The Relationship Between Coping, Defense Mechanisms and Causal Uncertainty

Year 2021, Volume: 25 Issue: Özel Sayı, 416 - 432, 29.11.2021

Gaye Özen Akın , Furkan Onur Eken , Hüseyin Ebadi

https://doi.org/10.53487/ataunisosbil.840459

Cited By: 2

Abstract

In this research, it is aimed to examine relations of coping, defense mechanisms and uncertainty about one's ability to understand cause and effect relations in the social world (causal uncertainty). COPE, Defense Style Questionnaire-40 (DSQ-40) and Causal Uncertainty Scale (CUS) were administered to 300 participants (143 F, 157 M) who participated in the study. Pearson correlation analysis and multiple linear (stepwise) regression analysis were used to analyze the data. It was found that there was a statistically significant positive correlation between total scores of COPE, COPE-Dysfunctional Coping sub-dimension, DSQ-40, DSQ-40-Immature defenses and DSQ-40-Neurotic defenses sub-dimensions and CUS. Additionally, the findings showed that “denial” and “behavioral disengagement” subscale scores of Dysfunctional coping and “withdrawal” subscale scores of Problem-Focused coping significantly predicted 24% of CUS scores. On the other hand, “passive aggression”, “devaluation” and “dissociation” subscale scores of the Immature defenses and the “reaction formation” subscale scores of the Neurotic defenses were found to significantly predict the 12% CUS scores. As a result, when uncertainty about one's ability to understand cause and effect relations in the social world (causal uncertainty) is examined in terms of coping and defense mechanisms, results revealed that it was predicted by coping strategies that enable getting distanced from stressors such as denial, behavioral disengagement, and withdrawal. It was determined that causal uncertainty is also predicted by passive aggression, devaluation, dissociation and reaction formation defense mechanisms.

Keywords

Coping, defense mechanisms, casual uncertainty

Başa Çıkma, Savunma Mekanizmaları ve Nedensel Belirsizlik Arasındaki İlişkiler

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, bireylerin kullandıkları başa çıkma ve savunma mekanizmaları ile sosyal olayların neden sonuç ilişkilerini anlama yeteneklerine olan güvensizlikleri (nedensel belirsizlik) arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmaya katılan 300 kişiye (143 K, 157 E) Başa Çıkma Tutumlarını Değerlendirme Ölçeği (BÇTDÖ), Savunma Biçimleri Testi-40 (SBT-40) ve Nedensel Belirsizlik Ölçeği (NBÖ) uygulanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde Pearson korelasyon analizi ve çoklu doğrusal adımsal regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. NBÖ ile BÇTDÖ toplam puanı, BÇTDÖ-İşlevsel Olmayan Başa Çıkma (İOBÇ) alt boyut puanı; SBT-40 toplam puanı, İmmatür (İS) ve Nevrotik Savunmalar (NS) alt boyut puanları arasında pozitif yönde ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde ilişki olduğu bulunmuştur. Buna ek olarak bulgular, BÇTDÖ-İOBÇ alt boyutu puanlarından “inkâr” ve “davranışsal boş verme” ile Problem Odaklı Başa Çıkma alt boyutu puanlarından “geri durma”nın NBÖ puanlarını istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde yordadığını ve toplam varyansın %24’ünü açıkladığını göstermiştir. Diğer yandan SBT-40 İS alt boyutu puanlarından “pasif saldırganlık”, “değersizleştirme” ve “disosiyasyon” ile SBT-40 NS alt boyutu puanlarından “karşıt tepki geliştirme”nin ise NBÖ puanlarını istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde yordadığı ve toplam varyansın %12’sini açıkladığı tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, sosyal olayların neden sonuç ilişkilerini anlama yeteneğine olan güvensizlik (nedensel belirsizlik), başa çıkma tutumları açısından incelendiğinde, bu güvensizliği inkâr, davranışsal boş verme ve geri durma gibi stresörlerden uzaklaşan baş etme stratejilerinin yordadığı bulunmuştur. Bu güvensizliğin aynı zamanda pasif saldırganlık, değersizleştirme, disosiyasyon ve karşıt tepki geliştirme savunma mekanizmalarınca yordandığı belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

nedensel belirsizlik, Başa çıkma, savunma mekanizmaları

References

• Ağargün, M. Y., Beşiroğlu, L., Kıran, Ü. K., Özer, Ö. A., Kara, H. (2005). COPE (Başa çıkma tutumlarını değerlendirme ölçeği) Psikometrik özelliklere ilişkin bir ön çalışma, Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 6, 221-226.
• Andrews, G., Singh, M., Bond, M., (1993). The defense style questionnaire. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181, 246–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005053-199304000-00006.
• Astar, M., & Güriş, S. (2015). SPSS ile İstatistik. Ankara: Der Yayınları.
• Beck, J. S. (2014). Bilişsel davranışçı terapi: temelleri ve ötesi. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Bijttebier, P., & Vertommen, H. (1999). Coping strategies in relation to personality disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(5), 847–856. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00187-1 .
• Bouchard, G., & Thériault, V. J. (2003). Defense mechanisms and coping strategies in conjugal relationships: An integration. International Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590244000214.
• Boucher, E. M., & Jacobson, J. A. (2012). Causal uncertainty during initial interactions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(5), 652-663. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1876.
• Brody, S., & Carson, C. M. (2012). Brief report: Self-harm is associated with immature defense mechanisms but not substance use in a nonclinical Scottish adolescent sample. Journal of Adolescence, 35(3), 765–767. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.09.001 .
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2003). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32(32), 470-483.
• Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(2), 267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267.
• Chang, E. C. (2000). Causal uncertainty and depressive symptoms: Appraisals and coping as mediating variables. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(3), 420-436. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2000.19.3.420.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., ve Ş. Büyüköztürk (2012) Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Cramer, P. (1998). Coping and defense mechanisms: What's the difference? Journal of Personality, 66(6), 919-946. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00037.
• Cramer, P. (2000). Defense mechanisms in psychology today: Further processes for adaptation. American Psychologist, 55(6), 637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.637.
• Cramer, P. (2015). Defense mechanisms: 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(2), 114-122.
• Edwards, J. A. (1995). The effects of causal uncertainty on dispositional attribution (Doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University.
• Edwards, J. A., Weary, G., & Reich, D. A. (1998). Causal uncertainty: Factor structure and relation to the big five personality factors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 451-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298245001.
• Erickson, S., Eeldman, S. S., & Steiner, H. (1997). Defense reactions and coping strategies in normal adolescents. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 28, 45-66. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025145119301.
• Evers, A. W., Kraaimaat, F. W., van Lankveld, W., Jongen, P. J., Jacobs, J. W., & Bijlsma, J. W. (2001). Beyond unfavorable thinking: the illness cognition questionnaire for chronic diseases. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 69(6), 1026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.6.1026.
• Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of health and social behavior, 219-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136617.
• Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: A study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150–170.
• Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and Promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 74–745. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456.
• Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(5), 992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.992.
• Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(5), 992.
• Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(3), 571.
• Freud, A. (2011). Ben ve Savunma Mekanizmaları. (Çev. Erim, Y.): Metis Yayınları.
• Haan, N. (1965). Coping and defense mechanisms related to personality inventories. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(4), 373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022410.
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
• Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 129–238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
• Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American psychologist, 28(2), 107.
• Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual review of psychology, 31(1), 457-501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325.
• Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Fifty years of the research and theory of RS Lazarus: An analysis of historical and perennial issues, 366-388.
• McWilliams, N. (2011). Psychoanalytic diagnosis: Understanding personality structure in the clinical process. Guilford Press.
• Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM-IV and beyond. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
• Morgan, C. T. (2010). Psikolojiye giriş. Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.
• Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., & Bögels, S. (1995). Coping, defense, and fear in college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 301-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)00145-I.
• Nicolas, M., & Jebrane, A. (2008scher). Relationships between coping strategies and defense mechanisms in sport performance. Psychological Reports, 103, 735-744. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.103.3.735-744.
• Nicolas, M., Sandal, G. M., Weiss, K., & Yusupova, A. (2013). Mars-105 study: Time-courses and relationships between coping, defense mechanisms, emotions and depression. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.001.
• Olff, M., Brosschot, J. F., & Godaert, G. (1993). Coping styles and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(1), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90044-4.
• Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of general psychology, 1(2), 115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.115.
• Roesch, S. C., Weiner, B., & Vaughn, A. A. (2002). Cognitive approaches to stress and coping. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 15(6), 627-632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001504-200211000-00012.
• Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American psychologist, 41(7), 813.
• Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0092976.
• Scherer, K. R., & Ceschi, G. (1997). Lost luggage: A field study of emotion-antecedent appraisal. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024498629430.
• Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: a review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological bulletin, 129(2), 216.
• Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, correlational themes and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 233–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939308409189.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, 6th Ed. Northridge. CA: California State University.
• Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249-288). Academic Press.
• Tobin, S. J. & Weary, G. (2008). The effects of causal uncertainty, causal importance,and initial attitude on attention to causal persuasive arguments. Social Cognition. 26,44–65. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.1.44.
• Tobin, S. J., & Raymundo, M. M. (2010). Causal uncertainty and psychological well-being: The moderating role of accommodation (secondary control). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 371-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209359701.
• Tobin, S. J., Osika, M. M., & McLanders, M. (2014). Attitudes toward others depend upon self and other causal uncertainty. PloSone, 9(2), e87677. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087677.
• Uz, I. (2015). Nedensel Belirsizlik Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 16, 19. https://doi.org/16. 10.5455/apd.173182.
• Vaillant, G. E. (1994). Ego mechanisms of defense and personality psychopathology. Journal of abnormal psychology, 103(1), 44.
• Vollrath, M., Alnaes, R., & Torgersen, S. (1994). Coping and MCMI-II personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 8(1), 53±63.
• Weary, G. & Jacobson, J. A. (1997). Causal uncertainty beliefs and diagnostic information seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 839–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.839.i
• Weary, G., Jacobson, J. A., Edwards, J. A., & Tobin, S. J. (2001). Chronic and temporarily activated causal uncertainty beliefs and stereotype usage. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(2), 206. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.2.206.
• Weary, G.,& Edwards, J. A. (1994). Individual differences in causal uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.67.2.308.
• Yılmaz, N., Gençöz, T., Ak, M. (2007) Savunma Biçimleri Testi’nin Psikometrik Özellikleri: Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlik Çalışması. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 18(3), 244-253.