Manual For DEFENSE MECHANISM INVENTORY DMI-ms Dr. N. R. Mrinal Retd. Late Uma Sighal Professor in Psychology Department of Psychology Nagpur University B.D.G.(P.G.) College NAGPUR LAKHIMPUR KHERI copter 88 GIN me 05622464926 NATIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION BHARGAVA BHAWAN, 4/230, KACHERI GHAT, AGRA-282 004 (INDIA) © Email-npc_agra@yahoo.com @ website: www.npcindia.com Scanned with CamScannerpEFENSE MECHANISM INVENTORY DMI-ms Dr. N. R. Mrinal peta. Dr. (Mrs.) Uma Singhal peta. Professor in Psychology Department of Psychology Nagpur University B.D. GP. G College NAGPUR LAKHIMPUR KHERI T.M. Regd. No. 564838 Copyright Regd. No. © A-73256/2005 DI. 13.5.05 @:(0562) 2464926 ATIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION 4/230, KACHERI GHAT, AGRA-282 004 (INDIA) ‘www.npcindia.com canned with CamScanner"= INTRODUCTION When stress situations are handled ina competent manner, our be} be task oriented (e.g., attack, withdrawal or compromise). But wnen our feelings of adequacy and worth are threatened by stress situation, our reactions tend to be de. fense oriented aimed primary at protecting ourselves from devaluation and Telieving Painful tension and anxiety. The self is the integrating core of Personality and any threat to its worth or ad- equacy is a threat to the individual's very centre or existence. Consequently, various defense mechanisms are gradually learned for Protecting the self. These are called into play whenever we find ourselves in a situation in which threat to the integrity of the self is present. Psycho-analysis (e.g., Freud, 1937) have tried to explain the several defense mechanisms that form in the course of our development to deal with conilicting im- pulses and inner tensions, They are not Pathological in themselves, They are abso- lutely essential for normal living. In some cases, the use of these mechanism may Promote the mental health of the individual. Thus all of us use these ego defense mechanism. According to Coleman (1968) they are essential for softening failure, reducing cognitive disonance, alleviating anxi- ety, protecting ourselves against trauma and maintaining our feelings of adequacy of Personal worth. Thus they must be considered normal adjustive reactions unless they are used to such an extreme degree that they interfere with the maintenance of self- integrity instead of being an aid. Gleser and Sacks (1973) reported that a person tend to be fairly consistent in the specific use of defense-mechanism. Though these mecha- nisms may serve the purpose of alleviating anxiety and Protecting the self, they may usually involve some measure of self deception and reality distortion, and are thus maladaptive. Increased work with ego defense mechanisms has led to a greater concentration on operational definition, classification and measurement of various ego functions. There is no general agreement as to the number of defense mechanisms that should be distinguished. An account of active on-going clinical work Points out clearly that the defensive organization of the ego constitutes a continuum. and that any attempt to sort out separate defense mechanisms is bound to be arbitrary. On the basis of clinical experience a study by Bibring (1950) listed twentyfour basic first-order defenses, and fifteen complex or second-order defenses. Recently several other investigators (e Haan, 1963, Kroeber 1963) have made progress in di ey ; ifferentiating and assessi defensive and adaptive ego functioning. Cameron (1963) has eel fiteon ae haviour tends to fense mechanisms while Coleman (1964) describes seventeen. Im, Mm Scanned with CamScannerrather minute differences. This multiplicity has led to attempts to achieve a more par- simonious classification system (e.g. Blum, 1953, Hilgard, 1949; Miller, 1953; Miller and Swanson, 1960). But most of the authors have not provided the clear-cut criteria by which these mechanisms are classified. Grouping of the defenses is essential due to various reasons, e.g., measurement and tesearch. It is also important when one may wish to assess the major defense mechanism of an individual. Either there is no Consensus or minimal consensus when defenses are evaluated Clinically, e.g., from interview material (Raines and Roher, 1955) or from Projective test protocols (Filer, 1952). In some instances agreement has been obtained from Projective techniques (e.g., Gardiner, Holzman, Klein, Linton, and Spence, 1959), Judges inferred a specific set of defenses on the basis of careful training in the scoring procedure. The number of the scales measuring defenses is very low. The popular scales are Rosenzwieg Picture Frustration Study, the Blacky Defense Preference Inquiry and Byme's Repression-sensitization scale. All of these measures have been criticized to a great extent. Fry (1949) and Vane (1 954) criticized the validity of Rosenzweig’s (1950) Picture Frustration study for: assessing defenses. Blum (1956) studies the Blacky Defense Preference and found that avoidance was the only defense for which some validity was established. While Byme’s (Byme, Barry and Nelson, 1963). Repression- sensitization scale is supported by a number of Positive validity studies, a method that provides information on only two defenses is likely to be of limited value either for research purposes or for the clinician. Keeping above evaluations into consideration, Gleser and Ihilevich (1969) worked on classification of defense-mechanisms. They grouped the defenses into 5 catego- ries. The underlying assumption of the classification system was that the major func- tion of defenses is the resolution of conflicts between what is perceived by the indi- vidual and his internalized values (Kroeber, 1963; Miller and Swanson,1960). The conflict is resolved by a process whereby the ego attacks, distorts or becomes selec- tively unaware of certain aspects of the internal or the external world. : On the basis of this assumption a classification system was devised which is €conomical but includes the most important defense mechanisms identified earlier. They provided five clusters of defense mechanisms. : 1. Turning Against Object (TAO) : This class of defenses deals with conflict i nal frustrating object. Such classical de- through attacking a real or presumed exter i 9 ae fenses as identification with the aggressor and displacement can be placed in this Category, hie a Deaton (PRO) : Included here are defenses a a me eee of aggression towards an external object through first attributing to it, wi a cal evidence, negative intent, or characteristics. Scanned with CamScannerI 4. | Manual for DMT-us 3. Principalizat invoking a general principle that “splits off" affect from content and represses the former, Defenses such as intellectualization, isolation, and rationalization fall into this category, 4, Turning Against Self (TAS) : In this class are those defenses that handle con- flict through directing aggressive behaviour towards himself. Masochism and autosadism are examples of defensive solutions in this category. 5. Reversal (REV) : This class includes defenses that deal with conflict by responding in a positive or neutral fashion to a frustrating object which might be ; expected to evoke a negative reaction. Defenses such as negation, denial, reaction fe formation and repression are subsumed under this category. Defence Mechanism Serial wise Item No. 3, 6, 12, 20, 24, 28, 31, 37, 44, 49, 51, 60, 61, 67, 75, 77, 84, 88, 92, 97, 101, n p 108, 113, 116, 122, 130, 133, 136, 143, I 150, 151, 158, 163, 167, 174, 180, 184, Pp 190, 195, 198 r 1, 7, 15, 19, 22, 27, 33, 36, 42, 47, 52, s 56, 65, 69, 71, 79, 82, 86, 93, 99, 105, 5 110, 111, 117,123, 126, 135, 197, 144, ca 149, 155, 156, 161, 169, 173, 179, 181, . 188, 193, 200 5, 10, 14, 18, 21, 30, 32, 40, 43, 50, 54, 59, 64, 68, 74, 78, 85, 89, 94, 96, 103, i 106, 115, 118, 125, 129, 132, 139, 141, 148, 152, 159, 162, 170, 172, 178, 182, é 186, 194, 199 1 4, 8, 11, 17, 25, 29, 35, 39, 45, 46, 55, t 57, 63, 70 72, 76, 81, 90, 95, 100, 102, c 109, 114, 119, 121, 127, 134, 138, 142, ‘ 147, 153, 160, 165, 166, 171, 177, 183, 187, 191, 197 2,9, 13, 16, 23, 26, 34, 38, 41, 48, 53, 58, 62, 66, 73, 80, 83, 87, 91, 98, 104, 107, 112, 120, 124, 128, 131, 140, 145, 146, 154, 157, 164, 168, 175, 176, 185, 189, 192, 196 Scanned with CamScannerThe DMI consists of twelve stories, two for each of six conflict areas. The conflict areas are related with authority, independence, masculinity (male from only), feminity (female form only), competition and situational. The stories of original version had been examined by five psychologists to see whether they presented the six above mentioned conflict areas (Gleser and Ihilevich, 1969). The stories in the present inventory are largely the same. Some necessary changes have been made according to Indian culture. The stories of Hindi version were checked by four psychologists. There was perfect agreement regarding the con- flict area of the stories. Like the original version the response alternatives were revised several times to see whether each set of five responses with the five defense mechanism is in accor- dance of the definition provided by Gleser and Ihilevich. Test-retest reliabilities for the five defenses (product moment correlation) range from .80 to .92 (TAO = .86, PRO = .80, PRN = .82, TAS = .87 and REV 92) for a week interval and from .64 to .85 over 3 months interval (TAO =.85, PR! 64, PRN. = .68, TAS = .73 and REV = .68). The correlations with the original English version were also very high and ranged from .62 to .78 (TAO = .75, PRO = .78, PRN = .62, TAS = .65 and REV = .69). There are two versions of this inventory. One for the males and other for the fe- males. Each version contains 10 stories. After reading each story the S is asked to respond to four questions corresponding to four types of behaviour evoked by the situation described in the story : (a) Proposed actual behaviour, (b) impulsive behaviour (in fantasy), (c) thoughts, and (d) feelings. Five responses are provided for each question, each response representing one of the five defense mechanisms listed above. The S marks a plus (+) for the response most representative of his reac- tion and a minus (-) for that least representative. The responses marked with plus sign by Subject are given the numerical value of two, those marked with a minus sign are scored zero and the unmarked responses. are given the value of one. Thus the score for any one defense can range from zero to 80, but the total sum of _ Scores for the five defenses must equal to 200. The scoring sheet is super-imposed _ Over the answer sheet making it possible to summerize the numerical value of the five defenses across the four levels of behaviour in 3-5 minutes to complete. The test itself fequires between 30 to 40 minutes. Scanned with CamScanner8 | Manual tor DMI-us istribution of Scores The means and standard deviations of scores on the five defenses on differant groups are provided in Table 1. B. Tech students of IIT Kanpur and graduating stu. dents of the colleges of Kanpur University tended to obtain higher scores on TAO, PRO and TAS and lower scores on PRIN and REV than did the general adult sub- jects. The general adult subjects were unsystematically selected Ss mainly of middle socio-economic status and employed as teachers, secretaries, bank employees, social workers, officials of maintenance command of air force. These Ss were older than the graduating students. There seems to be a developmental trend when we bring older Ss into the picture. On TAOwe find that the male graduate students tend to score higher in comparison to general adult Ss and old Ss, while there is no change in the TAOscores of general adult and old female Ss. Thus we see that TAO decreases with age. This was also reported by Gleser and Ihilevich (1969). PROwas also found as highest in graduate students Ss in comparison to adult and old Ss. When we con- sider PRN we find that it increases with age. On TAS the variation is not large. The REVwas highest among the adult Ss. TABLE 1 Showing Means and Standard Deviations of the DMI for several samples of the Ss. Graduate Students | General Adult Subjects Old Subjects Defense| Males Females Males Females Males Females Mean] SD [Mean] SD |Mean| SD |Mean| SD |Mean| SD | Mean | SO TAO 44-63 | 572 | 35-80] 5-81 | 34-69 | 7-96] 29.05]579 | 29.6 | 642 | 26 [58 PRO | 4473] 6-79 | 39-05} 6.22| 38-07 | 5.28]35-03]6-32 | 38-8] 5-55] 392 |547 PRN | 35-75] 7-32 | 39-45] 6-72] 43-55] 7.33]47.43] 546 | 48.2 | 5.25 | 48-13/531 TAS 39-68 | 6-25 41.85] 7-5 | 98-92 | 6.07} 40-03] 581 | 38-4 | 604 | 37-83]7-02 REV | 35.52] 561 |43.85] 56 | 44.13] 6.65] 48.43] 5.61 | 42.2] G74 | 44.87 |528 Age 20-5 19-7 32-62 31-78] 62-6 59-2 Note—For Graduate Students, Males, N = 212, Females, N = 196 ; For General Adults $s, Males, N = 104, Females, N = 86 ; For Old Ss, Males, N = 40 and Females, N= 40 i ation , A ahaa to the Subject the importance offilling in the answer sheet with cat cil, selecting one answer out of five in each column (Mark + for most and—for ae 2. Check the completed answer sheet for accuracy that there are no blan| Fa umns, that there are no two + or two - in each column and that all mistakes in marking are thoroughly erased. Scanned with CamScannersists of an answer sheet on transparent sheets (Five) in which every space in both the 4and—columns corresponding to a specific defense mechanism is visible. 4, Place the transparent sheets over the answer sheet to be scored, starting with row AB count 2 points for each mark visible in the + column and 1 point for each item in which no mark is visible. Mark zero point for — sign. Sum over the ten stories and enter the score in the appropriate column in the AB row in the box at the upper part of the answer sheet. Repeat this process for FB, T, and F rows respectively. 5. When the scoring is completed, add the row scores and put each total in the column headed sum. All rows should be, sum to 50 if every item has been answered appropriately and scoring is correct. If the sum does not tally, look for blanks or double marks. If these do not account for discrepancies, rescore. 6. When satisfied with scoring, sum columns to obtain total defense mechanism scores. NORMS For the purpose of findingout the Defences Area in which the subject generally uses Defence Mechanism, z-Score Norms have been prepared for three types of subjects, i.e. Graduate, Adults and Old Age and then for the Male and Female groups separately from Table 2 to 7. Norms for interpretation of the level of Defence Mechanism, norms have been given in Table 8. TABLE 2 z-Score Norms for Graduate Students (Male) (N = 212) (Age 20 +) DEFENCES z-Scores Scanned with CamScannerScanned with CamScannerManual for DME-as| 9 TABLE 3 2-Score Norms for Gracuale aoa (Female) (N = 196) (Age 19 [TAO [PRO | PRN TAS [REV | 39-45 | 41-85 | Scanned with CamScanner10 | Manual for DMI-ns z-Score Norms for Adults (Male) (N = 104) (Age 32 +) a [s0__726 [520 | ra9 i Scanned with CamScannerManual for DMI-ms| i TABLE 5 2-Score Norms for Adults (Female) (N = 86) (Age 31 +) = DEFENCES z-Scor [sp__5.79 | 632 | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Scanned with CamScanner12 | Manual for OMI-ms TABLE 6 z-Score Norms for Older (Males) (N = 40) (Age 62 +) DEFENCES z-Scores 2:27 241 1:96 1:80 1-65 Scanned with CamScannera en Scanned with CamScanner14. Manual for OME-us eee eee TABLE 7 z-Score Norms for Older (Females) (N = 40) DEFENCES z-Scores. Scanned with CamScannerTABLE 8 terpretatic tation of Level of Defence Mectanis> Level of Defence Mechari High use of Defence Mecrans™ ‘Above Average Ws of DaTE METS EOWNM, Bolow Average Use of Dew 0.51 to- 1.25 Low use of Defends Mons’: -1-26 to-— 2:00 ~2-01 and below Tc | extrmnoty Love tbe ot LOE aware) struct Validation and Inllovich, (19609) 0 three payohoass OO responses jah pach ot the ® 15d lefenses were provided by Gleser ory, agreement - and sey : ofthe cnn social workers and they wore ginal DMI with one defense from th askod to mal list, They found aatiatael Scanned with CamScanner17 72 hen 60%) on TAS, but not on TAO and PRO singos- F %) on TAS, REV and PRN Sine We ant in aa oon Hindi the process was repeated. The responses on TA th PrOwere changed whenever they were not found indicating those defenses, Inter-Relationship Itwas presumed that th dance with prediction derived from le ang the five defenses would inter-relate systematically, in acgg,, psycho-analytic theory (Bellak, 1958; Feniche, : TAO and PRO are positively correlated (2° - Hartmann, 1952; Rapaport, 1951). TAO and FE ; (a7 4 ‘Say is relationship isin agreement with the findings of Caine (1960), Gleser ang Ihilevich (1969) and Peak, Muney and Clay (1 960). From a theoretical point of View a positive relationship was expected since both modes of defense are the expression of aggression. The PRN and REV were also positively correlated (.43 to .73) Theoretically repression of affect is common to both types of defenses and we can expect a positive relationship between both defense mechanisms. Gleser and Ihilevich also reported the positive relationship between these two defenses, one Study (Chodoff, Friedman and Hamburg, 4954) reported that parents of leukemia patients tended to employ denial and isolation of affect as their major defenses. There was a negative relationship of TAO and PRO with PRN and REV (-46to- -68). Similar were the findings of Gleser and Ihilevich. Goldstein (1952) also reported negative correlation of hostility or projection with the defenses of reversal category. TAS and REV were found independent of each other. Further studies are in progress. SOME STUDIES Physically Handicapped and DMI DMI was administered to physically handicapped (N = 40) and non-handicapped (N= 40) individuals. Ramteke and Mrinal (1984) found that physically normal males used TAO significantly higher than physically handicapped males while handicap} males used TAS and REV significantly hit i i , ly higher than physically normal males. Phys" cally normal males were higher on TAO than physically normal females. Principalizati" eae een Of this variable, surprizingly, physically normal males show 'y equal preference to each cluster of defense mechanisms. i Defense and Non-Defense Personnel , { culine defenses i.¢., TAO and on of five clusters of d that me .e., PROwere | lefenses show N were the defenses used most offen by both the gry by these groups. REVand PA ps. i rs Scanned with CamScanner=e —_—_—_——— scent 4981) administered DMI to 3 groups of adolescents. These dof overweight (N=30) underweight (43) and normal subjects defenses those externalize the conflict ie., ‘were found using dé in comparison to normal and overweight Ss. Over Gifted Adolescent : , Mrinal and Singhal (1981) also studied coping style in gifted adolescents. The criteria of selection were lQtests, grade reports, teachers opinion, activities and am- bitions and interview. A comparison between gifted (N = 48) and non-gifted (N = 50) showed significant difference in the choice of REV. TAO and PRO were the main choice of male students while females showed greater choice for TAS and PAN. MMPI and DMI Various other studies can be quoted. A study by Gleser and Ihilevich showed that TAOwas positively correlated with scores on F, Pd, Sc, and Ma and negatively corre- lated with L. Further more TAOwas positively correlated with Mfand A for males but not for females, PRO also had a somewhat similar patter of correlation with the MMPI scales but the correlations are smaller and non-significant. PRN and REV on the other hand, were negatively correlated with F, Pd, Pa, Ptand Sc. Social Introversion (Sc) and Anxiety (A) were negatively correlated with REV Tor males and with PAN for both sexes. Both these scales were positively correlated with TASas is D. Scores on Barron's (1953) ego-strength scale were negative correlated with TAS. Scales L and K are considered to be measure of social desirability. In general £ and K were negatively correlated with TAO and PRO and positively correlated with AREV. Itcan be seen from the responses that the responses of REVare socially desir- able responses while they are least desirable in TAO and PRO. The psychiatric out patients also scored higher on REV. itwas argued by Gleser and Ihilevich that t might be due to a common factor of evasiveness or denial (vs. forth right) which is revealed both in S'sattitude about himself (MMPI) and his handling of conflict situation. DMI and Haan’s Defense Scales The relationship of DMI was also explored with th scale of Haan (1965). She devel- oped scales for eight defenses using MMPI items. It was found that Haan's Denial scale was positively correlated with ‘REV and PRN and negatively correlated with TAO. Doubtwas positively correlated with TAS and negatively with PRN. Repression was positively correlated with REV and negatively correlated with TAO. Primitive Defense was positively correlated with PAN and REV, TAS and Repression were found positively correlated for males and negatively for females. Scanned with CamScanner18 | Manual for OME-as DMI and Alcoholics i ity is ive and orally dependent orientation 1 ;. Alcoholics personality is self destructive an ion to (Fenichel, 1945 ; Zwerling and Rosenbaum, 1959). They have low ego Strong, (Borowitz, 1964) self destructiveness (White, 1966). and dependency (Witkin, Ka and Goodenough, (1959). The investigators (Aldridge, Baxter, Nopziger, Roggen Shimansky and Wolthuis, 1967) predicted that the alcoholics would be high on Tag and REV and low on TAO and PRN in comparison to normals. These Predictiong were substantiated at .05 level with the exception of PRIV(P.10), Differentiation and DMI According to Witkin (1965) denial, repression and hostility-turned-inward reflects lower degree of differentiation that do isolation, projection, and hostility-turned-ou. ward. Lesser differentiation was assumed in the first group of defenses because their operation involves a more primitive self-structure, as well as lesser separation of self from non-self. In one study Ihilevich (1968) related DMI defenses to the cognitive Style Of field articulation. A sample of 50 males and 60 females psychiatric Outpatients were administered the DMI, the Embedded Figure Test and the Figure Drawing Test As Predicted from Witkin's “differentiation hypothesis”, Ss who relied mainly on glo- bal defenses (TAS and REV) were more field dependent in comparison to Ss who relied excessively on “differentiated defenses (TAO and PRO). Defense Mechanisms and Sex role Orientation Evans (1982) administered DMI and Bem Sex role inventory to 44 female under- graduates. It was found that low masculinity on the BSRI was associated with high turning against self on DMI. High masculine Subjects Indicated a greater willingness to lack objects of frustration, while those low in masculinity indicated a similar ten- dency in their tendency, but not actual behaviour. Results suggested that females low in masculinity experience conflict with regard to expression of aggression andpresent themselves to frustrators in a manner not all consistent with their inner feelings. Assertion and Defense Mechanism __ INa study Massong etal. (1982), the DMI was administered to 40 undergrasuae® in 4 groups fepresenting assertive and non-assertive males and females. Ass? i Scanned with CamScannerManual for DMI-ns| 19 REFERENCES Aldridge, R.C., Baxter, G. 1, Nopziger, L, M., Roggenbuck, A. L., Shimansky, A. L. and Worthuis, D. J. (1967). Defense mechanisms of an alcoholic population as compared to a normal population. Unpublishd Master's Thesis, Michigan State University. Bellak, L. (1958). The schizophrenic syndrome, In L. Bellak (Ed.), Schizophrenia; A review of the syndrome, New Hork : Logos Press. Biring, G. et al,, (1961). A study of psychological processes in pregnancy and of the earliests mother-child relationship. Psychoanalytic study of child, 16, 9-72. Blum, G. 8. (1953). Psycho-analylic theories of personality, New York : McGraw-Hill. Blum, G. S. (1953). Defense preference in four countries. Journal of Projective Techniques, 20, 33-41. Borowitz, GH. (1964). Some ego aspects of alcoholism. British Journal of Medical Psy- chology, 37, 257-263. Byme, D., Barry, J. and Nelson, D. (1963). The revised repression-sensitization scale and its relationship to measures of self-description, Psychological Report, 13, 323-334. Caine, T. M. (1960). The expression of hostility and guilt in melancholic and paranoid women. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 18-22. Cameron, N. (1963). Personality development and Psychopathology, Hough Miffin Co., Boston. Chodoff, P., Friedman, S. B. and Hamburg, D. A. (1964). Stress, defenses and coping behaviour : Observations in Parents of children with malignant disease. American Jour- nal of Psychiatry, 120, 743-749. Coleman, C. (1968). Abnormal Psychology and Modem life, Bombay, D. B. Taraporewalla Sons & Co. Fenichel, O. (1945). The psycho analytic theory of neurosis. New York : Norton. Filer, R. M. (1952). The clinician’s personality and his case reports. American Psychologist, 7, 336. Freud, A. (1937). The Ego and the Mechanisms of defense. London : Hogarth Press. Fry, F. D. (1949). A study of reactions to frustration in 236 college students and in 207 inmates of state prisons. Journals of Psychology, 34, 27-30. Gardiner, R. W., Holzman, P. S. Klein, G. S., Linton, H. and Spence, D. P. (1959). Cognitive control. A study of individual consistencies in cognitive behaviour. Psychological Is- sues, 1, 4. Gleser, GC. and Ihilevich, D. (1973). An objective instrument for measuring defense mecha- nisms. Journal of consulting and clinical Psychology, 33, 51 60. Goldstein, S. (1952). A projective study of psychoanalytic mechanisms of defense. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. oe Haan, N. (1963). Proposed model of ego functioning : Cping and defense pads in relationship to 1Q change. Psychological Monograph, 77(8), (whole No. ey ). sour: Haan, N. (1965). Coping and defense mechanism related to personality inventories. nal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 373-378. Scanned with CamScannera _ Hartmann, H. (1952). Mutual influence: ‘Study of the child, 7, 42-50, Hilgard, E. R.(1949), Human motive's and the Concept of self. American Psychologis, 4 374-382. ae thilevich, D. (1968). The relationship between defense mechanisms and field dependence, independence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati. Kroeber, T. (1963). The coping functions of the ego mechanisms. In R. White (Ed), Tre ‘Study of lives, New York : Altertion Press. Miller, D. R. (1953). Lectures in genetic psychology. University of Michigan. Miller, D. R. and Swanson, G R. (1960). Inner conflict and defense. New York : Hol, Mrinal, N. R., and Fadnis, P. B. (1 984). Defense Mechanisms in Defense Personnel, Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, March. Mrinal, N. R.and Singhal, U. (1981). The use of defense mechanisms in gifted adolescents Paper presented to Second All India Conference of International Council of Psycholo- gists, Kanpur. Mrinal, N. R. and Singhal U. (1981). Abnormal body weight and the use of defense mechs. nisms in adolescence. Twelfth Annual Conference of Indian Association of Clinical Psy. chologist, Miraj. Peak, H., Muney, B. and Clay, M. (1960). Opposite Structures, defenses and attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 74(8), (whole No. 495). Ramteke, B. S. and Mrinal, N. R. (1984). Defense Mechanisms in Defense Personnel. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology. March. Rapaport, D. (1951). Toward a theory of thinking. In D. Rapaport (Ed), Organization ard pathology of thought. New York : Columbia University Press. Rosenzweig, S. (1950). Revised norms for the adult form of the Rosenzweig P-F Stuy. Journal of Personality, 18, 344-346. White,W. F. (1965). Personality and cognitive learning among alcoholics with different inte vals of sobriety. Psychological Reports, 16, 1125-1140. Witkin, H. A.(1965). Psychological differentiation and forms of pathology. Journal of Abo" mal Psychology, 70, 317-336. Witkin, H. A., Karp, S. A. and Goodenough, D. R. (1959). Dependence in alcoholics. Qua" terly Journal of Studies in Alcoholism, 20, 493-504, 7 Zwerling, |. and Rosenbaum, M. Alcoholic addiction and personality, (1959). In S. Afé (Ed.). American Handbook of Psychiatry. 1, New York : Basic Books. i levelopment of ego and id, Psycho anaivi, 7 fo wou No portion of this inventory material should be reproduced in any All rights reserve Sean Manual for Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMIs) permission of the publ Scanned with CamScanner