PubMed · 8809291
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
V Morrone. 1996. Project, process, and change.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02733048
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
We examined the validity of the construct of overall defensive functioning and its discrimination from standard diagnostic assessments. Within a multisite field trial, patients received intake diagnostic interviews by clinicians who made standard axis I through V diagnoses, then rated defense mechanisms using the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS). Patients filled out self-report measures of distress and defenses, the SCL-90-R, and Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ). Overall defensive functioning (ODF) scales were derived from both the DMRS and the DSQ. Overlap between clinical and self-report ratings of defenses was modest. By two different methods of factor analysis, followed by confirmatory factor analysis, clinical ratings of ODF were clearly discriminable from axis I, axis II personality disorders, current and usual global functioning, and subjective distress. ODF measured by the DSQ was not clearly discriminated from subjective distress ratings, consistent with the hypothesis that subjective distress may distort conscious derivatives of actual defensive processes. The DSQ alone probably should not be considered as a substitute for observer-rated assessment of defensive functioning, although further study of the issue is warranted.
This work is aimed at analysing the motivated reasoning underlying denial of some piece of information. Denial is first distinguished from both repression and biased interpretation; then an analysis is provided of the reasoning devices typical of denial. The rules on which reasoned denial is based are similar to those governing the individual's normal cognitive activity. Reasoned denial is here represented in the form of if-then implications, where the to-be-denied belief plays the role of a consequence drawn from a given premise. So, in order to deny such a consequence one may either deny its premise, or search an alternative consequence, or search an alternative premise, or deny the very relation of implication, and so on. Each type of reasoning is logically biased, while at the same time psychologically plausible and convincing. A typical feature shared by all the reasoning strategies considered is the identification of 'unproven' with 'false'.
Freud's 1925 paper on negation provides the foundation for exploring an expanded developmental line of negation. Incorporating evidence from child language studies and explanations from the philosophy of language, this paper describes three types of negation that emerge in a developmental sequence: rejection, refusal, and denial. Clinical examples illustrate each type of negation, demonstrating how it might appear in clinical interactions. Along the way, confusions in terminology (due partly to translation problems) and questions for developmental theory are discussed. An expanded developmental line of negation provides additional interpretive perspectives on the forms of defense that Freud was addressing in "Negation" (1925) and subsequent papers (1927, 1940a,b).