.62, mean of.51), and Logical Analysis (10 significant r's, range from.31 to.57, mean of.43) and the scale most directly involved with control of impulse Suppression (10 significant r's, range from.36 to.70, mean of.52) are extensively related to the standard CPI scales. However, the three coping scales concerned with suspension of control Tolerance of Ambiguity 3 (7 significant r's, range from.31 to.59, mean of.46), Empathy (4 significant r's, range from.39 to.53, mean of.41), and Regression in the Service of the Ego (5 significant r's, range from.31 to.46, mean of.39) do not fare well when correlated with the standard CPI scales. (Note that the factor score, free expressive coping, which has high loadings on these ego ratings, and the individual mechanism, sublimation, failed to differentiate between the contrast groups in the item analyses. All of these latter mechanisms were defined to reflect a suspension, rather than an imposition, of control.) Previous study of these subjects has shown that this group of coping mechanisms has significant and logical relationships with various independent indexes such as social mobility (related to tolerance of ambiguity and empathy for men and regression in the service of the ego and sublimation for women; cf. Haan, 1964); change in IQ (related to tolerance of ambiguity and free expressive coping in men and sublimation and empathy in women; cf. Haan, 1963); and various Rorschach scores, patterns, and behavior (related to all of these mechanisms; cf. Haan, in press). Therefore, the lack of significant association of these coping variables with the standard CPI scales is probably due to limitations of the item pool and/or inherent difficulties in eliciting some kinds of ego behavior from a paper-and-pencil situation. The correlations for this work have been deposited with ADI as Table I. 2 MMPI and Defense. When the preliminary defense scales are correlated with the MMPI 8 Tolerance of Ambiguity was developed on the male subjects only but was scored on all subjects.

5 COPING AND DEFENSE MECHANISMS 377 scales, an unexpected pattern of relationships emerges between the Denial scale and the standard MMPI scales on the one hand, and the Doubt scale and the standard MMPI scales on the other. The results suggest that a high Doubt score reflects presence of pathology and, at a first glance, that a high Denial score reflects absence of pathology and perhaps implicitly, emotional well-being. Yet, in psychodynamic theory, the process of denial involves extensive distortion of reality, and it has generally been thought to be the more primitive defense. The definitions which guided the interview ratings made in this study reflected that difference. In a previous study, using these same subjects, it was shown that high denial ratings were significantly related to IQ deceleration for the female subjects, to low adult social status, to low Rorschach M production for both sexes, and to downward social mobility for the male subjects. The rating of doubt was independent of these variables except as it is related to IQ acceleration for the women subjects (cf. Haan, 1963, 1964a, 1964b). These findings would suggest that despite the generally benign correlations of the Denial scale with other MMPI scales, the variable is reflecting as pathological a phenomenon as doubt and that an alternative explanation can be entertained. An individual characterized by considerable doubt and indecision expresses anxiety (A), depressiveness (D); is both, and alternately, neurotically constricted (NOC) and neurotically impulsive (NUC); and is aware of and is willing to report odd and socially undesirable behaviors (F, Pt, Sc, PN, low K and SD the Doubt scale correlates.75 with A,.57 with D,.65 with NOC,.45 with NUC,.41 with F,.71 with Pt,.55 with Sc,.68 with PN, -.48 with low K, and.69 with SD). An individual characterized by denying defenses to the contrary disavows anxiety, depressiveness, and difficulty with control problems and needs to present himself as a very ordinary and socially desirable fellow; the banality in his efforts seems to be particularly emphasized by the positive correlation of the Denial scale with the Lie scale and with the SD scale. (The Denial scale correlates -.50 with A, -.27 with D, -.46 with NOC, -.50 with NUC, -.47 with F, -.44 with Pt, -.43 with Sc, -.51 with PN,.50 with low K,.52 with SD, and.44 with L.) The relationships of the Projection scale to other MMPI scales are not convincing one way or another. However, three standard scales (Us, Pd, and Sc) have high correlations with the Regression scale (r's are.61,.51, and.53, respectively) which would seem to reflect a common clinical assumption that regressiveness is characteristic of these particular diagnostic categories. The abnegation of self-responsibility and ability implicit in regression and displacement produces similar patterns of correlations for these two defense scales, although the extrapunitive quality inherent in displacement seems suggested by a stronger negative relationship with social desirability and the stronger positive relationship with hysteria. The correlations involving the Repression scale are not impressive in degree, although the pattern -high and positive Lie (.51), negative NUC (-.34), negative Pd (.29), etc. would appear consistent with attempts at repressive control. Although the relationships between the Primitive Defense scale and the regular MMPI scales are consistent with the defined meaning of this factorial summary scale, their magnitude is not great. The correlations for this work have been deposited with ADI as Table ].- DISCUSSION The sets of items which were found to characterize the groups contrasted on the coping and defense mechanisms were conveniently called "scales," but their preliminary stage of development and their need for cross-validation need to be reiterated. Coping has been shown to be better handled by the CPI item pool and defense by the MMPI, although the results for defense are not so generally impressive as those for coping. Gough (1957) has reported rather low correlations between the CPI and MMPI scales (with the exception of the MMPI K scale which has fairly substantial correlations with a number of the CPI scales), so that the general findings of the present study have been partly anticipated. However, the use of the ego model in the present study specifically draws attention to an apparent need to include both the CPI and the MMPI in per-

6 378 NORMA HAAN sonality assessments if a comprehensive description of pathology and of adequacy is sought. That the absence of pathology does not necessarily insure the presence of competence nor its obverse would also seem to be suggested. The present study has additionally shown that some important aspects of ego functioning, specifically having to do with suspension of control and included in this particular ego model, were not represented in either the CPI or the MMPI. Since the ego model is a structural concept, the results of its application to the CPI and the MMPI were interpreted in the light of ego behavior. Although some aspects of ego defensiveness were obviously of concern in the construction of the MMPI's L, F, and K scales and the CPI's Wb, Gi, and Cm scales (and the relationships these scales have to the ego functions reflect these common elements), these scales were primarily constructed as a means of achieving greater interpretative accuracy on the clinical scales of the MMPI and of detecting dissimulation and faking on the CPI. Neither of these tests intended to describe the ego itself. However, Block (1953) has employed empirical procedures to develop several scales for the MMPI and CPI to measure ego behavior undercontrol and overcontrol. The present results do suggest that various facets of ego control are apparently well represented in the item pools of these two inventories. The use of the ego model brings into focus, however, a possible need for distinguishing between lack of control and suspension of control which may not be possible with a paper-andpencil situation. That a description of the ego is an important diagnostic goal in itself has been recognized by the proponents of projective techniques for some time now, and it would appear to be no less necessary with personality inventories. REFERENCES BLOCK, J. The development of an MMPI based scale to measure ego control. Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, University of California, (Mimeo) BLOCK, J. On the number of significant findings to be expected by chance. Psychometrika, I960, 25, EDWARDS, A. L. The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden, 19S7. FREUD, ANNA. The ego and the mechanisms of defense. London: Hogarth, GOUGH, H. Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, HAAN, NORMA. A proposed model of ego functioning: Coping and defense mechanisms in relationship to IQ change. Psychological Monographs, 77(8, Whole No. 571), HAAN, NORMA. The relationship of ego functioning and intelligence to social status and social mobility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69, HAAN, NORMA. An investigation of the relationships of Rorschach scores, patterns, and behavior to coping and defense mechanisms. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, in press. JONES, H. E., MACFARLANE, JEAN W., & EICHORN, DOROTHY. A progress report on growth studies at the University of California. Vita Humana, 1959, 3, KROEBER, T. The coping functions of the ego mechanisms. In R. White (Ed.), The study of lives. New York: Atherton Press, Pp WELSH, G. Factor dimensions A and R. In G. S. Welsh & W. G. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine. Minneapolis: Univer. Minnesota Press, Pp (Received August 27, 1964)