[Relationships between defense mechanisms and coping strategies, facing exam anxiety performance]

Abstract

Background: Defence mechanisms and coping strategies rely on different theoretical backgrounds and describe distinct psychological processes. Cramer has based a distinction on the following dimensions: conscious processes vs. not; intentionality vs. not; hierarchical conception vs. not. On the contrary to these distinctions, the two notions of defense mechanisms and coping strategies are defined as similar in the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual (DSM IV). This assimilation between coping and defenses in the DSM IV is not confirmed by some researches, namely the one by Callahan and Chabrol. It indeed proves a relationship between adaptive coping and mature defenses, as well as between maladaptive coping and immature defenses. Similarly, Plutchik offered theoretical correspondences between eight defense mechanisms and eight coping strategies: (a) Defenses: repression, isolation, introjection and Coping escape; (b) Defense denial and Coping minimalization; (c) Defense undoing and coping substitution; (d) Defenses: regression, acting out and coping social support; (e) Defenses: compensation, identification, fantasy and coping replacement; (f) Defenses: intellectualization, sublimation, annulation, rationalisation and coping: planification; (g) Defense projection and coping blame; (h) Defense: reactional formation and coping inversion.

Goal: this research aims at testing the relations observed by Callahan and Chabrol and some theoretical correspondences proposed by Plutchik between defences and coping strategies in a population of students similar to the one used by Callahan and Chabrol. It also aims at studying the relationships between coping strategies and conscious derives of defense mechanisms, such as defined by Bond (1995). Defenses were evaluated the first day of the examination week.

Population: the population includes 184 women students in human sciences (sociology and psychology).

Instruments: defenses were evaluated with the Defense Style Questionnaire by Bond (DSQ 40). Its French version is made of 40 items and validated by Guelfi et al. It explores 20 defense mechanisms, as well as 3 defense styles: (1) a "mature style", composed by 4 defenses: sublimation, humor, anticipation, repression; (2) a "neurotic style", composed by 4 defenses: annulation, reactional formation, altruism and idealization; (3) an "immature style", composed by 12 defenses. Coping strategies were measured by the French version of the Way of Coping Check-List-Revised, (WCC-R) by Lazarus and Folkman, validated by Graziani et al. It evaluates 10 factors: 1) Problem solving; 2) Evasion; 3) Social support; 4) Self-control; 5) Escape; 6) Responsabilization-Replanification; 7) Resignation; 8)Diplomacy; 9) Confrontation; 10) Personal evolution.

Results: Our results confirm partially Callahan and Chabrol's conclusions in favour of existing relationships between adaptive coping strategies and mature defenses, as well as between maladaptive coping strategies and immature defenses. They demonstrate three positive relationships: 1) a relation between Problem solving resolution coping and two mature defenses (Sublimation, Anticipation); 2) a relation between Evasion coping and nevrotic and immature defenses; 3) a relation between Escaping coping and immature defenses. The correspondences between defense mechanisms and coping strategies, such as proposed by Plutchik psycho-evolutionist emotional model are partly validated. Some links were indeed validated in this research, between: a) Defense Undoing and Escaping or Evasion coping; b) Defense Fantasy and Responzabilization coping, c) Defense Sublimation and Problem solving resolution coping; d) Defense Sublimation and Responsabilization coping or Problem solving resolution coping; e) Défense Annulation and Responzabilisation coping.