The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An objective instrument for measuring defense mechanisms.
Abstract
measure the relative intensity of usage of five major groups of defenses, is described. The inventory consists of 10 brief stories, two per conflict area, followed by four questions regarding S's actual behavior, fantasy behavior, thoughts, and feelings in the situations described. Five responses typifying the five defenses (i.e., hostility-out, projection, principalization, turning-against-self, and reversal) are provided for each question, from which S selects the one most representative and the one least representative of his reaction. Reliability, validity, and normative studies are presented, all indicating that this inventory has many potential uses as a clinical and research instrument. Increased preoccupation with the theory of ego processes during the last few decades has led to greater concentration on operational definition, classification, and measurement of various ego functions. Recently, several in-vestigators (e.g., Haan, 1963; Kroeber, 1963) have made progress in differentiating and assessing defensive and adaptive ego function-ing. However, there is still much need for ob-jective studies in this area. This preliminary report on the construction and validation of a new instrument designed specifically for the measurement of five general defense mecha-nisms should be, therefore, of considerable interest to researchers and clinicians. Many defense mechanisms have been identi-fied, some with rather tenuous differences. This multiplicity has led to attempts to achieve a more parsimonious classification
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Coping theory and research: past, present, and future
Lazarus, R. S. (1993) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00006842-199305000-00002 · Cited by 3,253
Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.2410010304 · Cited by 3,053
Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00041 · Cited by 853
HEREK, G. M. (1986) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/000276486029005005 · Cited by 496
Age and sex differences in strategies of coping and defense across the life span.
Diehl, M., Coyle, N., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (1996) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037//0882-7974.11.1.127 · Cited by 434
Metadata
- Authors
- Gleser, G. C., & Ihilevich, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
- Published
- 1969
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-60
- ISSN
- 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2117
- OpenAlex
- W2114765081
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An objective instrument for measuring defense mechanisms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/h0027381
- The paper
- Gleser, G. C., & Ihilevich, D. (1969). An objective instrument for measuring defense mechanisms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027381
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.