THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 1

The Defence Mechanisms used by people to avert Anxiety

Moses Obete & Mayi Nakitende

(Students; MA Peace and Conflict Studies, 2019-2021)
Department of Religious and Peace Studies
Makerere University

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the different forms of defence mechanisms used by
people to avert anxiety, stress and unpleasant feelings.
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 2

Introduction

The term ‘defence mechanisms’ was first used by Sigmund Freud to describe a construct of
psychological mechanisms for coping with intrapsychic conflicts (Freud, S., 1894, 1962, pp. 43).
More recently defence mechanisms have been contrasted with coping styles against unpleasant
situations (Cramer, 1998). Defence mechanisms are, therefore, unconscious psychological
processes that protect the individual against anxiety and from the awareness of internal or external
dangers or stressors (ibid). Defence mechanisms mediate the individual’s reaction to emotional
conflicts and to internal and external stressors.

As adults, we all hold preferred views of ourselves. In most cases, these are favourable views of
self—indeed, somewhat more favourable than the objective facts would entirely warrant, as nearly
all writers on the self, have observed (Baumeister, Dale, & Sommer,1998). A recurrent problem
of human functioning, therefore, is how to sustain these favourable views of self. Patterns of self-
deception can help create inflated self-perceptions (Baumeister, et al.,1998; Baumeister, 1998).
Yet a particular crisis in self-perception may arise when an internal or external event occurs that
clearly violates the preferred view of self. In such cases, it is necessary for the self to have some
mechanism or process to defend itself against the threatening implications of this event. Such
processes are commonly called defence mechanisms (Baumeister, et al.,1998; Cramer, 1991; A.
Freud, 1937).

Sigmund Freud proposed a set of defence mechanisms, in a body of work that has long been
influential (Smith V., 2000, 2007, 2010). His work focused on how the ego defended itself against
internal events, specifically, impulses that were regarded by the ego as unacceptable. He
emphasized sexual or aggressive desires that would violate the ego’s internalized standards, for
instance, if those desires were directed toward one’s parents. In his view, the efforts by the self to
avoid recognizing its own sexual and aggressive desires were systematically important in shaping
the personality. This view was also shared by later scholars (e.g. Baumeister et al.,1998; Cramer,
1991b; A. Freud, 1937).

The ego deals with the demands of reality by the id, and the superego as best as it can. But when
the anxiety becomes overwhelming, the ego must defend itself. It does so by unconsciously
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 3

blocking the impulses or distorting them into a more acceptable, less threatening form. The
techniques are called the ego defence mechanisms, and Freud, his daughter Anna, and other
scholars have discovered more than a dozen of them (Boeree, 2006).

Method
This was a coursework on the defence mechanisms used by human beings to avert the negative
consequences of anxiety, stress and unpleasant feelings. It was a secondary research aimed at
getting literature on the defences people use to avert negative effects of anxiety.

An internet search was made on various online university libraries for possible literature on the
subject. Majorly pdf files from accredited online libraries such as Sage publications, JSTOR, and
springer, among others were used. The research focused mostly on the defences used by normal
people although those used by psychotic personalities were also considered under the subheading
“Other Defence Mechanisms.” Several publications on the subject were reviewed and compared.

In this paper, we first looked at the seven defence mechanisms that Sigmund Freud proposed and
later on looked at other defence mechanisms proposed by later scholars. This paper focuses mainly
on defence mechanisms by normal functioning human beings and barely tackles the defence
mechanisms proposed in relation to psychopathology.

The results presented are purely credited on the authors of the journals and books reviewed. In
some instances, we compared and contrasted the views of different authors in order to strike a
balance. No special permission was sought from any of the authors.

Results/Findings
There are generally seven defence mechanisms commonly applied by normal functioning human
beings as proposed by Sigmund Freud. These include: reaction formation, projection,
displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. We will exclude repression from the
list for now.
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 4

Reaction Formation. Reaction formation is also called, "believing the opposite," according to
Anna Freud (1937). It is the changing of an unacceptable impulse into its opposite (Boeree, 2006).
When the insatiable desires of the id conflict with the ego and superego, a person may formulate
a reaction to those impulses. Often, this action is the direct opposite to the demands of the original
desire, and helps to counteract impulses which may be unacceptable to act out or fulfil. According
to Boeree, one of commonest and clearest example of reaction formation is found in children
between seven and eleven or so: Most boys will tell you in no uncertain terms how disgusting girls
are, and girls will tell you with equal vigour how gross boys are. Adults watching their interactions,
however, can tell quite easily what their true feelings are. Another example is when a man may
experience feelings of love towards a married woman. The superego recognises that the fulfilment
of his desires would contradict social norms regarding acceptable behaviour, and so a reaction
formation would occur - the man may experience feelings of dislike towards her - the opposite of
the original feelings.

Projection. In its simplest form, it refers to seeing one’s own traits in other people. A more
rigorous understanding involves perceiving others as having traits that one inaccurately believes
oneself not to have (Baumeister, et al., 1998). Quoting Freud (1915/1961a) Baumeister, et al
(1998) argue that projection can be seen as defensive if perceiving the threatening trait in others
helps the individual in some way to avoid recognizing it in himself or herself. Thus, there are
multiple ways of understanding projection, and they vary mainly along the dimension of how
effectively the undesirable trait or motive is repudiated as part of the self. An example of projection
is when an individual fails to realise his/her weaknesses and instead blames others for their failure
or shortcomings.

Displacement. This is the redirection of an impulse onto a substitute target. If the impulse and
desire is okay with you but the person you direct that desire towards is too threatening, you can
displace to someone or something that can serve as a symbolic substitute (Boeree, 2006). Someone
who hates his or her mother may repress that hatred, but direct it instead towards, say, women in
general. Someone who has not had the chance to love someone may substitute cats or dogs for
human beings. Someone who feels uncomfortable with their sexual desire for a real person may
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 5

substitute it with a fetish. Someone who is frustrated by his or her superiors may go home and kick
the dog, or beat up a family member.

Undoing. Baumeister, et al (1998) define undoing as the literal attempt to alter the past. In reality,
undoing the past is impossible and hence unreasonable. However, when we act on an idea or
impulse that we later regret, we may adopt a defence mechanism of attempting to “undo” that
action in order to protect the ego from feelings of guilt or shame. A more normal and less extreme
example of undoing may be seen among people who experience uncontrolled reflections about
past events, especially if these reflections are characterized by strong or vivid counterfactual
thoughts about how things might have gone differently (ibid). For instance, a spouse may
intentionally say something that upsets the other but upon realising that he/she has annoyed his/her
partner, feels guilty with regards to their behaviour. He or she may attempt to undo their action by
apologising or even saying they never meant to say that or sending him/her a flower.

Isolation (Intellectualization). Isolation (also known as intellectualization) involves stripping

the emotion from a difficult memory or threatening impulse (Boeree, 2006). A person may, in a
very cavalier manner, acknowledge that they had been abused as a child, or may show a purely
intellectual curiosity in their newly discovered sexual orientation. Something that should be a big
deal is treated as if it were not.

Baumeister, et al. (1998), argue that isolation as a defence mechanism, does not actually remove
the threatening idea from mental existence, but instead minimizes its impact. Without associative
connections, the threat will not be remembered often and cannot influence other spheres of mental
activity. It cannot have any substantial effect on self-esteem or the self-concept. Isolation,
however, spares the idea but modifies awareness of affect (Bowins, 2004). A good example is
found in Adolescents who often go through a stage where they are obsessed with horror movies,
perhaps to come to grips with their own fears. According to Boeree (2006), isolation is
demonstrated more clearly by a theatre full of people laughing hysterically while someone is
shown being dismembered.
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 6

Sublimation. Sublimation is a defence mechanism that serves the purpose of discharging

unacceptable internal drives in a socially acceptable manner, without awareness or conscious
participation in this purpose by the person using the defence (Bibring, Dwyer, Huntington, &
Valenstein, 1961; Cramer, 1998). It involves expressing an instinct in a sphere or manner that
shows no relation to its original aim. Freud’s most common allusions to sublimation featured how
the sexual instinct could be channelled into artistic or intellectual endeavours (Laplanche &
Pontalis, 1973; Baumeister, et al., 1998). In particular, the concept of sublimation meant taking a
fundamentally antisocial or unacceptable desire and channelling the energy into socially valued
activities. For instance, a child who likes fighting his/her peers may join boxing or any related
sports in order to spend their energy in a socially acceptable activity.

It is, however, not entirely clear how sublimation could be recast in terms of defending self-esteem
against threats (Baumeister, et al., 1998). Baumeister, et al., further argue that self-esteem would
be damaged if certain sexual or aggressive impulses were acknowledged, and so one transforms
them into socially acceptable forms in order to prevent that damage.

Denial. Freudian conceptions of denial embrace everything from a rare, almost psychotic refusal
to perceiving the physical facts of the immediate environment, to the common reluctance to accept
the implications of some event (Laplanche & Pontalis, 1973; Baumeister, et al., 1998). The
distinction between denial and repression is sometimes blurred and difficult to articulate in a
meaningful fashion (Cramer, 1991). For the present, it is sufficient to consider denial as the simple
refusal to face certain facts. Insofar as these facts are highly upsetting or represent potential damage
to self-esteem, denial can in principle be a very useful defence mechanism.

Denial can be understood very narrowly or quite broadly. Broad definitions encompass an
assortment of other defences. Cramer (1991) subsumes perceptual defences, constructing personal
fantasies, negation, minimizing, maximizing, ridicule, and reversal as forms of denial. Paulhus,
Fridhandler, and Hayes (1997) suggested that previous theoretical works were sufficient to
distinguish at least seven different kinds of denial. If such a broad view proves correct, it may be
more appropriate to regard denial as a category of defence mechanisms than as a single defence.
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 7

Other Defence Mechanisms

Introjection. Introjection, sometimes called identification is an ego defence mechanism through
which an individual, in varying degree, takes the personality of someone else because doing so
solves some emotional difficulty (Boeree, 2006). This results in the unconscious taking over of
various elements of another (Laughlin 1979; Békés, & Perry, 2017). Cramer (1991), avers that
identification occupies a special position as a defence mechanism, and it is commonly included
among the "healthy" defences. Rather than functioning to stave off anxiety deriving from
unacceptable thoughts or wishes, as in the case of denial or projection, identification functions to
defend against the negative affect which emanates from a sense of loss—either actual, as in the
loss of another significant person, or psychological, as in the loss of self-esteem. In identification,
the person modifies his motives and behaviour patterns and the related self-representations in order
to experience being like or being the same as the object of identification (Békés, & Perry, 2017).
In this case, a person who was abused may adopt the behaviour of the abuser what Anne Sigmund
(1937) calls identification with the aggressor.

Rationalization. Rationalization is the cognitive distortion of "the facts" to make an event or an

impulse less threatening (Boeree, 2006). Rationalization makes unacceptable attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviours more palatable by providing a socially acceptable meaning (ibid). Boeree argues that
rationalisation is done by most people on a fairly conscious level when they provide themselves
with excuses. He notes however that for many people, with sensitive egos, making excuses comes
so easy that they never are truly aware of it. He concludes that many people are quite prepared to
believe their lies. For example, someone who is passed over for a promotion might rationalize
the disappointment by claiming to not have wanted so much responsibility after all or a person
may explain their inability to develop as 'God's will'.

Compartmentalization. Compartmentalization is another defence involving mostly dissociation

but also a cognitive distortion of sorts, whereby various aspects of conscious experience is
arbitrarily segmented into distinct components (Bowins, 2004). For example, work-related
activities are completely separate from social involvements. People engaged in extremely stressful
work, such as antiterrorist activities, are often taught this defence as part of their training (ibid).
Compartmentalization is one such strategy enabling a person to place different sets of experience
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 8

in separate psychological spaces so that problems in one area of life do not impact significantly on
other areas. The workspace can then be kept clear of marital difficulties, helping to maintain better
mental health and functioning while at work. Mental imagery can help a person strengthen the
compartments. Work might be imagined as a room with a lock that is opened at the start of the day
and closed at the end to isolate it from other areas of life (ibid p.21). Related to dissociative
absorption is the concept of “flow,” which refers to a state of becoming totally engrossed in an
activity to the point of forgetting about daily concerns, losing track of time, and acting as if nothing
but the present matters (Salovey et al., 2000 as cited in Bowins, 2004). A flow state helps people
detach from undesirable thoughts and feelings, and facilitates success in achieving desired goals.

Splitting. Splitting occurs when the ego attempts to reconcile multiple aspects or rationales, but
resorts to understanding the world in terms of good and bad (Smith 2000, 2007, 2010). A person
who experiences splitting may take an “either-or” approach when making evaluations of the world
around them, including objects, situations, and people. They tend to view ideas as either right or
wrong, with no middle ground or compromise. Similarly, they may take a “good versus bad”
approach in relationships, admiring one group of people whilst completely rejecting those who do
not live up to their expectations. Perry & Ianni (1998), identify two forms of splitting and these
are splitting of self-images and splitting of others’ images. Splitting consists of the division of
external objects, namely people, into all good and all bad, with shifts of an object from one extreme
to the other (Bowins, 2004). Splitting allows individuals to discard things they have assigned as
bad and embrace what they have assigned as good even if those things they have assigned as ‘good’
are harmful to them.

Dissociation. Dissociation is a defence that essentially provides people with the ability to detach
themselves from adverse emotional states (Bowins, 2004). They may feel separated from the
outside world, as though they exist in another realm. Dissociation often helps people to cope with
uncomfortable situations by ‘removing’ themselves from them. They may enter a state of
daydreaming, staring into space and letting their mind wander until someone nudges them,
prompting them to acknowledge reality once more. Costa (2016) explains that when dissociation is
used as a defence mechanism, the individual copes with acute emotional stress by changing the
usual awareness of self, that is, by feeling detached from the usual sense of body
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 9

(depersonalization) or surroundings (derealization), or by breaking the autobiographic continuity

across time, which can lead to amnesias, or an unstable or divided sense of self (like different
personalities in one body). There are various forms of dissociation which unfortunately is beyond
the scope of this paper.

Idealization. Idealization is a defense mechanism in which a person overemphasizes another

individual’s qualities which he attributes to himself or to another (Phaneuf, 2007). The person may
create an ideal impression of themselves, another person, place or object by emphasising their
positive qualities and neglecting those that are negative. Kai-Ching Yu (2006) argues that people
constantly strive to present their good selves and at the same time to reduce anxiety in response to
the anticipation of danger that threatens their ego integrity. Idealisation adjusts the way in which
we perceive the world around us and can lead us to make judgement that support our idealised
concepts. People often idealise their recollections of being on holiday or memories from childhood,
seeing them as ‘happier times’, but fail to recollect arguments or stresses during those periods. We
often idealise the image we hold of people we admire - relatives, partners or celebrities, making
excuses for their failures and emphasising their more admirable qualities.

Acting Out. Acting Out is performing an extreme behaviour in order to express thoughts or
feelings the person feels incapable of otherwise expressing. Instead of saying, “I’m angry with
you,” a person who acts out may instead throw a book at the person, or punch a hole through a
wall (Grohol, 2016). When a person acts out, it can act as a pressure release, and often helps the
individual feel calmer and peaceful once again. For instance, a child’s temper tantrum is a form of
acting out when he or she doesn’t get his or her way with a parent. Self-injury may also be a form
of acting-out, expressing in physical pain what one cannot stand to feel emotionally.

Passive aggression. Passive-aggressive behaviour is a deliberate and masked way of expressing

covert feelings of anger (Long, J. E., Long, N. J., & Whitson, S., 2009). Passive aggression is a
pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate
performance in social and occupational situations that begin by early adulthood and that occurs in
a variety of contexts (ibid). Passive aggression is where you are angry with someone but do not or
cannot tell them. Instead of communicating honestly when you feel upset, annoyed, irritated or
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 10

disappointed you may instead bottle the feelings up, shut off verbally, give angry looks, make
obvious changes in behaviour, be obstructive, sulky or put up a stone wall (Harn, 2011). This
defence is commonly used by subordinates against their superiors at the place of work. It is used
by weak spouses against an aggressive spouse or children against parents.
Classification of defence mechanisms
According to Cramer (2000), it is useful to think of defences as ordered on a continuum, differing
in degree of maturity. Psychological defences are commonly divided into mature,
intermediate/neurotic, and immature (Vaillant, 1977, as cited in Bowins, 2004). This classification
is based partly on the general adaptive value of the defence and partly on the stage of life when
the defence is most likely to be expressed (ibid).

Defence Mechanism that are considered immature or primitive are characterized by severe
alteration of painful mental contents and/or radical distortion of external reality. Examples of these
are projection, splitting, acting out, and autistic fantasy (Granieri, et al. 2017). Grohol (2016), adds
denial, regression, dissociation, compartmentalisation, and reaction formation as defences under
the first continuum (primitive defences). Valliant (2011) adds passive aggression under this
continuum in contrast to Grohol (2016) and Granieri, et al (2017). An excessive use of defences
as splitting, projection, and denial is related to affective disorders (e.g., depression and anxiety)
and to less favourable personality characteristics e.g., neurotic, borderline, psychotic, dependent,
avoidant, narcissistic, and antisocial traits (Granieri, et al. 2017).

At the second continuum are the less primitive, more mature (intermediate or neurotic)
defences. Defensive functioning at this level keeps potentially threatening ideas, feelings,
memories, wishes, or fears out of awareness (Valliant, 2011). Examples
are; displacement (punching the air instead of boss), isolation (minimizing the effects of a negative
event), repression, the opposite of isolation, rationalization (praising something socially
unacceptable), undoing (saying: I never meant to say so). These intermediate defences are
manifested clinically by phobias, compulsions, somatizations, and amnesias. In contrast to the
immature defences, intermediate defences usually make the user more uncomfortable than the
observer (Valliant, 2011) and this would be quite clear from an observer’s point of view that the
person has some problem.
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 11

At the third level are mature defences. Defense Mechanisms that are considered more mature
imply a greater ability to adapt to reality, so that they can effectively distance threatening feelings
without distorting the reality (Granieri, et al. 2017). Mature defences increase with age just as
PTSD decreases with age. These defences usually maximize gratification and allow relatively
more conscious awareness of feelings, ideas, and their consequences (Valliant, 2011). Examples
of defences at this level are: sublimation, suppression, self-assertion, and humour (Valliant, 2011;
Grohol, 2016). Defences not only lie along a continuum of relative psychopathology; they also lie
along a continuum of personality maturation (Valliant, 2011). For instances with passage of time
and with further development, the defence of adolescent acting out (e.g., temporarily comforting
bad behaviour) could evolve into reaction formation (eg becoming a strict policeman) and finally
into the altruism of a parole officer (ibid).

Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendation

Discussions
The defences are used unconsciously and depends on the level of maturity of the individual. As
noted by Cramer (1998) there is variation in age and level of maturity in terms of defences. For
instance, mature defence for a child of 5 is not a mature defence for a man of 25. As such teenagers
are more likely to use the defences which keep potentially threatening ideas, feelings, memories,
wishes, or fears out of awareness while adults are likely to use defences which offer hope. Kwon
(2002) argues that hope associated with mature defenses may approximate genuine hope and that
hope associated with immature defenses may approximate false hope.

Although some scholars include repression or suppression among the healthy defences, some
scholars argue that defence mechanisms come in as a result of failure of repression to repel our
fears. Boeree (2006), for instance argues that the best way to understanding defences is to see them
as a combination of denial or repression with various kinds of rationalizations. The danger
associated with defences is that all of them are in fact lies even if we are not conscious of making
them. Lies breed lies, and take us further and further from the truth, from reality. After a while,
the ego can no longer take care of the id's demands, or pay attention to the superego. As a result,
the anxieties come rushing back, and the person breaks down.
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 12

As acknowledged by Freud and other scholars (Baumeister et al, 1998), repression is an aspect of
all other defence mechanisms. Defence mechanisms are called into being because of the inefficacy
of repression. In this case, repression is simply the blotting of threatening material out of the
conscious mind, and if that could succeed, then there would be no need for defence mechanisms
(ibid p.1083-4). Baumeister et al equates repression to Wegner’s (1989, 1994) defence of
suppression in which the theme of forcibly ejecting unwanted thoughts from the conscious mind
is central. This can help a person for some time but may result in an obsession.

Wegner, Schneider, Carter, & White, (1987) contend that people can indeed be partly successful
at suppressing such thoughts, but then later these thoughts increase in frequency. Wegner et al.
dubbed this subsequent increase the “rebound effect.” This is closely parallel to Freud’s
(1915/1961b) concept of the “return of the repressed.” The point of this effect (regardless of the
term) is that simply shutting undesired thoughts out of the mind is not viable as a long-term
solution. Hence the need for defence mechanisms that can be more successful (Baumeister et al,
1998).

As noted in the findings, identification (introjection), rationalization, compartmentalization,

splitting, dissociation, and idealisation are other defences used especially in relation to
psychopathology. There are however instances when normal functioning people use some of these
defences either consciously as in rationalization or unconsciously as in dissociation. As Cramer
(2000) notes a routine activity may slip off a person’s mind but this does not amount to
dissociation.

There is considerable difference in classifying defences. While some scholars classify defensive
mechanisms into three; mature, less mature and primitive, DSM-IV categorises defensive
mechanism into 4 levels (pathological; immature; neurotic; and mature). Although the latter
classification is aimed at psychological assessment, the former too may be useful for personality
assessment.
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 13

Conclusion
Defences occur as a result of failure of repression of unpleasant feelings or anxiety. In all the above
defences, it is worth noting that they rarely exist singly. Each of them should therefore be looked
at as a combination of denial or repression with various kinds of rationalizations.

Defences are classified into primitive, less primitive/immature (or intermediate/neurotic), and
mature defences. This corresponds to level of development. Children are more likely to use
primitive defences such projection, splitting, acting out, and autistic fantasy repression,
displacement, intellectualization, rationalization and undoing passive aggression dissociation,
and projection. While adolescents are more likely to use intermediate defences such as
displacement, isolation, rationalization, and undoing. Adults are found to use more mature
defences such as sublimation, suppression, self-assertion, and humour. The use of primitive or
immature defences such as splitting, projection, and denial by adults may signify the presence of
affective disorders or personality disorders.

Recommendations
Scholars seem to vary considerably when it comes to classification of defences. It is therefore
recommended that further research be conducted on the classification of defences.

There is also a debate as to whether defences be treated as conscious or unconscious actions or

both. With these variations, it is recommended that further study be made on whether or not
defences who should be conscious or unconscious actions.

References

Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L., (1998). Empirical Findings in Modern Social
Psychology: Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation,
Sublimation, and Denial. Journal of Personality 1998, 66(6), 1081- 1124.
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 14

Békés, V. & Perry, J.C. (2017). Identification (Défense mechanism). Springer International
Publishing AG 2016, V. Zeigler-Hill, & T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopaedia of
Personality and Individual Differences, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1386-1

Bibring, G. L., Dwyer, T. F., Huntington, D. S., & Valenstein, A. F. (1961). A study of the
psychological processes in pregnancy and of the earliest mother-child relationship.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 16, 9–72.

Bowins, B. (2004). Psychological defence mechanisms: A new perspective. The American Journal
of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 64, No. 1, March 2004

Costa, R.M. (2016). Dissociation (Defence Mechanism). In: Zeigler-Hill V., Shackelford T. (eds)
Encyclopaedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham.

Cramer, P. (2000). Defence mechanisms in psychology today: Further processes for adaptation.
American Psychological Association. 55(6), 637-646. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.637

Cramer, P. (1998). Coping and Défense Mechanisms: What’s the Difference? Journal of
Personality, 66(6), 919– 946.

Cramer, P. (1991b). Anger and the use of defence mechanisms in college students. Journal of
Personality, 59(1), 39–55.

Freud, A. (1937). The Ego and the mechanisms of defence, London: Hogarth Press and Institute of
Psycho-Analysis.

Freud, S. (1896). Further remarks on the neuro-psychoses of defence. SE, 3: 157-185.

Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. London: Hogarth Press and
Institute of Psycho-Analysis. Pp. xi + 240.
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 15

Freud, S. (1962). The neuro-psychosis of defence, in Strachey, J. (ed.): The Standard Edition of
the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, London, Hogarth, (original work
published 1894), pp. 43-68.

Granieri, A., Marca, L., Mannino, G., Giunta, S., Guglielmucci, F., and Schimmenti, A. (2017).
The Relationship between Defence Patterns and DSM-5 Maladaptive Personality Domains.
Frontiers in Psychology 8:1926. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01926

Grohol, J. F. (2016). 15 Common Defence Mechanisms. Psychcentral.

https://healthcareinnovation.vermont.gov/sites/vhcip/files/documents/Work%20Sheet%2
03%20-%20Defense%20Mechanisms%20article.pdf

Harn, A. (2011). What is passive aggression? Research Gate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277556295_What_is_passive_aggression_beha
viour_By_Andrea_Harrn_MA_MBACP_CounsellorPsychotherapist

Kai-Ching Yu, C. (2006). Defence mechanisms and suggestibility. Contemporary Hypnosis 23(4):
167–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/ch.321

Kwon, P. (2002). Hope, defense mechanisms, and adjustment: Implications for false hope and
defensive hopelessness. Journal of Personality, 70(2), 207- 232.

Laplanche, J., & Pontalis, J. B. (1973). The language of psycho-analysis (D. Nicholson-Smith,
Trans.). New York: Norton.

Laughlin, H. P. (1979). The ego and its defences. New York: J. Aronson.

Lengfelder, B.G. Clinical education and interventions for defence structures of co-occurring
populations. https://www.naadac.org/assets/2416/brian_lengfelder_ac17ppt.pdf
THE DEFENSE MECHANISMS USED BY PEOPLE TO AVERT ANXIETY 16

Long, J., Long, N. J., Whitson, S., & Long, N. (2009). The angry smile: The psychology of passive-
aggressive behaviour in families, schools, and workplaces. Austin, Tex: Pro-Ed.

McLeod, S. A. (2019, April 10). Defence mechanisms. Simply psychology.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/defense-mechanisms.html

N., Pam M.S., "PRIMITIVE DEFENSE MECHANISM," in PsychologyDictionary.org, April 28,

2013, https://psychologydictionary.org/primitive-defense-mechanism/ (accessed May 14,
2020).

Paulhus, D. L., Fridhandler, B., & Hayes, S. (1997). Psychological defence: Contemporary theory
and research. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality
psychology (pp. 543-579). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50023-8

Perry. J.C. & Ianni. F.F., (1998). Observer-Rated Measures of Defence Mechanisms. Journal of
Personality 66:6, December 1998.

Phaneuf, M. (2007). Defense Mechanisms among Our Students. Available at

http://www.infiressources.ca/fer/Depotdocument_anglais/Defense_Mechanisms_among_
Our_Students.pdf. Retrieved 16 May 2020

Smith V., (2000, 2007, 2010). Freud’s complete works. Academia. Available at
https://www.academia.edu/7482545/Freud_-_Complete_Works_credit_to_Ivan_Smith

Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of
thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5–13.

Vaillant G. E. (2011). Involuntary coping mechanisms: a psychodynamic perspective. Dialogues

in clinical neuroscience, 13(3), 366–370.