The Development of Defense Mechanisms

Phebe Cramer
Williams College

ABSTRACT It is proposed that defense mechanisms may be charactenzed as

forming a hierarchy, from least to most complex, and that the lowest level defen-
ses emerge early m life, while the more complex defenses emerge later m de-
velopment Three defenses—Denial, Projection and Identification—were cho-
sen to test this assumption A method for assessing the use of these defenses in
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) stories was developed and validated m a
study of four age groups preschool, elementary school, early adolescent, and
late adolescent The results ofthe study were consistent with the prediction De-
nial was used most frequently by preschool children, and decreased in use there-
after Identification was used minimally by preschool children but increased
steadily through adolescence The use of Projection was most frequent m the
two middle age groups Some evidence for sex differences, based on the lnter-
nal/extemal onentation ofthe defense, also was found

The study of defense mechanisms began with S Freud's (1894) inves-

tigation into certain forms of psychopathology Shortly thereafter, he
(1915) began to consider defense as a category of general—l e , non-
pathological—mental mechanism(s) used by the individual m conflict
situations That defenses may or may not take a pathological form was
spelled out further in subsequent wntings (e g , Freud, 1923) With a
shift in psychoanalytic theory away from instincts and toward the inter-
action of the ego with the environment, there was an increased recogni-
tion of defense mechanisms as normal cognitive processes used by men
and women m their adaptation to reahty (e g , A Freud, 1946, Hartman,
1939) Withm this framework, defenses serve to ennch and strengthen,
in a positive sense, the ego organization (Schafer, 1968)

Appreciation is expressed to Jane Bryson. Marcy Bush. Henry Ireys, Kevin Jones,
and Allison Young who participated in vanous aspects of the study Requests for
repnnts should be sent to Dr Phebe Cramer, Dept of Psychology. Williams Col-
lege, WiUiamston, MA 01267
Journal qf Personality 55 4. December 1987 Copynght © 1987 by Duke University
Press CCC 0022-3506/87/$! 50
598 Cramer

The term "defense mechanism," as used in this article, refers to any

cogmtive operation that functions so as to protect the individual from the
dismptive effects of excessive anxiety In this sense, defenses are adap-
tive, they allow the individual to continue to function in anxiety-arousmg
situations When used excessively, defenses may distort reality
This conception of defenses as a part of normal personality function-
ing opens the way for a consideration of the development of defense
mechanisms There is considerable consensus in the theoretical htera-
ture that some defenses are more pnmitive or immature, such as denial,
repression, and negation, while others are more complex or mature such
as mtellectualization and identification (e g , Anthony, 1970, Cramer, in
Rohwer, Ammon & Cramer, 1974, A Freud, 1946, Plutchik et al , 1979,
Vaillant, 1971) VaiUant (1977) specifically hypothesized that mecha-
nisms such as denial are common in children before age five, while
mechanisms such as projection are usual in children ages three to fifteen
From a developmental perspective, it makes sense to assume that the
most pnmitive defenses would emerge earliest in the life of an individ-
ual, while the more complex defenses would not appear until later, much
m the same way that other ego functions (e g , cognitive operations or
moral reasoning) emerge in a developmental, stage-related fashion
Chandler et al (1978), Dolhnger and McGuire (1981), and Whiteman
(1967) have demonstrated a developmental sequence in the understand-
mg of how defense mechanisms work, and the relationship between un-
derstandmg and use has been discussed previously (Cramer, 1983) As
yet, however, there is scant empincal support for the assumption that de-
fenses emerge dunng childhood and adolescence along a developmental
continuum, and that the use of different defenses charactenzes different
developmental penods Some supporting evidence comes from the find-
ing that very young children are more likely to use demal than are older
children, who in tum are more likely to use compulsive or lntellectual-
lzing defenses (Ames et al , 1974, Brody et al , 1985, Smith & Daniel-
son, 1982, Smith & Rossman, 1986)
In this article, the developmental course of three defenses is consid-
ered Demal, Projection and Identification Theoretically, Demal is the
most primitive defense, and serves to protect the infant from excessive
or noxious stimulation, from which he or she cannot physically remove
himself or herself Its physiological precursor is sleep (Spitz, 1957) De-
nial functions by withdrawing attention from the noxious stimulus,
thereby denying its existence In slightly older children, demal may be
Development of Defense Mechanisms 599

earned out through the use of language The fnghtemng aspect of the
stimulus IS negated (e g , the boy is "not afraid," or the doctor's shot
"doesn't hurt"), or is mentally changed into something it is not (l e ,
something less threatening), through reversal, transformation, or other
modification of reality in such a way that it becomes more pleasant
The use of Denial, beginning m infancy, continues throughout tod-
dlerhood By early childhood, social pressures from peers, as well as
increased cognitive abilities, contnbute to the reduction of this defense,
although Its use may continue on an intemal, fantasy level In fantasy,
the young child may transform weakness into strength, fear into courage,
and failure into success Although this kind of pleasurable fantasy may
continue into adolescence and adulthood in the form of occasional day-
dreaming, m normal development the importance of Denial as a defense
has largely ended by the middle years of childhood
Theoretically, Projection is a defense more mature than Denial, and
less mature than Identification Unlike Denial, Projection requires the
ability to differentiate between intemal and extemal stimuli It also de-
pends on the development of intemal standards by which certain thoughts
and feelings are judged unacceptable Projection functions by attnbuting
unacceptable mtemal psychological states to others extemal to oneself
As with Denial, Projection has a physiological precursor The young
baby who finds something in his or her mouth that is disagreeable spits
It out, m the same way that the psychological mechanism of Projection
gets nd of an unpleasant feeling by expelling it into the environment The
relationship of Projection to the existence of standards of "good" and
"bad," or "nght" and "wrong," suggests that this defense may assume
relatively greater importance in the years following the development of
an lntemalized conscience, that is, dunng middle childhood and after
In a mild form. Projection need not senously distort reality Instead
through the development of empathic responses and projective identifi-
cation (e g , "We all think alike"), its use may facilitate the cohesiveness
of peer groups Thus, Projection may continue as an important defense
throughout childhood and adolescence
Finally, Identification is theonzed to be a defense more mature than
either Demal or Projection It requires the capacity to differentiate self
from other, to differentiate among many "others," and to form endunng
mtemal mental representations of those others It functions by taking as
one's own certam qualities of others that serve to provide a sense of se-
cunty and self-esteem, while rejecting those that do not Physiological
600 Cramer

precursors of Identification are found m the infant's incorporating into

his or her own body mother's food, and m his or her spontaneous imita-
tion of parents' gestures (Jacobson, 1954, Meltzoff & Moore, 1977,
Spitz, 1965) The development of Identification, however, is a slow pro-
cess It begins in infancy and continues through childhood and adoles-
cence, involving the mtemahzation of parental attitudes, values, inter-
ests, and skills dunng childhood It continues with the separation from
these early identifications and the creation of an individuated self based
on new identifications with consciously selected role models dunng ad-
olescence While some aspects of Identification may be present dunng
childhood. It becomes increasingly important as a psychological mech-
anism dunng adolescence According to theory, it is not until the end of
adolescence that the process of identification is completed (Bios, 1979)
Based on the above formulation, it is hypothesized that Denial is the
charactenstic defense of young children and will predominate early in
development By early childhood. Projection will increase in importance
and will continue as an important defense throughout adolescence Fi-
nally, Identification, being considerably more complex, will develop
more slowly than Projection, reaching maximum importance dunng the
adolescent years
The choice of a method in the present study to investigate children's
defenses was govemed by several factors There are but few systematic
methods available for studying defenses in adults (e g , Gleser & Ihil-
evich, 1969, Haan, 1965, Joffee & Naditch, 1977) and even fewer meth-
ods available for children (Brody et al , 1985, Cramer, 1983) While
each of these methods has had some success m assessing children's de-
fenses, each IS constrained by restricting the child's behavior to pre-
established response altematives A defense mechanism, however, is a
form of thought process that may be expressed with varying content To
assess the occurrence of defense mechanisms, it is thus desirable to use
a method that allows the child's thought processes to be revealed in an
unhampered and undirected fashion, in a situation for which no stereo-
typed response is readily available The situation should be both stan-
dard and appropnate across a range of ages and should be of the type
likely to arouse thought processes (rather than, for example, a physical
response) Although these mental processes cannot be observed directly,
they may be inferred from verbal behavior Because defense mechanisms
are rather complex mental processes, they are more likely to be revealed
in relatively extensive samples of verbal behavior than m single word re-
Development of Defense Mechanisms 601

sponses Finally, some means must be available for two or more inde-
pendent observers to decide whether or not a defense was used
The method that most closely approximated these various require-
ments was the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), for which a manual
designed to score defenses was especially developed The development
of this method in a denvation study is descnbed m the following section

METHOD
Derivation Study
The development ofthe sconng manual was based on a denvation sample
of 42 children, each of whom told stones to four Children's Appercep-
tion Test (CAT) and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) cards

Subjects The children represented three age groups Group I (8 boys, 6

girls) mean age = 5 years 2 months, range = 4 years to 5 years, 11
months. Group II (11 boys, 3 gu-ls) mean age = 9 years 1 month, range
= 8 years to 9 years, 11 months. Group III (13 boys, 1 girl) mean age
= 11 years, 9 months, range = 11 years to 12 years, 11 months

Materials and procedure Fbr Groups I, II, and III, the following stim-
ulus pictures from the CAT (Bellak, 1954) and the TAT (Murray, 1943)
were used for Groups I and II, CAT 3, 5, and 10, and TAT 8BM, and for
Group III, CAT 3, TAT 8BM, 12M, and 13MF Each subject was tested
individually in a pnvate room Standard instmctions were used (Bellak,
1949, Murray, 1943) The stones were tape-recorded and subsequently
transcnbed, with identifying data removed
The 168 stones obtained were used to develop sconng categones to
assess the use of three defenses Denial, Projection, and Identification
These categones were denved from the analysis of empincal findings of
themes and response styles which seemed to differentiate between older
and younger children, and which, at the same time, illustrated some as-
pect ofthe theoretical description of one ofthe three defenses (e g , Fen-
lchel, 1945, A Freud, 1946) and/or had been used m one of the few pre-
viously published attempts to formulate a sconng system for defenses
based on projective test data (Bellak, 1975, Haworth, 1963, Schafer
1954) ' After several preliminary attempts, a final sconng plan was de-

1 A similar approach was used by Stewart (1982) with the TAT to develop sconng
categones indicative of different stages of emotional adaptation
602 Cramer

veloped, such that, for each defense, there were seven categones, rep-
resenting different aspects of the defense Each category is scored as
many times as it occurs in each story ^
The categones for each defense are as follows

Demal (1) Statements of negation, (2) Denial of reality, (3) Reversal,

(4) Misperception, (5) Omission of major characters or objects, (6)
Overly maximizing the positive or minimizing tiie negative, and (7) Un-
expected goodness, optimism, positiveness, or gentleness

Projection (1 )Attnbution of hostile feelings or intentions, or other nor-

matively unusual feelings or intentions, to a character, (2) Additions of
ominous people, animals, objects, or qualities, (3) Concem for protec-
tion from extemal threat, (4) Themes of pursuit, entrapment, and escape,
(5) Apprehensiveness of death, injury, or assault, (6) Magical or autistic
thinking, and (7) Bizarre story or theme

Identification (1) Emulation of skills, (2) Emulation of charactenstics,

qualities, or attitudes, (3) Regulation of motives or behavior, (4) Self-
esteem through affiliation, (5) Work, delay of gratification, (6) Role dif-
ferentiation, and (7) Moralism
A fuller descnption of these categones is provided in the Appendix,
explicit cntena and numerous examples are given m the sconng manual
(Cramer, 1982)
Three examples will illustrate how the scormg system works The fol-
lowing story was told by a 5-year old girl to TAT Card 17BM, which
depicts a man clinging to a rope
A statue climbing down a rope He falls and then breaks And then
somebody builds him back up and he does the same thing over again
The people have to build him back up and put him back up on the rope
and then he swings down and breaks (How is he feeling'') He's made
out of clay He doesn't
While nearly all children, regardless of age, see the figure clingmg to
the rope as a live man, this httle girls tums the figure into a statue Given
the subsequent course of the story, it appears that she is concemed about
the possibility of the figure falling In order to quell her anxiety about
mjury or death, she denies that the figure is alive, if it is not alive, it

2 A copy of the Defense Scormg Manual is available from tte author

Development of Defense Mechanisms 603

cannot be hurt and cannot die This denial is earned out through a mis-
perception, the human being is misperceived as being a statue However,
this denial is not completely successful It leads to a dismption m reality
testing, in which the statue exhibits animate behavior, by "climbing
down a rope " When the concem about falling and its consequences is
expressed ("He falls and then he breaks"), we see how the perceptual
denial allows the child to avoid and undo the anxiety-laden fear of death
Since It IS a statue, the pieces can be put back together again, and so
there is no harm, and nothing to be feared But the issue is not put to rest
completely, for the whole process is then repeated The denial mecha-
nism IS made most explicit in the child's final statement Because he is
made out of clay, he doesn't have any feelings, and so is not afraid and
IS not hurt
In terms of the formal sconng system, this story would receive four
scores for Denial in the following categories (1) Negation (l e , he
doesn't feel), (2) Denial of reahty (l e , statue climbing), (3) Reversal
(l e , broken statue is made whole), and (4) Misperception (l e , man
perceived as statue)
Another story to the same TAT picture, from a 10-year old boy, is quite
different
A man was being chased by a bunch of soldiers who wanted to kill
him He's climbing up the rope and if he doesn't make it up he'll get
chopped to death with swords So he is hanging as tight as he can and
when he gets to the top he'll be on the border—that's a secret place
underground There is this hatch that is on the border so they can't get
him
This story is resplendent m the projection of hostility, as well as in the
concem for protection from that hostility The particularly vivid image
of being chopped to death with swords is entirely contnbuted from the
storyteller, there is nothmg in the picture to suggest guards or swords
Possibly the anxiety surrounding this image contnbutes to the confusion
m thinking which occurs both m this boy's misuse ofthe word "border"
and in his spatial onentation—the man who gets to the top is now un-
derground
In terms ofthe sconng system, this story would receive four scores for
Projection, in the following categones (1) Attnbution of hostile inten-
tions (l e , the guards want to bll him), (2) Addition of ominous objects
(l e , swords), (3) Concem for protection from extemal threat (l e , a se-
604 Cramer

cret place with a hatch so they can't get him), and (4) Theme of pursuit
(l e , being chased)
Another story to TAT 17BM, from a high school boy, illustrates the
use of a vanety of Identification categones
The people are the citizens of the U S and they're all trying as hard
as they can to have a good hfe They number between 5 and 10 in pop-
ulation They have all had hard lives and they've been hardened by it
They are almost at the end of their climb to greatness They're all
thinking of the rewards they'll have for their hard work They feel as
though they have all the troubles of the world on their shoulders Most
of them reach the top, but the weak fall behind and lost [sic] out m
life
This story would receive five scores for Identification (3) Regulation
of motives, behavior (l e , mtemahzation of responsibility, troubles of
the world on their shoulders), (4) Self-esteem through affiliation (l e ,
being part of the group bnngs success), (5) Work, delay of gratification
(l e , hard work, neanng end of climb to greatness), (6) Role differentia-
tion (l e , "citizens"), and (7) Moralism (l e , the weak fell behind and
lost out m life)
While these examples illustrate the use of only one defense, many sto-
nes include instances of more than one defense Each story is scored for
the occurrence of all the categones of defense that appear, and a subject
may have scores on none, one, two, or three of the defenses under study
Using these sconng categones, it could be seen that Denial, the least
mature defense, generally was used most often by the youngest subjects
and decreased in use steadily across the next two age groups On the
other hand. Identification, the most mature defense, was used least often
by the youngest subjects and steadily increased in use across the next two
oldest age groups The use of Projection, which is theonzed to be more
mature than Denial but less mature than Identification, was found to be
midway in use between the other two defenses for all three age groups

Main StudY

METHOD
Encouraged by these findings, a second validation study was undertaken
with a new sample of subjects from a wider age range, whose stones
were not mvolved m the development ofthe sconng manual
Development of Defense Mechanisms 605

Subjects
A total of 320 subjects, representing four age groups, with an equal
number of boys and gu-ls in each age group, was studied Subjects in the
Pnmary and Intermediate groups were students at a pnvate country day
school and a public elementary school ^ The mean age for the 80 subjects
in the Pnmary group was 5 years, 8 months, with a range from 4 years,
4 months to 7 years, 8 months, and for the 80 subjects m the Intermediate
group the mean age was 9 years, 10 months and the range was 8 years, 2
months to 11 years, 9 months The Early Adolescent and Late Adolescent
subjects were all students at a local high school The majonty of students
from the two lower-level schools go on to attend this high school, thus
the high school subjects may be assumed to come from the same popu-
lation as the younger subjects The 80 subjects of the Early Adolescent
group were all ninth or tenth graders with a mean age of 14 years, 6
months The 80 subjects of the Late Adolescent group were all eleventh
or twelfth graders with a mean age of 16 years

Procedure
All subjects were shown the same two TAT pictures card 1 (a boy sitting
and looking at a violin) and card 17BM (a man clinging to a rope) Stan-
dard TAT instmctions were used, with some adaptation for the younger
subjects
Subjects m the Pnmary and Intermediate groups were tested individ-
ually in a pnvate room at the school Their stones were tape-recorded
and subsequently transcnbed, with identifying data removed Subjects
m the two high school groups were tested in small groups Each subject
was given a copy of the TAT pictures and a separate sheet of paper on
which to wnte each story Stones were subsequently copied, with iden-
tifying data removed Previous research with the TAT, using a similar
approach to assess psychodynamic themes, has found comparable results
for both oral and wntten forms ofthe test (May, 1975)

RESULTS

All of the 640 stones obtained from the 320 subjects were scored by one
rater, using the Manual developed in the denvation study Subsamples of
3 A preliminary analysis of the data mdicated that the results from these two
schools did not differ
606 Cramer
TaU«l
Mean Defense Scores (Absolute) for 4 Age-groups (Main Study)

Demal Projection Identification

Primary
Male 85 1 45 42
Female 1 15 75 45
Total 1 00 1 10 44
Intermediate
Male 42 200 1 42
Female 35 100 1 30
Total 39 1 50 1 36
Early Adolescent
Male 58 2 20 198
Female 78 3 32 2 72
Total 68 2 76 2 35
Late Adolescent
Male 90 2 68 260
Female 108 2 22 290
Total 99 2 45 2 75

stones from the different age groups were scored by two independent ra-
ters who were unaware of the hypotheses Each rater scored each story
for each defense (l e , Denial, Projection, and Identification) The scores
of Rater 1 were correlated with those of Rater 2, for each defense sepa-
rately and for each age group separately The mterrater reliability coef-
ficients for Denial ranged from 81 to 1 00, for Projection, from 71 to
90, and for Identification from 71 to 88
As nnay be seen m Table 1, the absolute level of defense use is higher
among the older subjects This increase is consistent with the hypothesis
that more defenses become operative as the child grows older It also re-
flects the fact that story length increased with age since, with longer sto-
nes, there are more opportunities for making defensive statements As
our interest m the present study was m the relative predominance of each
defense as a function of age, and not m the absolute amount of defense
use, each subject's defense scores were converted mto relative scores,
with the use of each individual defense expressed as a proportion of total
defense use In this way, story length does not influence the (relative)
defense scores The results appear m Figure 1
Development of Defense Mechanisms 607

50 -

40
LU
cn
I 30
UJ

20

10

Pri Int EA LA

AGE

ngure I
Relative Defense Scores of Primary Intermediate Early Adolescent and
Late Adolescent Groups

The relative defense scores were subjected to a 4 (Age) x 2 (Sex) x

3 (Defense) analysis of vanance, with Defense as a repeated measure
There was a significant effect for Defense, F(2, 624) = 37 47, p < 001,
and the Age x Defense interaction was significant, F(6,624) = 16 82,
p < 001 Denial was used more by Pnmary subjects than by any other
group, «(158) = 4 76-5 48,ps< 001 Projection was used more by
Intermediate and Early Adolescent subjects than by Pnmary subjects,
rs(158) = 1 89 and 2 57, respectively, ps < 06 and 01 Projection was
also used more by Early Adolescent than Late Adolescent subjects, but
the difference was not significant, r(158) = l5S,p> 10 Identification
was used more often by Intermediate, Early Adolescent and Late Ado-
lescent subjects than by Pnmary subjects, rs(158) = 5 61,7 91, and 9 33
608 Cramer

respectively, ps < 001 Identification also was used more often by Late
Adolescent than by Intermediate subjects, f(158) = 1 93, p < 06
Withm age groups, Pnmary subjects used Denial and Projection more
often than Identification, ts(79) = 4 48 and 3 41, ps < 001 Interme-
diate and Early Adolescent subjects used Projection and Identification
more often than Denial, fs(79) = 5 84-9 97, ps < 001 Late Adoles-
cent subjects used Identification more than Projection, ?(79) = 2 14, p
< 04, and Projection more than Denial, r(79) = 5 34,p< 001
The Sex x Defense interaction also was significant, F(2,624) =
3 69, p < 05 Males used Projection more than females, while females
used Denial more than males (Newman-Keuls, p < 05) Although
males used Projection more often than females in three of the four age
groups (Pnmary, Intermediate and Late Adolescent), the difference was
significant only in the Pnmary group, r(78) == 2 70, p < 01 Females'
relative preference for Denial also was significant only m the Pnmary
group, t(7S) = 2l7,p< 03, although their absolute use of Denial ex-
ceeded that of males in three of the four age groups (see Table 1) There
was one other noteworthy sex difference Late Adolescent girls used
more Identification than Projection, t(39) = 2 42, p < 02, while the
differences for Late Adolescent boys was nonsignificant, ^39) = 57

DISCUSSION

While the idea of a developmental hierarchy of defenses has been previ-

ously proposed (e g , Vaillant, 1977), empmcal support for such an hy-
pothesis from a developmental study marks a new contnbution to the
study of personality The results of the present investigation are consist-
ent with the hypothesis of a developmental hierarchy in the use of defen-
ses In tracing the developmental course of three defenses, it was found
that Demal, the most pnmitive of the three, was used more often by the
youngest group of subjects than by any of the other age groups Identi-
fication, the most mature defense, was used most often by the oldest, the
Late Adolescent group, next most often by the middle two age groups,
and least often by the youngest subjects Projection, a defense hypothe-
sized to be more mature than Denial but less mature than Identification,
was used most often by the middle two age groups (l e , Intermediate
and Early Adolescent)
Moreover, within each age group, the predicted hierarchy of defense
use was found In the youngest age group, the less mature defenses were
used more often than the most mature defenses In the oldest age group,
Development of Defense Mechanisms 609

the most mature defense of Identification was used more often than the
less mature defense of Projection, which in tum was used more often
than the least mature defense of Denial The middle two age range
groups used the two more mature defenses more often than the least ma-
ture defense of Denial
Consistent with previous studies of children, adolescents, and adults,
there were significant sex differences m the use of extemal versus inter-
nal defenses (Cramer, 1979, 1983, Gleser &Ihilevich, 1969) Projection,
a defense that operates by extemalizmg the problem, was used more by
males than by females Denial, a defense that operates by changing the
intemal cognitive state ofthe individual, was used more by females As
in an earlier study (Cramer, 1983), this difference was most pronounced
m the youngest group of children Among the oldest subjects ofthe pres-
ent study. It was found that females used Identification more often than
Projection This difference did not occur for males, reflecting their
greater use of Projection and lesser use of Identification In terms of *1 e
intemal-extemal distinction. Identification is clearly an intemal defense,
with incorporation, lntrojection, and mtemahzation as its major com-
ponents (e g , Meissner, 1981)
These conclusions rest on the assumption that stones told to TAT cards
do in fact provide information about subjects' characteristic use of de-
fense mechanisms I assume this because it is known that current per-
ception IS influenced by past expenence (e g , Carmichael, Hogan &
Walter, 1932, Neely, 1977) The way m which individuals respond to a
TAT picture is based on their previous expenence m responding to sim-
ilar situations, including their charactenstic response to anxiety arousing
situations I assume that the storytelling "test," because of its novelty, is
one that creates a moderate amount of anxiety in most individuals The
situation Itself is new, the picture is unfamiliar, and the individual is
asked to tell a story to an unfamiliar person To not comply with the task
demand has the implication of failure or inadequacy Individuals respond
in order to avoid that expenence, as well as to please the examiner In
responding, individuals are protected from expenencing excessive anx-
iety through the functioning of defense mechanisms These defenses are
manifest in the subjects' immediate behavior—l e , in the stones they
tell At the same time, complying with the examiner's storytelling re-
quest has some similanties to the requirements of an ordinary social in-
teraction situation, the reaction of subjects to the storytelling task will be
an indication of their usual manner or responding to similar real life
610 Ciamer

events Fbr these reasons, I assume that subjects' responses to the TAT
tell us something about their use of defenses in real life situations
While the present study does convincingly demonstrate a develop-
mental continuum of defense, several qualifications may he noted First,
only three defenses, chosen to represent different points on the develop-
mental continuum, were studied It seems likely that sinular develop-
mental pattems might be found for other cognitive defense mechanisms,
such as rationalization or mtellectualization Also beyond the scope of
the present paper is the question of affective defenses—for example,
depression defending against anger These defensive operations, too,
may have a developmental course It should also be pointed out that not
all subjects gave evidence for using defense mechanisms in responding
to the storytelling task, just as, m real life, behavior can be conflict-free,
that IS, not defensive Given these qualifications, the present method for
assessing defense mechanisms has proven quite useful

Appendix
Scoring Categones for Defenses

Denial
(1) Statements of negation
(a) A character "does not " an action, wish, or intention, which, if ac-
knowledged, would cause displeasure, pam or humiliation
(b) The storyteller negates or denies a fact or feeling
(c) References to doubt as to what the picture is or represents
(2) Demal of reality
(a) The storyteller denies the reality of the story or situation
(b) Sleepmg, daydreaming, or fainting as a way of avoidmg something un-
pleasant
(c) Avoiding lodcmg at (hearing, thinking about) something that would be
unpleasant to see (hear, think about)
(d) Any perception, attnbution or implication that is blatantly false with re-
gard to reality
(3) Reversal
(a) Transformation, such as weakness into strength
(b) Any figure who takes on qualities previously stated conversely
(4) Misperception
Development of Defense Mechanisms 611

(a) Unusual or distorted perception of a figure object or action in the picture,

without support (not ominous)
(b) Perception of figure as being of opposite sex from that usually perceived
(5) Omission of major characters or objects
(Specific cntena for each TAT card )
(6) Overly maximizing the positive or minimizing the negative
(a) gross exaggeration or underestimation of a character's qualities, size,
power, etc
(7) Unexpected goodness, optimism, positiveness, gentleness
(a) unexpected goodness
(b) a drastic change of heart for the good
(c) references to natural beauty, wonder, awesomeness
(d) nonchalance in the face of danger
(e) acceptance of one's (negative) fate or loss, "sour grapes "

Projection
(1) Attribution of aggressive or hostile feelings, emotions or intentions to a
character, or of any other feelings, emotions or intentions that are norma-
tively unusual, if such attnbution is without sufficient reason
(2) Addition of people, ghosts, animals, objects, or qualities
(a) score only if the additions are of an ominous or potentially threatening
nature
(b) especially, the addition of blood, senous and uncommon illnesses, night-
mares
(c) references to people, animals or objects being decrepit, falling apart, de-
tenoratmg
(3) Concem for protection against extemal threat
(a) fear of threat or assault and the need for protection against this, as seen
in the use of disguises and the creation of protective bamers
(b) suspiciousness, spying, anticipation of kidnap, etc
(c) having seen something one shouldn t and the need to hide this, fear of
being seen, protective hiding
(d) defensive self-justification on the part ofthe storyteller
(4) Themes of pursuit, entrapment and escape
(a) one character pursuing or trapping another
(b) escape from a physical impnsonment, danger, or threat thereof
(5) Apprehensiveness of death, injury, assault
(a) physical attack, injury, or death actually occurs
(b) fear of going to sleep
(6) Magical, autistic, or circumstantial thinkmg
612 Cramer

(a) use of magical powers, including hypnosis, in which one character con-
trols another
(b) animism
(c) circumstantial reasoning with a paranoid flavor, hyperalert search for
flaws or hidden meanings
(7) Bizarre or very unusual story or theme
(a) negative themes that occur very rarely, especially if there is a peculiar
twist
(b) unusual punishment, including self-punishment

Identification
{1) Emulation of skills
(a) one character imitating, taking over, or otherwise acquinng a skill or tal-
ent of another character, or trying to do so
(2) Emulation of charactenstics
(a) imitating taking over, or otherwise acquinng a charactenstic, quality, or
attitude of another character, or trying to do so
(b) references to one character being like another, the same as another, or
merged with another
(3) Regulation of motives or behavior
(a) demands, influence, guidance, prohibitions of one character over an-
other, or the rebelling against these
(b) self-cnticism or self-reflection, on the part of the storyteller or of a char-
acter in the story
(c) justified punishment by parents or authonty
(4) Self-esteem through affiliation
(a) success or satisfaction which comes about through association with
someone else (peer), or the expressed need for this kind of affiliation
(b) being part of a special group from which some special pleasure or help
denves
(5) Work, Delay of gratification
(a) references to a character working
(b) references to delay, in order to obtain some future gratification
(6) Role differentiation
(a) mention of characters in specific adult roles (non-familial)
(7) Morahsm
(a) moralistic outcome to story
(b) justified punishment administered by authonty figure (not parents)
Development of Defense Mechanisms 613

REFERENCES
Ames, L B Mitraux. R W.Rodell J L & Walker R N (1974) Child Rorschach
responses (Rev ed ) New York Brunner/Mazel
Anthony, E J (1970) The behavior disorders of childhood I n P H Mussen (Ed ) Car-
michael's handbook of child ps\cholog\ (Vol 1 pp 667-764) New York John
Wiley
Bellak, L (1975) The thematic apperception test and the children s apperception test
and the senior apperception technique tn clinical use New \ork Grune and Stratton
Bios P (1979) The adolescent passage New York International Universities Press
Brody, L R Rozek M K & Muten, E O (1985) Age sex and individual differ-
ences m ehildren's defensive styles Journal of Chnical Child Ps\cholog\ 14 132-
138
Carmichael. L , Hogan, H P & Walter A A (1932) An expenmental study of the
effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology, 15, 73-86
Chandler, M J , Paget, K F , & K o c h D A (1978) The child's demystification of
psychological defense mechanisms A structural and developmental analysis Devel-
opmental Psychology, 14, 197-205
Cramer P (1974) The psychoanalytic approach to intellectual development In W D
Rohwer, P R Ammon, & P Cramer Understanding intellectual development (pp
265-398) Hinsdale, IL Dryden Press
Cramer, P (1979) Defense mechanisms in adolescence Developmental Ps\chology 15
476-477
Cramer. P (1982) Manualforscoring defenses Unpuhlished manuscnpt, Williams Col-
lege
Cramer, P (1983) Children's use of defense mechanisms in reaction to displeasure
caused by others Journal of Personality 51 78-94
Dollmger, S J , Staley, A & McGuire B (1981) The child as psychologist Attnbu-
tions and evaluations of defensive strategies Child Development 52 1084-1086
Femchel, O (1945) The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis New York Norton
Freud, A (1946) The ego and the mechanisms cf defence New York Intemational Uni-
versities Press
Freud, S (1894) The defence neuro-psychoses In Collected papers (Vol I, pp 155-
182) New York Basic Books
Freud, S (1915) Repression In Collected papers, (Voi IV pp 84-97) New York
Basic Books
Freud, S (1923) The ego and the id New York W W Norton
Gleser, G ,&Ihilevich,D (1969) An objective instrument for measunng defense mech-
anisms Journal qf Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33 51-60
Haan, N (1965) Coping and defense mechanisms related to personahty mventones
Joumal (f Consulting Psychobgy. 29, 373-378
Hartman, H (1939) Ego psychobgy and the problem of adaptation New York Inter-
national Universities Press
Haworth, M R (1963) A schedule for the analysis of CAT responses Journal of Pro-
jective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 27, 181-184
614 Cramer
Jacobson E (1954) The self and the other world PsychoanalvticStudv qfthe Child, 19,
75-127
Joffe, P , & Naditch M P (1977) Paper and pencil measures of coping and defense
processes In N Haan (Ed), Coping and defending Processes of self-environment
organization (pp 280-297) New York Academic Press
May, R R (1975) Further studies on depnvation/enhancement pattems Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment 39 116-122
Meissner, W W (1981) Intemalization in psychoanalysis New York Intemational Uni-
versities Press
Meltzoff, A N & Moore, M K (1977) Imitation of facial and manual gestures by
human neonates Science 198 75-78
Murray, H A (1943) Thematic apperception test Cambndge, MA Harvard University
Press
Neely, J (1977) Semantic pnming and retrieval from lexical memory Roles of lnhibi-
tionless-spreadmg activation and limited capacity attention Joumal cf Experimental
Psychology General 106, 226-254
Plutchik, R ,Kellerman H &Conte, H R (1979) A structural theory of ego defenses
and emotions InC E liaid (Ed), Emotions in personalit\ and psychopathology (pp
229-257) New York Plenum
Schafer, R (1954) Psychoanahttc interpretation tn Rorschach testing New York Grune
and Stratton
Schafer, R (1968) Aspects of internalization New York Intemational Universities
Press
Smith, G J W, & Danielson, A (1982) Anxiety and defensive strategies in childhood
and adolescence New York Intemational Umversities Press
Smith, W P , & Rossman B R (1986) Developmental changes m trait and situational
denial under stress dunng childhood Joumal qf Child Psychobgy and Psychiatry and
Allied Disciplines, n 227-235
Spitz, R A (1957) No and yes On the genetics qf human communication New York
International Universities Press
Spitz, R A (1965) The first year qf life New York Intemational Universities Press
Stewart, A J (1982) The course of individual adaptation to hfe changes Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1100-1113
Vaillant, G E (1971) Theoretical hierarchy of adaptive ego mechanisms Archives qf
General Psychiatry, 24, 107-118
Vaillant, G E (1977) Adaptation to life Boston Little, Brown
Whiteman, M (1967) Children's conceptions of psychological causality Child Devel-
opment, 3S, 143-156

Manuscript received July 15, 1986, revised December 4,1986