A Test of the Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Categorization of the Repression-Sensitization Dimension

Millimet, C. Raymond; Cohen, Howard J.

doi:10.1177/001316447303300403

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Univariate analyses at Fp2-Fpl revealed a Group X Hemisphere x Gender interaction, F(l, 81) = 6,43, p < .02, and a 1 Although the MCSD is generally assumed to have sufficient unique variance to justify its pairing with Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale or other anxiety scales, this issue is debatable. The interested reader is referred to Millimet and Cohen (1973), who concluded that "repression" effects are nothing more than measurement artifacts because anxiety and defensiveness dimensions correlate especially over the low-anxiety pole. Tomarken and Davidson (1994) reported substantial correlations of the MCSD with negative affectivity (correlations ranging between -.35 and -.48) and positive affectivity (r = .33).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is left frontal brain activation in defensiveness gender specific?

Kline¹,

Allen²,

Schwartz³

1998

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A. J. Tomarken and R. J. Davidson (1994) reported that defensiveness is characterized by relative left frontal brain activation. Because they examined only women, gender differences in this relation are possible. In the present study, resting alpha asymmetries in right-handed men (n = 25) and women (n = 60) were related to defensiveness, measured by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire L scale. These results were similar to those of Tomarken and Davidson in that defensiveness correlated positively with relative left frontal activation in women. An unexpected finding was that high-defensive men showed relative right frontal activation, a result virtually opposite that for women. These results imply that the nature of defensiveness as a coping strategy may vary as a function of gender.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is left frontal brain activation in defensiveness gender specific?

Kline¹,

Allen²,

Schwartz³

1998

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Watson and Clark (1984) suggested that repression (and other measures of individual differences in defensive style) may be characterized by a broad negative affect component. Others have demonstrated that Byrne's (1961, 1964) repression/sensitization scale correlates very strongly (above .90) with trait anxiety measures, which suggests that repression/sensitization (as measured by Byrne's scale) is actually trait anxiety (Holmes, 1974; Millimet & Cohen, 1973; Tudor & Holmes, 1973). In more recent investigations of repression/sensitization, researchers have combined a measure of trait anxiety with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) to measure repression (Weinberger, Schwartz, & Davidson, 1979).…”

Section: Mood States and Emotional Personality Traitsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Byrne's scale) is actually trait anxiety (Holmes, 1974;Millimet & Cohen, 1973;TUdor & Holmes, 1973). In more recent investigations of repression/sensitization, researchers have combined a measure of trait anxiety with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) to measure repression (Weinberger, Schwartz, & Davidson, 1979).…”

Section: Traits Related To Emotion Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: Three conceptual frameworks.

Rusting¹

1998

Psychological Bulletin

507

414

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews evidence for the roles that mood states and personality traits play in the processing of emotion-congruent information across different cognitive tasks. Evidence is reviewed for 3 emotion-congruency frameworks, each summarizing a different route to emotional processing: the traditional approach, a moderation approach, and a mediation approach. Most of the traditional literature includes studies that examine the effects of moods and traits on emotional processing separately; these studies have yielded some inconsistent findings. The moderation and mediation approaches offer potential solutions to the lack of consistency obtained in the traditional literature by allowing for the combined effects of personality traits and mood states on the processing of emotional information. The moderation approach suggests that mood states interact with individual differences in emotion-relevant personality traits to influence emotion-congruent processing. The mediation approach suggests that personality traits predispose individuals to certain mood states, which then influence emotional processing. These approaches provide a framework for understanding the literature and a starting point for future research on emotion-congruent processing.

show abstract

“…Using the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC-SD Scale) as a measure of defensiveness these studies found differences between defensive Rs (high MC-SD) and non-defensive Rs (low MC-SD) for a number of personality dimensions and traits (Ginn, 1974;Kahn & Schill, 1971; Lefcourt, 1969;Schill & Althoff, 1968;Schill & Black, 1969;Schill, Emanuel, Pedersen, & Wachowiak, 1970),which led to a conclusion that the R-S Scale is multidimensional rather than unidimensional. This evidence of R-S multidimensionality, however, is weakened by the observation (Milliment & Cohen, 1973) that the R-S and MC-SD Scales are highly related (Abbott, 1972;Silber & Grebstein, 1964), which indicates that the above groups of defensive and non-defensive Rs vaIy systematically with respect to R-S and MC-SD dimensions. The obtained results, therefore, could be attributed either to R-S or to MC-SD.…”

Section: T9mentioning

confidence: 97%

Dimensionality of the repression sensitization scale

Carlson¹

1979

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study of the internal structure of the R-S Scale failed to support a finding of unidimensionality or bipolarity, as theory suggests. A factor analysis of the item matrix revealed a poorly defined multifactor structure that contained five relatively weak unipolar factors (N = 200). Guttman's Reproducibility and the Kuder-Richardson Coefficient adjusted for test length similarly failed to support the presence of a unifactor structure. The relatively high Coefficient of Dimensionality was rejected as evidence of unidimensionality given the uncertainty over what psychometric properties this index reflects. The high proportion of S-item interaction variance showed considerable equivocal item content, which suggested marked error factors due to Ss' idiosyncratic interpretation of items.

show abstract

A Test of the Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Categorization of the Repression-Sensitization Dimension

Cited by 6 publications

References 25 publications

Is left frontal brain activation in defensiveness gender specific?

Is left frontal brain activation in defensiveness gender specific?

Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: Three conceptual frameworks.

Dimensionality of the repression sensitization scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About