INTRODUCTION STUDIO SHODWE MAGAZINE VOL. 1 INNOVATE DIFFERENTIATES GROW Physical Violence Physical violence is a significant health problem m the United States (Potter & Mercy, 1997). Arrest rates for physical violence in the United States reach a peak among older adolescents and young aduUs, whose offenses represented more than 50% ofthe nonfatal crimes of violence (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992,2001). Adolescent males are four tunes more likely to be involved m a physical fight resuhmg m mjury than female counterparts (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1994b) found that 31.5% of adolescent males have carried a weapon (e.g., gun, knife, or club) at least once during the past month for self-protection or for use in a fight, compared to relatively low 8.1% of adolescent females. Male adolescents were more hkely than female adolescents to carry a weapon and physically fight (Orpinas, Basen-Engquist, Grunbaum, & Parcel, 1995). Men were 1.6 to 3 times more Ukely than women to be victims of aggravated assault or violence by strangers while women were 7 to 21 tunes more likely than men to be victuns of violence by intimates or rape/sexual attack (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). Violence is prevalent m men of college age. In a community sample, Harwell and Spence (2000) found that 5% of men who participated m a telephone survey reported having experienced physical violence m the previous year. Compared to a community sample, a much higher prevalence rate of violence was found hi a college sample. Dromgoole and Cogan (1995) mvestigated prevalence rates of three subtypes of physical 1 violence m a sample of single, college men who had been ui a relationship with partner withm the previous year. Ofthe 312 college men, 39% reported perpetrating violence m the previous year. Ofthe violent men, 57.8% were violent toward strangers and not partners, 11.8% were violent toward partners and not strangers, and 30.5% were violent toward both strangers and partners (Dromgoole & Cogan, 1995). BaUinger (2001) recently found that among 1,064 college student men, 45% were violent. Ofthe violent men, 56% were violent toward strangers and not partners, 20% were violent toward partners and not strangers, and 24% were violent toward both strangers and partners (Ballmger, 2001). Desphe the relatively high prevalence of stranger violence, attempts to understand men who are violent toward strangers have been surprisuigly limited. Ofthe few research findings, violent crimes toward strangers are usually committed by men against other men (Fagan & Wexler, 1987; U.S. Department of Justice, 1987). People who perpetrate violence toward strangers are typically young (Lunentani, 1985; U.S. Department of Justice, 1996; Werner & Wolfgang, 1985). People who are arrested for violence toward strangers are often nonwhite (Petersiha, Greenwood, & Lavin, 1978) and with insufficient interpersonal skills (Cocozza &. Hartstone, 1978). Men who are violent toward both strangers and their partners are more Ukely than men who are violent toward partners to have a more positive attitude toward the use of violence, break the law, have lower occupational status, have gambled, and have been involved m extra-famiUal relationships (Shields, McCall, & Hanneke, 1988). Men who are violent toward strangers are more likely to have alcohol problems than men who are violent toward partners, suggestmg that men who are violent toward strangers are hkely to drink and be involved m fights with strangers (Cogan, Porcerelli, & Dromgoole, 2001; Shields et al., 1988). Given that college age men are at an age when violence reaches a peak (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001) and that many college men report stranger violence (Dromgoole & Cogan, 1995), research findmgs warrant the understanding why some college men are violent toward strangers while others are not is of considerable importance. Three areas of hterature may be usefiil m differentiatmg between violent and nonviolent college men: coping mechanisms (defense mechanisms), antisocial personality features, and alcohol use problems. WWW.REALLYGREATSITE.CO4M9
METHODOLOGY 50 PARTICIPANTS WERE REACHED FROM A LARGE GROUP OF MTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS WHO PARTICIPATED IN A MASS-SURVEY PROJECT THAT MCLUDED A VARIETY OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES. BASED ON THEU- RESPONSES TO THE MODIFIED PARTNER VIOLENCE SCREEN (PVS: FELDHAUS ET AL., 1997) ADMINISTERED DURING THE MASS SURVEY, 30 MEN WHO REPORTED NO VIOLENCE M THE PAST YEAR AND 30 MEN WHO REPORTED STRANGER VIOLENCE (BUT NO VIOLENCE TOWARD PARTNERS, FIIENDS OR FAMUY) M THE PAST YEAR WERE RECMHED. ONLY THOSE STUDENTS WHO WERE WILUNG TO BE CONTACTED BY PHONE FOR A FOUOW-UP STUDY WERE SOUCHED. STUDENTS WERE SELECTED WHO WERE BETWEEN 18 AND 21 YEARS OF AGE. THE TWO GROUPS WERE MATCHED FOR AGE AND ETHNICITY. STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN THE MASS SURVEY AND THIS PROJECT WAS VOLUNTARY AND WAS ONE OF SEVERAL AVAUABLE ALTEMATIVES FOR EARNING CLASS CREDIT
Measures The Modified Partner Violence Screen (PVS) The current study used the following question to screen for violence: "Have you hit, kicked, punched, or otherwise hurt someone within the past year?" (Feldhaus et al., 1997). As part ofthe question, each participant was asked to answer "no" or "yes" to four categories: stranger, fiiend or someone you know, partner or ex-partner, and someone in your family (see Appendix B). This item was derived from the PVS (Feldhaus et al., 1997), which is a 3-hem self-report measure of violence based on the 15 severe violence hems ofthe Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979). ReUability and vahdity ofthe modified PVS have not been directly mvestigated with stranger violence. Ofthe three items, a physical violence item alone ("Have you been hit, kicked, punched, or otherwise hurt by someone wdthin the past year? If so, by whom?") was more sensitive and specific than the other two items m detecting partner violence (Feldhaus et al., 1997). When compared with two empuicaUy weUvaUdated measures of partner violence, the Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA; Hudson & Mcintosh, 1981) and the CTS (Straus, 1979) as criterion standards, the item showed good senshivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (Feldhaus et al., 1997) 51
Prior to data analyses intended for specific research questions, inter-rater reUabUity was computed to assess the reUabUity ofthe DMM (Cramer, 1991a) scoring system for stories told for the TAT cards. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted for each ofthe DMM, the DSQ-40, and the MMPI measures. To identify Xhe differences between non-violent and stranger violent groups, five multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were conducted on the subscales ofthe DMM, the DSQ-40, and the MMPI-2. The first MANOVA was conducted to test for group differences in defense mechanisms measured by the DMM, a projective test. The second MANOVA was conducted to test for group differences in the defense mechanisms excluding mdividuals with invalid MMPI-2 profiles. Dependent variables were the three DMM subscales (e.g., denial, projection, and identification). The thurd MANOVA was conducted to test for group differences in defensive styles measured by the DSQ-40, a self-report test. The fourth MANOVA was conducted to test for group differences m the defensive styles excludmg mdividuals with invaUd MMPI-2 profiles. Dependent variables were the three DSQ-40 subscales (e.g., unmature, neurotic, and mature). The fifth MANOVA was 22 conducted to test for group differences in antisocial personaUty features. Dependent variables were the three subscales (e.g., Pd, ASP, and MAC-R) ofthe MMPI-2. If there was a significant multivariate effect, follow-up analyses of variance tests were carried out for each ofthe dependent variables m order to assess possible subscale differences between the groups. In addhion, cortelations between the DMM, DSQ-40, and MMPI-2 subscales were computed for both the participants included the ones with invaUd MMPI2 profiles and the participants excluded the ones with the invaUd MMPI-2 profiles. M E T H O D O L O G Y S T A T I S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S 52
The curtent investigator and an advanced female student in a doctoral program in cUnical psychology coded the DMM (Cramer, 1991a). The inter-rater reUabUity ofthe two coders' scores was adequate with Pearson product moment cortelations of .64 (denial), .82 (projection), .79 (identification), and .81 (the combmation of denial, projection, and identification). Total scores for denial, projection, and identification for participants ranged from 0 to 9, from 1 to 14, and from 2 to 22, respectively. The resuhs are consistent with previous findings (e.g., Cramer, 1991a; Hibbard & PocereUi, 1998; PorcereUi et al., 1998), which demonstrated the adequate mter-rater reUabUities. Differences Between the Two Groups The DMM Scales A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to compare the differences between coUege student men who were violent toward strangers and coUege student men who were not violent m denial, projection, and identification scores. There was a significant multivariate effect, HoteUing-Lawley Trace = . 17, F(3,56) = 3.1, p = .03. FoUowup analysis of variance tests were carried out for denial, projection, and identification scores. The denial scores ofthe stranger violent men were significantly higher than tiie scores ofthe non-violent men, F(l,58) = 7.72, p = .007 (see Table 1). Neither the projection nor the identification scores of men in the two groups differed 24 significantly. The projection scores ofthe stranger violent men were not significantly different from the scores ofthe non-violent men, F(l,58) = .05, p = .83. The identification scores ofthe stranger violent men were not significantly different from the scores ofthe non-violent men, F(l,58) = .72, p = .40. After the scores of 8 stranger violent men and 3 non-violent men were excluded from the analysis because their MMPI-2 profiles were invaUd based on L > 79, F > 90, and K > 70 (Butcher et al., 1989), another MANOVA was conducted to compare the differences between coUege student men who were violent toward strangers and college student men who were not violent in denial, projection, and identification scores. Although the probabUity of finding a large effect size (e.g., d = .8) was reduced from .87 to .80 as a resuh of a smaUer sample size, the results ofthe second MANOVA were consistent with the resuhs ofthe first MANOVA (see Table R2). E S U L T S 53
RESULTS The DSO-40 Scales A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to compare the differences between the stranger violent and nonviolent men hi uimiature, neurotic, and mature scores. There was no significant multivariate effect, HoteUing-Lawley Trace = .002, F(3,56) = .34, p = .80 (see Table 1). Another MANOVA was conducted to compare the differences between the stranger violent men and non-violent men in unmature, neurotic, and mature scores after participants who produced mvalid MMPI-2 profiles based on L > 79, F > 90, and K > 70 (Butcher et al., 1989) were excluded from the analysis. There was no significant multivariate effect, HoteUmg-Lawley Trace = .002, F(3,56) = .36, p = .78 (see Table 2). The MMPI-2 Scales A multivariate a nalysis of variance was conducted to compare the differences between the stranger violent and the non-violent men in Pd, MACR, and ASP scores. The scores of 8 stranger violent men and 3 non-violent men were excluded from the analysis because theu- MMPI-2 profiles were invalid based on L > 79, F > 90, and K > 70 (Butcher et al., 1989). There was a significant muhivariate effect, HoteUuig-Lawley Trace = .37, F(3,45) = 5.59, p = .002. Follow-up analysis of variance tests were carried out for Pd, ASP, and MAC-R scales. The Pd scores ofthe stranger violent men did not differ from the scores ofthe non-violent men, F(l,47) = 1.82, p = . 18 (see Table 2). The ASP scores ofthe stranger violent men were significantly higher than the scores ofthe non-violent men, F(l,47) = 12.93, p = .0008. The MAC-R scores ofthe stranger violent men were significantiy higher than the scores ofthe non-violent men, F(l,47) = 8.75, p = .005. Cortelations Between the DMM. the DSO-40. and the MMPI-2 Scales Pearson product moment correlations between Denial, Projection, Identification, Immature, Neurotic, Mature, Pd, MAC-R, and ASP variables were computed. None of the DMM scales was significantiy correlated with each other (see Table 3). In contrast, the DSQ-40 Neurotic scale was positively related to both the DSQ-40 Immature and Mature scales. Furthermore, the MMPI-2 ASP scale was positively cortelated with both the MMPI-2 Pd and MAC-R scales. Except the positive cortelation between the DMM Projection scale with the DSQ-40 Immature scale and the negative cortelation between the DMM Projection scale with the DSQ-40 Mature scale, no significant correlations were found between the DMM and the DSQ-40 scales. Except the positive cortelation between the DMM Projection scale and the MMPI-2 Pd scale, no significant correlations between the DMM and the MMPI-2 scales were found. The cortelations between the DMM, the DSQ-40, and the MMPI-2 subscales were consistent with the cortelations computed for the participants excluding the ones whh the mvalid MMPI-2 profiles. 54
55
B Y: K H E N D Y (2 0 2 0) FoolingYourself: theRoleof InternalDefense Mechanisms in Unsustainable Consumption Behavior 56
ABSTRACT Unsustainable consumption offers a fertile ground for the rise of intrapsychic conflicts. A series of 20 indepth interviews was conducted to investigate people’s inner conflicts in the field of sustainability and how consumers deal with them. After the development of a sustainability classification from a consumer’s point of view, we led consumers to talk about their inner conflicts in the sustainability context. In particular, these conflicts emerge when long-term sustainabilityrelated motives contrast with shortterm motives Results show that especially sustainability-oriented consumers show intrapsychic conflicts of varying degree when consuming unsustainably. Notably, consumers use a wide range of psychological defense mechanisms to continue unsustainable consumption behavior. Only in case of intense conflicts, actual behavior is modified. In general, this research proposes a theoretical framework of how consumers deal with their inner conflicts. 57
The majority of consumers claim sustainability to be of high subjective importance. For instance, people state that it is essential to reduce waste and to be economical with natural resources like water, oil, or the tropical rain forest. Nevertheless, at the same time, many consumers also engage in unsustainable consumption behavior, for example taking the car instead of public transport or purchasing products based on a very resource-intensive production process. Therefore, the question arises why even sustainability-oriented consumers show unsustainable consumption behavior. Under the umbrella of the so-called attitude-behavior gap (Carrigan, Moraes, and Leek 2011) this question has been and still is controversially discussed in the area of consumer research (Eckhardt, Belk, and Devinney 2010). However, we speculate that there are also intrapsychic consumer conflicts involved. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the underlying psychological mechanisms of whether and how consumers solve the resulting inner conflicts have not yet been examined. Therefore, this approach tries to make a first step towards an understanding of how consumers solve their inner conflicts in the field of sustainability. 58 INTRODUCTION
DUE TO THE COMPLEX AND EXPLORATIVE NATURE OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH QUESTION, THE AUTHORS DECIDED TO FOLLOW A QUALITATIVE APPROACH USING INDEPTH INTERVIEWS (BENGTSSON AND OSTBERG 2006). IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ARE COMBINED WITH PRE-EXISTING THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE TO PROPOSE A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, TRYING TO EXPLAIN HOW INNER CONFLICTS EMERGE AND HOW DIFFERENT CONFLICT TYPES ARE RESOLVED BY CONSUMERS. THIS PAPER IS STRUCTURED AS FOLLOWS: FIRST, A BRIEF THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABILITY AS WELL AS ABOUT PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFENSE MECHANISMS IS PROVIDED. SECOND, METHOD AND FINDINGS OF THE CONDUCTED IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ARE DESCRIBED. FINALLY, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ARE DISCUSSED 59
ICONA 60
We conducted 20 in-depth interviews with German consumers in an open and unstructured way. Participants were chosen according to demographic criteria, thereby varying according to age, gender, occupation as well as levels of education (table 1). To get a picture of average German consumers, very ecologically-minded individuals were not part of the sample. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. The data analysis was executed by two researchers using the standard procedure of coding and clustering the codes into higherorder categories (Creswell 2009). Comments from interviews were double-back translated. A general framework was built combining the qualitative data with theoretical background knowledge (Workman, Homburg, and Gruner 1998). 3 R E S U L T M E T H O D O L O G Y In a first step, it seems important to get a better understanding of consumer sustainability to identify areas of potential inner conflicts. Therefore, we asked participants to reflect on sustainability from a consumer’s point of view. Building on Sheth et al. (2011), we also asked them about their selfunderstanding of personal sustainability. Altogether, results reveal ecological (economic conservation, environmental preservation), social (family protection, occupational justice, social justice), and also individual facets of sustainability (physical health, mental health, economic health). Most notably, our data contribute to a first classification of consumers’ sustainability objectives and issues (table 2). Afterwards, we directed consumers to talk about their inner conflicts in the sustainability context. Our research leads to a theoretical framework (figure 1). The results suggest that conflicts, varying in terms of strength, emerge from the simultaneous presence of opposing consumption motives. Depending on the degree of conscious awareness, there is a tendency to use specific defense mechanisms to resolve conflicts for the sake of continuing unsustainable consumption behavior, or, if conflict resolution was not successful, change actual behavior. In the following, the nature of this framework will be elaborated in more detail. 61
18 62
As I write this final note, I can't help but think about the interesting trip we've been on together through the magazine's pages, as we've explored the complicated world of defense mechanisms through the lens of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis. It's been an adventure of discovery, a look into the deepest parts of our minds, where our subconscious minds weave a web of ways to deal with stress. We've learned about the subtle dance of defense mechanisms that shape how we deal with life's problems by diving deeply into Freud's ideas. It's like taking off the layers of our own minds to see the really raw and often surprising ways we shield ourselves from the hard realities of the world. We've covered the well-known topics of repression, denial, and projection in these pages. We've also touched on the more complex topics of sublimation and reasoning. Each system is like a different puzzle piece that fits into the bigger picture of our mental defenses. My hope is that as you read these pieces, you felt a connection to the complicated stories of people. Understanding these safety systems not only helps us understand why we do the things we do, but it also gives us a more understanding way to look at how other people act As this chapter comes to an end, I want you to remember these ideas. Let them stay in your mind, start discussions, and make you think more about them. In the end, studying defense systems isn't just for school; it's a window into the complicated parts of what it means to be human. We will not meet again until the pages of our next adventure. warm regards, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Hanna Ranon 63
REFERENCES ALEXANDER STITCH. TILLMAN WAGNER, (2015). FOOLING YOURSELF: THE ROLE OF INTERNAL DEFENSE MECHANISMS IN UNSUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR. GERMANY. HOWARD M. ET AL., (2020). DENIAL IN ADDICTION: TOWARD AN INTEGRATED STAGE AND PROCESS MODEL— QUALITATIVE FINDINGS. USA. CLARK, S.M, ET AL., (2015) ACCURACY AND PROJECTION IN PERCEPTIONS OF PARTNERS’ RECENT EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCES: BOTH MINDS MATTER. CHICAGO USA. KRISTA GRACE YAKUB. (2016). REACTION FORMATION AND HOMOPHOBIA: AN ERP EXAMINATION. SOUTH FLORIDA MERLO, E.M. ET AL., (2021). THE ROLE OF SUPPRESSION AND THE MAINTENANCE OF EUTHYMIA IN CLINICAL SETTINGS. ITALY. MUSTAC. F. ET AL., (2023) THE PSYCHODYNAMIC ROLE OF THE DISPLACEMENT DEFENSE MECHANISM IN PEOPLE WITH OBESITY AND ANOREXIA NERVOSA. UNITED KINGDOM. MYEONG WOO KIM. (2010). DEFENSE MECHANISMS OF STRANGER VIOLENT COLLEGE STUDENT MEN. TEXAS. GARSEN, B. (2007). REPRESSION: FINDING OUR WAY IN THE MAZE OF CONCEPTS. NETHERLANDS.