Defensive strategies of repressors and sensitizers in counseling.

Abstract

This study investigated the defensive strategies of male repressers and sensitizers in counseling when objective self-discrepant information (low maturity scores) was presented. Cognitive and affective counseling approaches were used to present self-discrepant information, permitting a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA design (defensive orientation by treatment). Galvanic skin response (GSR) and heart-rate measurements confirmed stress in subjects when self-discrepant information was presented. Repressers used projection as a preferred defense and sensitizers passively changed their self-perception. The cognitive treatment was more successful in reducing self-maturity ratings in both groups, while the affective treatment gave more equivocal results. Defensive strategies of subjects in conjunction with the counseling approach determined the extent to which self-discrepant information was accepted.Coping with threat to the self-structure is a process confronting everyone. However, by maturity, most adults have developed a repertoire of mechanisms of defense against self-discrepant stimuli (Sarnoff, 1962). In addition to specific defense mechanisms, a more basic defensive orientation is also learned. Blocher (1966) stated that "each individual acquires both a set of coping behaviors and a general style of coping that he learns to use [p. 49]."Research on defensive orientations began in relation to perceptual adaptation to threat (Lazarus, Erikson, & Fonda, 1951). Gordon (1957) defined these defensive tendencies as the "repression-sensitization" dimension. Byrne (Byrne, 1961; Byrne, Barry, & Nelson, 1963), extending the work of others (Altrocci, Parsons, & Dickoff, 1960), developed a scale to measure individual repressing or sensitizing tendencies. Subsequent research has shown repressionsensitization to be a stable personality di-*This article is based on the first author's doctoral dissertation from

Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings

“…Similarly, high NA individuals are better at recognizing and recalling stimuli that have been associated with failure, tend to dwell on and magnify their mistakes (Watson & Clark, 1984), and judge their critics more harshly (Baldwin & Cabianca, 1972). Indeed, several studies have found that such individuals generally interpret ambiguous stimuli in a negative or threatening manner, and are more likely to experience discomfort at all times even in the absence of overt stress (Watson & Clark, 1984).…”

The effect of the ABCs of Rational Emotive Therapy and the empty-chair technique of Gestalt Therapy on anger reduction.

“…But Early & Kleinknecht (1978) found sensitizers were more aroused than repressors in a threatening situation. Baldwin & Cabianca (1972) compared an affective treatment to a cognitive treatment with repressing and sensitizing subjects. They found the cognitive treatment more effective for both groups.…”

Repression-sensitization and processing of favorable and adverse information

“…Higher scores (sensitization) are assumed to reflect one's tendency cognitively t o control and internalize such information in order to neutralize the consequences of the threat. This view seems to be supported by evidence that shows that sensitizers are inclined to conceptualize themselves in relatively negative terms (Byrne, 1964) and, furthermore, they tend t o accept self-discrepant-deprecating information rather than to defend the self-esteem comparable to repressors (Baldwin & Cabianca, 1972; Glass, Canavan, & Schiavo, 1968;Hamilton, 1970). Other researchers, however, question the adequacy of the R-S scale as a measure of defensive strategies (Baker & King, 1970).…”