Bağımlı Akrabası Olan ve Olmayan Bireylerin Eşbağımlılık Özelliklerinin Savunma Mekanizmaları, Aile İşlevselliği ve Bağlanma Stilleri Açısından Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, bağımlı yakını olan (klinik grup, n=56) ve olmayan (klinik-olmayan grup, n=59) bireylerin eş-bağımlılık özelliklerinin bireysel (savunma-mekanizmaları), aile içi (aile-işlevselliği) ve ilişkisel (bağlanma-stilleri) açılardan karşılaştırılarak bu bireylerin eş-bağımlılık özelliklerinin ortak ve farklı yönlerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Veri toplama aracı olarak Eş Bağımlılık Belirleme Ölçeği (EşBBÖ), Savunma Biçimleri Testi 40 (SBT-40), Aile Değerlendirme Ölçeği (ADÖ) ve İlişki Ölçekleri Anketi (İÖA) kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Klinik grubun EşBBÖ (diğerine-odaklanma/kendini-ihmal, düşük-öz-değer, kök-aile-sorunları alt ölçekleri ve toplam puanı); SBT-40 (immatür-savunmalar alt ölçeği); ADÖ (problem-çözmede-başarısızlık, iletişim-sorunları, rol-dağılımı-sorunları, duygusal-tepkisellik, duygusal-ilişki-kurma ve genel-işlevsellik sorunları alt ölçekleri ve toplam puanı); İÖA (saplantılı-bağlanma alt ölçeği) puanlarının klinik-olmayan gruptan; klinik-olmayan grubun ise SBT-40 olgun-savunmalar alt ölçeği puanının klinik gruptan istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir. Klinik grupta immatür savunmaların, problem-çözmede başarısızlığın ve saplantılı-bağlanmanın; klinik-olmayan grupta ise immatür savunmaların ve sağlıksız iletişimin eş-bağımlılığı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde yordadığını göstermiştir. Sonuç: Bu bulgular, bağımlı yakını olan ve olmayan bireylerin eş-bağımlılık özelliklerinin farklılık gösterdiğini gözlemleyen önceki araştırmaları desteklemektedir. Ayrıca immatür savunmaların, bireyin bağımlı bir yakını olup olmadığı fark etmeksizin her iki grupta da eş-bağımlılığı yordaması, bu savunma mekanizmasının kullanımının eş-bağımlılığın temel bir özelliği olabileceğine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eş bağımlılık
• savunma mekanizmaları
• aile işlevselliği
• bağlanma stilleri

Comparison of Codependency Characteristics of Individuals with and without Dependent Relatives in Terms of Defense Mechanisms, Family Functionality and Attachment Styles

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to identify both the shared and distinct aspects of the codependency characteristics of individuals with (clinical group, n=56) and without dependent relatives (non-clinical group, n=59) by comparing them in terms of personal (defense-mechanisms), domestic (family-functionality), and relational (attachment-styles) contexts. Method: Codependency Assessment Tool (CODAT), Defense Styles Questionnaire 40 (DSQ-40), Family Assessment Device (FAD), and Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ) were used as data collection tools. Results: The clinical group scored statistically significantly higher on CODAT (other focus/self-neglect, low-self-worth, family-of-origin-issues subscales and total), DSQ-40 (immature-defenses subscale), FAD (failure in problem-solving, communication, role-distribution, affective-responsiveness, affective-involvement, general-functioning subscales and total), RSQ (preoccupied-attachment subscale) than the non-clinical group. The non-clinical group scored significantly higher on the mature-defenses subscale than the clinical group. Immature-defenses, failure in problem-solving and preoccupied-attachment predicted codependency in the clinical group whereas in the non-clinical group, immature-defenses and unhealthy-communication were significant predictors of codependency. Conclusion: Codependency characteristics differ among individuals with and without dependent family members. As immature defenses predicted codependency in both groups, the use of this defense mechanism may be a fundamental feature of codependency.

Keywords

• Codependency
• defense mechanisms
• family functioning
• attachment styles

Kaynakça

1. Cermak TL. Diagnostic criteria for codependency. J Psychoactive Drugs 1986; 1(18): 15–20.
2. Prest LA, Benson MJ, Protinsky HO. Family of origin and current relationship influences on codependency. Fam Process 1998; 37(4): 513–528.
3. Fuller JA, Warner RM. Family stressors as predictors of codependency. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 2000; 126(1): 5-24.
4. Haaken J. From Al-Anon to ACOA: Codependence and the reconstruction of caregiving. Signs (Chic) 1993; 18(2): 321-345.
5. O'Gorman P. Codependency explored: A social movement in search of definition and treatment. Psychiatr Q 1993; 64(2): 199-212.
6. Knudson T M, Terrell HK. Codependency, perceived interparental conflict, and substance abuse in the family of origin. Am J Fam Ther 2012; 40(3): 245–257.
7. Zielinski M, Bradshaw S, Mullet N, et al. Codependency and prefrontal cortex functioning: preliminary examination of substance use disorder impacted family members. Am J Addict 2019; 28(5): 367–375.
8. Aktaş Özakgül A, Yılmaz S, Koç M, et al. Comparison of nursing and mechanical engineering students’ codependency levels. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions 2017; 4(1): 63–74.

9. Ançel Gülsüm. Karşılıklı bağımlılık kavramı: hemşirelikle ilişkisi ve karşılıklı bağımlılığı belirleme araçları. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi 2012; 1(1): 70–78.
10. Chang SH. Testing a model of codependency for college students in Taiwan based on Bowen’s concept of differentiation. Int J Psychol 2018; 53(2): 107–116.
11. Danaeifar M, Azadchehr MJ, Moghani-Bashi Mansourieh A. The relationship between codependency and divorce. Social Welfare Quarterly 2016; 16(61): 87–105.
12. Fuller JA, Warner R. Family stressors as predictors of codependency. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 2000; 126(1): 5–22.
13. Chang S. A cultural perspective on codependency and its treatment. Asia Pac J Couns Psychother 2012; 3(1): 50–60.
14. Cramer P. Defense mechanisms: 40 years of empirical research. J Pers Assess 2015; 97(2): 114–122.
15. Vaillant GE. Ego mechanisms of defense and personality psychopathology. J Abnorm Psychol 1994; 103(1): 44–50.
16. Ghaffari-Nejad A, Sheibani F, Raaii F, Pouya F. A psychodynamic study on wives of males addicted to opium. Women’s Health Bull 2017; 4(4): 1-6.
17. Sayar S, Eghlima M. A comparison of family functionality in addicted and non-addicted married men. Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation 2013; 2(2): 35–41.
18. Schäfer G. Family functioning in families with alcohol and other drug addiction. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 2011; 37: 1–17.
19. Matejevic M, Jovanovic D, Lazarevic V. Functionality of family relationships and parenting style in families of adolescents with substance abuse problems. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2014; 128: 281–287.
20. Bartholomew K, Horowitz LM. Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. J Pers Soc Psychol 1991; 61(2): 226–244.
21. Bortolon CB, Signor L, Moreira TDC, et al. Family functioning and health issues associated with codependency in families of drug users. Cien Saude Colet 2016; 21: 101–107.
22. Fairbairn CE, Briley DA, Kang D, et al. A meta-analysis of longitudinal associations between substance use and interpersonal attachment security. Psychol Bull 2018; 144(5): 532–555.
23. Fridman E. Insecure attachment and drug misuse among women. J Soc Work Pract Addict 2019; 19(3): 223–237.
24. Levitt A, Leonard KE. Insecure attachment styles, relationship-drinking contexts, and marital alcohol problems: testing the mediating role of relationship-specific drinking-to-cope motives. Psychol Addict Behav 2015; 29(3): 696–705.
25. Malakçıoğlu C. The mediation model of actual ought self discrepancy between attachment anxiety and codependence. Cyprus Turkish Journal of Psychiatry and Psychology 2019; 1(2): 85–92.
26. Wells M, Hughes-Glickauf C, Jones R. Codependency: a grass root construct’s relationship to shame-proness, low self-esteem and childhood parentification. Am J Fam Ther 1999; 27(1): 63–71.
27. Martsolf DS, Hughes-Hammer C, Estok P, Zeller RA. Codependency in male and female helping professionals. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 1999; 13(2): 97–103.
28. Hughes-Hammer C, Martsolf DS, Zeller RA. Development and testing of the codependency assessment tool. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 1998; 12(5): 264–272.
29. Ançel G, Kabakçı E. Psychometric properties of the Turkish Form of Codependency Assessment Tool. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2009; 23(6): 441–453.
30. Andrews G, Singh M, Bond M. The defense style questionnaire. J Nerv Ment Dis 1993; 181(4): 246–256.
31. Yılmaz N, Gençöz T, Ak M. Savunma Biçimleri Testi’nin psikometrik özellikleri: güvenilirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 2007; 18(3): 244–253.
32. Epstein NB, Baldwin LM, Bishop DS. The McMaster Family Assessment Device. J Marital Fam Ther 1983; 9(2): 171–180.
33. Bulut I. Aile Değerlendirme Ölçeği El Kitabı. Ankara: Hacettepe University Publication, 1990.
34. Griffin D, Bartholomew K. The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew and D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment Processes in Adulthood: Advances in Personal Relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 17-52). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1994.
35. Sümer N, Güngör D. Yetişkin Bağlanma Stilleri Ölçeklerinin Türk örneklemi üzerinde psikometrik değerlendirmesi ve kültürlerarası bir karşılaştırma. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi 1999; 14(43): 71–106.
36. Bowlby J. Attachment (T.V. Soylu, Trans.). İstanbul: Pinhan Publishing, 2012.
37. Daire AP, Jacobson L, Carlson RG. Emotional stocks and bonds: A metaphorical model for conceptualizing and treating codependency and other forms of emotional overinvesting. Am J Psychother 2012; 66(3): 259–278.
38. Fischer JL, Spann L. Measuring codependency. Alcohol Treat Q 1991; 8(1): 87-100.
39. Lyon D, Greenberg J. Evidence of codependency in women with an alcoholic parent: Helping out Mr. Wrong. J Pers Soc Psychol 1991; 61(3): 435.
40. Carson AT, Baker RC. Psychological correlates of codependency in women. Int J Addict 1994; 29(3): 395-407.
41. Cullen J, Carr A. Codependency: An empirical study from a systemic perspective. Contemp Fam Ther 1999; 21(4): 505–526.
42. Morgan JP. What is codependency? J Clin Psychol 1991; 47(5): 720– 729.