Dealing with Defenses and Defensiveness in Interviews

Gold, Steven N.; Castillo, Y.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1320-3_5

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such an approach helps to order and systematize defensive operations, but it also has some limitations in clinical practice, such as low practicality in intervention forming (conf. Gold & Castillo, 2010), although it should be mentioned that in a psycho-dynamic approach, a precise diagnosis of the type of defences is a key step in a general diagnosis and understanding the patient's problems (conf. McWilliams, 2009;Hibbard et al, 2010).…”

Section: Defensive Activitytheoretical Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It consists of biographical and intra-psychic aspects, as well as aspects related to contact, and all these aspects interact with each other (conf. defensive reactions in clinical interviews and the issue of resistance, Gold & Castillo, 2010;Vehvilainen, 2008). Interpersonal relations with a stranger (such as during a research interview) or psychologist (e.g.…”

Section: Defensive Activitytheoretical Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identifying indicators of defensive activity in narration about important interpersonal relations

Soroko¹

2014

Current Issues in Personality Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background One of the main components of psychological conversation that influence communication is psychological defensiveness.  In the paper I propose processual – situational understanding of defensiveness, and its measurement based on coding system. Preliminary results on link between personality traits and defensiveness in people’s narratives are presented as well. Participants and procedure To test proposed coding system, study was conducted with participants presenting different levels of personality organization’s (borderline: n = 35, 20 women, M = 26.09, SD = 4.82, neurotic: n = 29, 24 women, M = 25.90, SD = 5.25, integrated: n = 31, 26 women, M = 21.94, SD = 1.69). Correlation method was applied (Borderline Personality Inventory, Neuroticism Scale, Emotion Control Inventory), as well as narrative’s interviews. Participants’ statements were coded by competent judges (defensiveness and coherence of narratives), and by automatic lexical analyses (descriptive indicators). Results Results indicate that proposed defensiveness coding system is a set of heterogeneous indicators, and four groups of indicators could be extracted. Correlations between those indicators and expression control (positive relation), and coherence of narratives (negative relation). Moreover, differences between borderline participants and neurotic ones emerged. Conclusions Proposed coding system seems to be a heterogeneous but useful tool for assessing defensiveness during psychological interviews. It could be applied as an element of a procedural control measures, directed to test the reliability of psychological conversation.

show abstract

Section: Defensive Activitytheoretical Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Defensive Activitytheoretical Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%