Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Freudian defense mechanisms: The good, the bad, and the ugly

Source
Freud had some weird ideas, but he also had some brilliant ones. Along with Freudian slips, one of my favorites is his classification of ego defense mechanisms, which was further elaborated by his daughter Anna and by other psychoanalysts. Defense mechanisms refer to unconscious strategies that protect us from threats to our self-esteem and other sources of anxiety. Not all defenses are created equal, however - some are more likely to take us down the road to psychosis, whereas others can help us live happy, productive lives. Psychiatrist George Vaillant more recently classified the defense mechanisms into a hierarchy ranging from pathological to immature to neurotic to mature. Here are some highlights from each level:

Source
Level 1: Pathological The most destructive of the defense mechanisms are those that involve being deeply out of touch with reality. In dreams and in childhood, these tendencies are more typical, but in adult waking life they can be problematic. A classic example is a delusion, a belief held with strong conviction despite clear evidence to the contrary, such as the belief that one is being followed by aliens or spies. The line between delusion and truth can be a fine one, however, as apparent delusions sometimes turn out to be true (see Martha Mitchell effect). And some beliefs, while not necessarily verifiable in a scientific sense, are not considered pathological (see the debate surrounding Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion). Another example is denial, an inability to accept reality, both publicly and privately, a classic example being denial of a drug or alcohol addiction. Many social psychological phenomena, from victim-blaming to the confirmation bias, also involve denial.

Idealization
Level 2: Immature Individuals who chronically exhibit immature defenses are presumably not functioning optimally, but we all exhibit some of them from time to time. This level includes passive aggression, which is all-too-familiar to those who have lived with cleanliness-challenged roommates, and fantasy (see left), which is actually associated with intelligence and empathy, as Amie discussed in a previous post. Idealization, or the tendency to attribute more positive qualities to someone than they really possess (see left again), is also classified here, though research suggests that a little bit of idealization is actually healthy for relationships, provided that you aren't mistaking a monster for a saint.  Finally, projection is a mechanism that does not have much of a silver lining - it involves transferring unwanted aspects of the self onto others, just as a projector transfers an image onto a screen. Much of what we criticize in others may in fact reflect something we're hiding from ourselves, as when someone with adulterous inclinations suspects their partner of cheating.

Source
Level 3: Neurotic This level isn't pathological, but it's also not particularly adaptive. Intellectualization, for example, involves focusing on abstract concepts and intellectual reasoning in order to gain a sense of control over the messiness of emotional life. For example, without necessarily being aware of it, psychologists are known to conduct research on concepts that reflect issues we struggle with in our own lives (aka "me-search"). Then of course there is rationalization, which has parallels to modern research on cognitive dissonance, one form of which involves shifting our beliefs to align with otherwise hypocritical behaviors (e.g., see how we justify eating animals). Finally there is my all-time favorite, reaction formation, which provides one potential explanation for a link between homophobia and repressed homosexual desire (see psychological blind spots for more on this research).

Source
Level 4: Mature Even for the healthiest among us, reality can be a bit too harsh to confront head on, but Level 4 defense mechanisms are considered to be generally functional. Some examples include humor, which is sometimes the best way to cope with emotional pain - see this excellent guest post by James, and sublimation, which involves transforming unacceptable desires into constructive and socially acceptable forms, such as creating art, embarking on a spiritual path, running a marathon, becoming a dentist, or, as previously mentioned, conducting me-search (Freud apparently said that "research becomes to some extent compulsive, a substitute for sexual activity." I'm not sure I'd take it that far!)

Want to know what level you're at? You can try taking this (somewhat strange) online defense style questionnaire. Let us know what you think in the comments section!


Further Reading:

Vaillant, G. (1994). Ego mechanisms of defense and personality psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103 (1), 44-50 DOI: 10.1037//0021-843X.103.1.44

7 comments:

  1. The description for a "level 5" is prominently missing. What is perfect? A robot? Not sure if I want to be "perfect".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great question. As far as I know there is no Level 5, but it's interesting to speculate on what it might look like - someone who is able to be totally defense-less, or ego-less?

      Delete
  2. I think I could understand why God seem to be included in the category of 'belief held with strong conviction despite clear evidence to the contrary' in the above text (correct me if I got it wrong). But I think that isn't really accurate either, in the sense that it depends on what one defines God as. What I get from it is an implicit assumption that the reader can automatically define and identify God (he/she/it/whatever being) according to Judeo-Christian tradition, or Abrahamic faith definition of God than any other--a background that may not be automatically true of all readers, by the way.

    Sorry for sidetracking, but mentions and uses of abstract concepts that are inadequately defined/explained/may have multiple interpretation or meaning just pricks me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment! I agree with you and didn't mean to imply that religious beliefs of any kind fall under the category of "delusion" (as far as I understand, most psychoanalysts would not consider these kinds of beliefs to be delusional or pathological in the slightest) but rather wanted to draw attention to a debate surrounding this issue. I apologize if there seemed to be a Judeo-Christian bias - it was not intended.

      Delete
  3. I appreciate the humor here and there. Seriously, this is a great synopsis!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think I could comprehend why God seem to be involved in the type of 'belief organised with powerful indictment despite obvious proof to the contrary' in the above text
    buy rs gold

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hmmm. The little quiz seemed to be true in how I use my defence mechanisms! Thank-You!

    ReplyDelete