Anger and the Use of Defense Mechanisms in College Studenis Phebe Cramer Williams College ABSTRACT It was hypothesized that experimentally induced anger would result in an increased use of defense mechanisms in college students. As predicted from the theory of defense mechanism development, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) stories of angered students showed a higher level of use of projection and identification, and the use of these defenses was significantly correlated with the presence of aggressive content in the stories. The results were consistent with previous studies in showing that the predominant defenses of late adolescents are projection and identification, and that men use more projection than women.
In several recent articles (Cramer, 1987; Cramer & Blatt, 1990; Cramer, Blatt, & Ford, 1988; Cramer & Gaul, 1988), a theory of defense mechanism development has been proposed and supported by empirical studies. The theory proposes that defense mechanisms, like other ego functions, develop in a stage-related fashion. In this conception, the less complex defenses, such as denial, are predominant early in development, while the more complex defenses, such as identification, appear later. Empirical investigations have supported this theory. Denial occurs more frequently in early childhood, after which its use declines (Ames, Metraux, Rodell, & Walker, 1974; Brody, Rozek, & Muten, 1985; Cramer, 1987, 1990; Cramer & Gaul, 1988; Smith & Danielsson, 1982; Smith & Rossman, 1986). The use of projection— a defense more complex than denial—increases during later childhood and becomes predominant during adolescence (Cramer, 1987, 1990; This study was supported, in part, by funds from the Bronfman Science Center, Williams College. Address correspondence to Phebe Cramer, Department of Psychology, Williams College, Williamstown, MA 01267. Journal of Personality 59:1, March 1991. Copyright © 1991 by Duke University Press. CCC 0022-3506/91/$ 1.50
40
Cramer
Cramer&Gaul, 1988). Identification—a defense of high complexity— was found to increase gradually in use over the course of development, becoming predominant in late adolescence (Cramer, 1987, 1990). According to theory, the use of defense mechanisms should be intensified when the individual is experiencing stress or anxiety (e.g., A. Freud, 1936/1946). This has been demonstrated with school-age children by Cramer and Gaul (1988) and by Smith and Rossman (1986); both studies found an increase in the use of age-appropriate defenses (denial and projection) following experimentally induced "failure." Among preadolescents, anxiety resulting from a naturally occurring disaster was found to be especially ameliorated by the age-appropriate use of projection (Dollinger & Cramer, 1990). In adults, change in the use of defense mechanisms following experimentally induced stress has been demonstrated by Bramel (1963), by Lipp, Kolstoe, James, and Randall (1968), and by Pittner, Houston, and Spiridigliozzi (1983). In particular, experimentally induced anger has been used to study changes in defense mechanisms by Bellak (1944), by Frost and Holmes (1979), and by Kreitler and Kreitler (1972). For example, Bellak (1944) found an increase in the projection of anger in the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) stories of male college subjects, subsequent to criticism of their productions by an experimenter. Thus, both from theory and from previous research, it is reasonable to assume that experimentally induced stress or anger might increase defense use, and that different defenses might be used, depending on the developmental level of the subjects (as discussed above), on the sex of the subjects,' and on the nature of the conflict situation. There is ample information that men and women differ in the frequency with which they use different defenses; for example, men are more likely to use "turning against the object" and projection, while women are most likely to use "turning against the self" and reversal (denial).^ There is also some evidence that individuals may use different defenses in response to different types of stressful situations (e.g., Feshbach & Feshbach, 1963; Wiener, Carpenter, & Carpenter, 1956)—an idea that was suggested by Anna Freud (1936/1946) in her classification of defenses into those that were defending against objective anxiety and those that were defending against superego anxiety. 1. The question of sex differences was not considered in the earlier studies cited. In fact, several studies used only male subjects. 2. For a review of sex differences in defense use, see Cramer, 1988.
Angei and Defense Mechanisms
41
There may also be an interaction between gender and type of situation in arousing stress or anxiety. Pollack and Gilligan (1982) found that pictures connoting situations of achievement or competition were seen as more dangerous and evoked more aggression in women's stories, while pictures connoting affiliation or intimacy evoked more aggression in men's stories. Although the findings of other studies have differed from these results (e.g., Benton et al., 1983; McAdams, Lester, Brand, McNamara, & Lensky, 1988), they suggest the interesting possibility that men and women might make greater use of defense mechanisms as a function of the type of situation with which they are presented. The present study was designed primarily to investigate the effect of experimentally induced anger on the use of defense mechanisms in college students. It was expected that anger would increase the use of defenses, and especially the use ofthe age-appropriate defenses of projection and identification. As a secondary issue, the study was designed to investigate the possible relationship between gender and type of stimulus situation—either individual or interpersonal—in determining the use of defense mechanisms. METHOD Subjects Eighty college students, primarily upperclassmen, participated in the study. Subjects in the experimental group (20 men, 20 women) and the control group (20 men, 20 women) were assigned to condition on the basis of a prearranged schedule of 20 blocks of four cells, such that all four cells (Male/Female x Experimental/Control) were run before being duplicated. Subjects were paid $5 for their participation.
Materials Eight cards from the TAT were selected for projective storytelling. For purposes of this study, TAT pictures in which there were two people in close proximity constituted an "interpersonal" situation; TAT pictures in which a single person was represented comprised an "individual" situation. For the precriticism phase, the two interpersonal cards were TAT 6GF and TAT 10; the two individual cards were TAT 14 and TAT 5. The cards were presented in the order 6GF, 14, 10, and 5 to all subjects, so as to keep possible order effects constant across all subjects. For the criticism phase, the two interpersonal cards were TAT 7BM and
42
Cramer
TAT 18GF;3 the two individual cards were TAT 11 and TAT SGF" The order of presentation of these last four cards was randomized, so as to prevent a possible interaction between the stimulus situation and the cumulative effects of criticism in the experimental group.
Procedure Each subject was tested individually by an attractive, mature, female experimenter. The subject was requested to lie down on a comfortable cot in a room with low illumination. At the foot of the cot, directly focused on the subject, was a large video camera, placed there to enhance the subject's sense of being under scrutiny. In addition to this video recording, the subject's stories were recorded on audiocassette. The experimental manipulation was modeled after that of Bellak (1944). The experimenter sat behind the subject at the head of the cot. The subject could hear the experimenter's remarks, but could not see her. The session began with the experimenter explaining that the study was one of creative imagination in college students. Following this, standard TAT instructions (Murray, 1943) were given, concluding with another reference to the use of imagination. The subject then was handed the TAT cards, one at a time. At the completion of each of the first three stories, the experimenter responded in a neutral tone of voice, saying "all right" or "ok." This type of response was repeated after every subsequent story for subjects in the control group. For subjects in the experimental condition, however, after the fourth story, the experimenter expressed sharp criticism, saying: "These stories are about the worst I have ever heard. Could you try to get some better ones?" After the fifth story, the criticism was continued: "There are still no ideas in it, no life. Could you try some more?" Further criticism was given after the sixth and seventh stories. At the end of the eighth story, subjects were asked to sit up and fill out a brief questionnaire designed to assess their affective experience during the session. The questionnaire asked about their affect as they entered the experimental room, after they told their first story, and after they told their last story. In addition, subjects were asked if their feelings changed during the time they were present. Subsequent to this, the experimenter debriefed all subjects. The 640 stories obtained were transcribed, with identifying data removed, and were scored both for the presence of aggression and for the use of defense 3. TAT 18GF was slightly modified, such that the hair of one woman was redrawn and extended to cover the arm of the second woman, in an attempt to eliminate possible aggressive connotations of the picture. 4. TAT 8GF was also modified, by adding mathematical equations to the blackboard in back of the femalefigure,in order to match the achievement situation often seen in TAT 1, the other individual picture in the criticism phase.
Anger and Defense Mechanisms
43
mechanisms. Two measures of aggression were used. Aggression intensity was assessed via a 9-point scale developed by Hall and Van de Castle (1966). Each point on the scale was defined: a rating of 0 was given when no aggression was present; a rating of 1, indicating the lowest level of aggression, was defined as: "Covert feelings of hostility or anger without overt expression" (e.g., "He kept getting madder and madder but didn't say anything"). A rating of 4, indicating strong aggression, was defined as: "An aggressive act in which a serious accusation or verbal threat of harm is made against a character" (e.g., "Jim warned his boss to stop, or he would punch him in the nose"). A rating of 8, indicating intense aggression, was defined as: "An aggressive act which results in the death of a character" (e.g., "The stranger strangled the woman until she was dead"; Hall & Van de Castle, 1966, pp. 68-76). Each story was given a single aggression intensity rating based on the highest level of aggression expressed. The second measure of aggression was based on the total number of references to aggression in each story. This aggression frequency measure used both the Hall and Van de Castle (1966) scale as well as examples from the hostility scale of Whitman, Pierce, Maas, and Baldridge (1961) as criteria for the occurrence of aggression. Each instance of aggression within a story was noted; the sum of the total number of instances constituted the aggression frequency score for that story. Each story was also scored for the presence of three defense mechanisms— denial, projection, and identification—according to the defense mechanism manual developed by Cramer (1987, 1990). For each defense, there are seven categories representing different aspects ofthe defense. Each category is scored as many times as it occurs in each story. The categories for each defense are as follows: Denial; (a) statements of negation; ib) denial of reality; (c) reversal; id) misperception; ie) omission of major characters or objects; if) overly maximizing the positive or minimizing the negative; and ig) unexpected goodness, optimism, positiveness, or gentleness. Projection; (a) attribution of hostile feelings or intentions, or other normatively unusual feelings or intentions, to a character; ib) additions of ominous people, animals, objects, or qualities; (c) concern for protection from external threat; id) themes of pursuit, entrapment, and escape; ie) apprehensiveness of death, injury, or assault; if) magical or autistic thinking; and ig) bizarre story or theme. Identification; (a) emulation of skills; ib) emulation of characteristics, qualities, or attitudes; (c) regulation of motives or behavior; id) self-esteem through affiliation; (e) work; delay of gratification; if) role differentiation; and ig) moralism.' This measure of defense mechanisms has been demonstrated in previous 5. A more complete description of these categories is presented in Cramer (1990).
44
Cramer
studies to have adequate interrater reliability with children, adolescents, and adults (Cramer, 1987, 1990; Cramer et al., 1988; Cramer & Gaul, 1988).
RESULTS Effectiveness of Experimental Manipulation Two sources of information were available to determine the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation to induce anger. The first of these was the subject's response to the postexperimental questionnaire. The second was the occurrence of aggressive material in the TAT stories, as measured by the aggression intensity and the aggression frequency measures. Postexperimental questionnaire. There was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the number of subjects who reported experiencing a change in affect during the experiment, ;^'^(1) = 9.94, p < .01. Thirty-seven experimental subjects reported that their feelings had changed; of these, 31 reported their feelings had become more negative. On the other hand, 24 control subjects reported that their feelings had changed, and the majority (19) indicated that the change was toward the positive. A comparison of the direction of change in affect among those subjects in the two groups who reported change was significant, A'^(I) = 22.42, p < .01. Regarding the nature of this change, to each of the questions asked about affective experience, subjects were asked to indicate whether they felt "happy," "angry," "sad," or "anxious," by marking either no, yes, a little, or don't know. The results indicated that the experimental and control groups did not differ in the affects of anger or anxiety as they entered the room, but that after the last story there were significantly more experimental subjects reporting anger and fewer control subjects reporting anxiety, ;t'^(l) = 9.94 and 7.61, ps < .01, respectively* (see Table 1). Aggression intensity in TAT stories. To determine the reliability of the aggression intensity measure, a subset of 160 stories were rated independently by an undergraduate psychology major and an experienced 6. The;^-'^ analyses compare the number of subjects who responded "yes" or "a little" with the number who responded "no," "don't know," or gave no response.
45
Anger and Defense Mechanisms Table 1 Results of Postexperimental Questionnaire: Type of Affect Experienced on Entrance to Experiment a n d after Last Story Control subjects
Experimental subjects
Entrance Angry Anxious Happy Sad
Last story Angry Anxious Happy Sad
No response or don't know
Yes "
No
Yes"
2 30 32 8
31 6 4 25
7 4 4
31 36
7
7
14 23 19 7
18 9 12 23
8 8 8 10
1 11
1
28 13
No 36 8 2 30 34 25 8 27
No response or don't know 3 1
2 3 5 4
4 0
a. Includes subjects who checked "a little."
Ph.D. clinical psychologist.' The correlation between the two raters' scores was .97, indicating adequate interrater reliability. The pre- and postcriticism aggression intensity scores are given in Table 2. For the precriticism aggression intensity scores, multivariate tests of significance (MANOVAs) indicated no significant effects for condition, multivariate F(4,73) = .79, for sex, multivariate F(4,73) = 1.10, or for Condition x Sex, multivariate F(4,73) = .70. For the postcriticism aggression intensity scores, MANOVAs indicated a highly significant effect for condition, multivariate F{4,73) = 5.16, p < .001; the aggression ratings were higher in the experimental group. There were no significant effects for sex or for Sex x Condition, multivariate Fs(4,73) = 1.62 and .78, respectively. Aggression frequency in TAT stories. To determine the reliability of the aggression frequency measure, the subset of 160 stories were also rated independently by the two raters. The correlation between their ag-
7. t would like to thank Valerie Aronoff, who served as the experimenter, and Valerie Aronoff and Jonathan Aronoff, Ph.D., who rated the TAT stories for the presence of aggressive content.
46
Cramer Table 2 Aggression Scores: Pre- and Postcriticism, by Group Aggression intensity
Aggression frequency
Precriticism Experimetital group Mean Standard deviation
2.57 3.71
1.12 1.49
Control group Mean Standard deviation
2.55 3.59
1.50 1.58
Postcriticism Experimental group Mean Standard deviation
10.80 5.90
6.12 6.34
Control group Mean Standard deviation
5.87 3.79
2.38 2.01
gression frequency scores was .90, again indicating adequate interrater reliability. The pre- and postcriticism scores appear in Table 2. For the precriticism aggression frequency scores, MANOVAs indicated no significant effects for condition, multivariate F(4,73) = 1.92, for sex, multivariate F(4,73) = .49, or for Condition x Sex, multivariate F (4,73) = .47. For the postcriticism aggression frequency scores, MANOVAs indicated a significant effect for condition, multivariate F(4,73) = 4.55, p < .002, with higher aggression frequency ratings obtained by the experimental group. There were no significant effects for sex, or for Condition X Sex, multivariate Fs (4,73) = 1.97 and 1.69, respectively.
Use of Defense Mechanisms Preliminary analyses of the individual TAT cards revealed no clearly unambiguous affects attributable to the stimulus situation (individual or interpersonal). Thus the results from the four precriticism cards and the four postcriticism cards were combined in the following analyses. Precriticism defenses. The precriticism scores for the use of denial, projection, and identification are summarized in Table 3. In order to
in o
in o
fN —
O
— fN
'"i —
Tt- m
fN fS
•*
a3 O
5 tcriticii
i IA
Ul
n o o A 0 H
in o 00 q
O O
In several recent articles (Cramer, 1987; Cramer & Blatt, 1990; Cramer, Blatt, & Ford, 1988; Cramer & Gaul, 1988), a theory of defense mechanism development has been proposed and supported by empirical studies. The theory proposes that defense mechanisms, like other ego functions, develop in a stage-related fashion. In this conception, the less complex defenses, such as denial, are predominant early in development, while the more complex defenses, such as identification, appear later. Empirical investigations have supported this theory. Denial occurs more frequently in early childhood, after which its use declines (Ames, Metraux, Rodell, & Walker, 1974; Brody, Rozek, & Muten, 1985; Cramer, 1987, 1990; Cramer & Gaul, 1988; Smith & Danielsson, 1982; Smith & Rossman, 1986). The use of projection— a defense more complex than denial—increases during later childhood and becomes predominant during adolescence (Cramer, 1987, 1990; This study was supported, in part, by funds from the Bronfman Science Center, Williams College. Address correspondence to Phebe Cramer, Department of Psychology, Williams College, Williamstown, MA 01267. Journal of Personality 59:1, March 1991. Copyright © 1991 by Duke University Press. CCC 0022-3506/91/$ 1.50
40
Cramer
Cramer&Gaul, 1988). Identification—a defense of high complexity— was found to increase gradually in use over the course of development, becoming predominant in late adolescence (Cramer, 1987, 1990). According to theory, the use of defense mechanisms should be intensified when the individual is experiencing stress or anxiety (e.g., A. Freud, 1936/1946). This has been demonstrated with school-age children by Cramer and Gaul (1988) and by Smith and Rossman (1986); both studies found an increase in the use of age-appropriate defenses (denial and projection) following experimentally induced "failure." Among preadolescents, anxiety resulting from a naturally occurring disaster was found to be especially ameliorated by the age-appropriate use of projection (Dollinger & Cramer, 1990). In adults, change in the use of defense mechanisms following experimentally induced stress has been demonstrated by Bramel (1963), by Lipp, Kolstoe, James, and Randall (1968), and by Pittner, Houston, and Spiridigliozzi (1983). In particular, experimentally induced anger has been used to study changes in defense mechanisms by Bellak (1944), by Frost and Holmes (1979), and by Kreitler and Kreitler (1972). For example, Bellak (1944) found an increase in the projection of anger in the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) stories of male college subjects, subsequent to criticism of their productions by an experimenter. Thus, both from theory and from previous research, it is reasonable to assume that experimentally induced stress or anger might increase defense use, and that different defenses might be used, depending on the developmental level of the subjects (as discussed above), on the sex of the subjects,' and on the nature of the conflict situation. There is ample information that men and women differ in the frequency with which they use different defenses; for example, men are more likely to use "turning against the object" and projection, while women are most likely to use "turning against the self" and reversal (denial).^ There is also some evidence that individuals may use different defenses in response to different types of stressful situations (e.g., Feshbach & Feshbach, 1963; Wiener, Carpenter, & Carpenter, 1956)—an idea that was suggested by Anna Freud (1936/1946) in her classification of defenses into those that were defending against objective anxiety and those that were defending against superego anxiety. 1. The question of sex differences was not considered in the earlier studies cited. In fact, several studies used only male subjects. 2. For a review of sex differences in defense use, see Cramer, 1988.
Angei and Defense Mechanisms
41
There may also be an interaction between gender and type of situation in arousing stress or anxiety. Pollack and Gilligan (1982) found that pictures connoting situations of achievement or competition were seen as more dangerous and evoked more aggression in women's stories, while pictures connoting affiliation or intimacy evoked more aggression in men's stories. Although the findings of other studies have differed from these results (e.g., Benton et al., 1983; McAdams, Lester, Brand, McNamara, & Lensky, 1988), they suggest the interesting possibility that men and women might make greater use of defense mechanisms as a function of the type of situation with which they are presented. The present study was designed primarily to investigate the effect of experimentally induced anger on the use of defense mechanisms in college students. It was expected that anger would increase the use of defenses, and especially the use ofthe age-appropriate defenses of projection and identification. As a secondary issue, the study was designed to investigate the possible relationship between gender and type of stimulus situation—either individual or interpersonal—in determining the use of defense mechanisms. METHOD Subjects Eighty college students, primarily upperclassmen, participated in the study. Subjects in the experimental group (20 men, 20 women) and the control group (20 men, 20 women) were assigned to condition on the basis of a prearranged schedule of 20 blocks of four cells, such that all four cells (Male/Female x Experimental/Control) were run before being duplicated. Subjects were paid $5 for their participation.
Materials Eight cards from the TAT were selected for projective storytelling. For purposes of this study, TAT pictures in which there were two people in close proximity constituted an "interpersonal" situation; TAT pictures in which a single person was represented comprised an "individual" situation. For the precriticism phase, the two interpersonal cards were TAT 6GF and TAT 10; the two individual cards were TAT 14 and TAT 5. The cards were presented in the order 6GF, 14, 10, and 5 to all subjects, so as to keep possible order effects constant across all subjects. For the criticism phase, the two interpersonal cards were TAT 7BM and
42
Cramer
TAT 18GF;3 the two individual cards were TAT 11 and TAT SGF" The order of presentation of these last four cards was randomized, so as to prevent a possible interaction between the stimulus situation and the cumulative effects of criticism in the experimental group.
Procedure Each subject was tested individually by an attractive, mature, female experimenter. The subject was requested to lie down on a comfortable cot in a room with low illumination. At the foot of the cot, directly focused on the subject, was a large video camera, placed there to enhance the subject's sense of being under scrutiny. In addition to this video recording, the subject's stories were recorded on audiocassette. The experimental manipulation was modeled after that of Bellak (1944). The experimenter sat behind the subject at the head of the cot. The subject could hear the experimenter's remarks, but could not see her. The session began with the experimenter explaining that the study was one of creative imagination in college students. Following this, standard TAT instructions (Murray, 1943) were given, concluding with another reference to the use of imagination. The subject then was handed the TAT cards, one at a time. At the completion of each of the first three stories, the experimenter responded in a neutral tone of voice, saying "all right" or "ok." This type of response was repeated after every subsequent story for subjects in the control group. For subjects in the experimental condition, however, after the fourth story, the experimenter expressed sharp criticism, saying: "These stories are about the worst I have ever heard. Could you try to get some better ones?" After the fifth story, the criticism was continued: "There are still no ideas in it, no life. Could you try some more?" Further criticism was given after the sixth and seventh stories. At the end of the eighth story, subjects were asked to sit up and fill out a brief questionnaire designed to assess their affective experience during the session. The questionnaire asked about their affect as they entered the experimental room, after they told their first story, and after they told their last story. In addition, subjects were asked if their feelings changed during the time they were present. Subsequent to this, the experimenter debriefed all subjects. The 640 stories obtained were transcribed, with identifying data removed, and were scored both for the presence of aggression and for the use of defense 3. TAT 18GF was slightly modified, such that the hair of one woman was redrawn and extended to cover the arm of the second woman, in an attempt to eliminate possible aggressive connotations of the picture. 4. TAT 8GF was also modified, by adding mathematical equations to the blackboard in back of the femalefigure,in order to match the achievement situation often seen in TAT 1, the other individual picture in the criticism phase.
Anger and Defense Mechanisms
43
mechanisms. Two measures of aggression were used. Aggression intensity was assessed via a 9-point scale developed by Hall and Van de Castle (1966). Each point on the scale was defined: a rating of 0 was given when no aggression was present; a rating of 1, indicating the lowest level of aggression, was defined as: "Covert feelings of hostility or anger without overt expression" (e.g., "He kept getting madder and madder but didn't say anything"). A rating of 4, indicating strong aggression, was defined as: "An aggressive act in which a serious accusation or verbal threat of harm is made against a character" (e.g., "Jim warned his boss to stop, or he would punch him in the nose"). A rating of 8, indicating intense aggression, was defined as: "An aggressive act which results in the death of a character" (e.g., "The stranger strangled the woman until she was dead"; Hall & Van de Castle, 1966, pp. 68-76). Each story was given a single aggression intensity rating based on the highest level of aggression expressed. The second measure of aggression was based on the total number of references to aggression in each story. This aggression frequency measure used both the Hall and Van de Castle (1966) scale as well as examples from the hostility scale of Whitman, Pierce, Maas, and Baldridge (1961) as criteria for the occurrence of aggression. Each instance of aggression within a story was noted; the sum of the total number of instances constituted the aggression frequency score for that story. Each story was also scored for the presence of three defense mechanisms— denial, projection, and identification—according to the defense mechanism manual developed by Cramer (1987, 1990). For each defense, there are seven categories representing different aspects ofthe defense. Each category is scored as many times as it occurs in each story. The categories for each defense are as follows: Denial; (a) statements of negation; ib) denial of reality; (c) reversal; id) misperception; ie) omission of major characters or objects; if) overly maximizing the positive or minimizing the negative; and ig) unexpected goodness, optimism, positiveness, or gentleness. Projection; (a) attribution of hostile feelings or intentions, or other normatively unusual feelings or intentions, to a character; ib) additions of ominous people, animals, objects, or qualities; (c) concern for protection from external threat; id) themes of pursuit, entrapment, and escape; ie) apprehensiveness of death, injury, or assault; if) magical or autistic thinking; and ig) bizarre story or theme. Identification; (a) emulation of skills; ib) emulation of characteristics, qualities, or attitudes; (c) regulation of motives or behavior; id) self-esteem through affiliation; (e) work; delay of gratification; if) role differentiation; and ig) moralism.' This measure of defense mechanisms has been demonstrated in previous 5. A more complete description of these categories is presented in Cramer (1990).
44
Cramer
studies to have adequate interrater reliability with children, adolescents, and adults (Cramer, 1987, 1990; Cramer et al., 1988; Cramer & Gaul, 1988).
RESULTS Effectiveness of Experimental Manipulation Two sources of information were available to determine the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation to induce anger. The first of these was the subject's response to the postexperimental questionnaire. The second was the occurrence of aggressive material in the TAT stories, as measured by the aggression intensity and the aggression frequency measures. Postexperimental questionnaire. There was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the number of subjects who reported experiencing a change in affect during the experiment, ;^'^(1) = 9.94, p < .01. Thirty-seven experimental subjects reported that their feelings had changed; of these, 31 reported their feelings had become more negative. On the other hand, 24 control subjects reported that their feelings had changed, and the majority (19) indicated that the change was toward the positive. A comparison of the direction of change in affect among those subjects in the two groups who reported change was significant, A'^(I) = 22.42, p < .01. Regarding the nature of this change, to each of the questions asked about affective experience, subjects were asked to indicate whether they felt "happy," "angry," "sad," or "anxious," by marking either no, yes, a little, or don't know. The results indicated that the experimental and control groups did not differ in the affects of anger or anxiety as they entered the room, but that after the last story there were significantly more experimental subjects reporting anger and fewer control subjects reporting anxiety, ;t'^(l) = 9.94 and 7.61, ps < .01, respectively* (see Table 1). Aggression intensity in TAT stories. To determine the reliability of the aggression intensity measure, a subset of 160 stories were rated independently by an undergraduate psychology major and an experienced 6. The;^-'^ analyses compare the number of subjects who responded "yes" or "a little" with the number who responded "no," "don't know," or gave no response.
45
Anger and Defense Mechanisms Table 1 Results of Postexperimental Questionnaire: Type of Affect Experienced on Entrance to Experiment a n d after Last Story Control subjects
Experimental subjects
Entrance Angry Anxious Happy Sad
Last story Angry Anxious Happy Sad
No response or don't know
Yes "
No
Yes"
2 30 32 8
31 6 4 25
7 4 4
31 36
7
7
14 23 19 7
18 9 12 23
8 8 8 10
1 11
1
28 13
No 36 8 2 30 34 25 8 27
No response or don't know 3 1
2 3 5 4
4 0
a. Includes subjects who checked "a little."
Ph.D. clinical psychologist.' The correlation between the two raters' scores was .97, indicating adequate interrater reliability. The pre- and postcriticism aggression intensity scores are given in Table 2. For the precriticism aggression intensity scores, multivariate tests of significance (MANOVAs) indicated no significant effects for condition, multivariate F(4,73) = .79, for sex, multivariate F(4,73) = 1.10, or for Condition x Sex, multivariate F(4,73) = .70. For the postcriticism aggression intensity scores, MANOVAs indicated a highly significant effect for condition, multivariate F{4,73) = 5.16, p < .001; the aggression ratings were higher in the experimental group. There were no significant effects for sex or for Sex x Condition, multivariate Fs(4,73) = 1.62 and .78, respectively. Aggression frequency in TAT stories. To determine the reliability of the aggression frequency measure, the subset of 160 stories were also rated independently by the two raters. The correlation between their ag-
7. t would like to thank Valerie Aronoff, who served as the experimenter, and Valerie Aronoff and Jonathan Aronoff, Ph.D., who rated the TAT stories for the presence of aggressive content.
46
Cramer Table 2 Aggression Scores: Pre- and Postcriticism, by Group Aggression intensity
Aggression frequency
Precriticism Experimetital group Mean Standard deviation
2.57 3.71
1.12 1.49
Control group Mean Standard deviation
2.55 3.59
1.50 1.58
Postcriticism Experimental group Mean Standard deviation
10.80 5.90
6.12 6.34
Control group Mean Standard deviation
5.87 3.79
2.38 2.01
gression frequency scores was .90, again indicating adequate interrater reliability. The pre- and postcriticism scores appear in Table 2. For the precriticism aggression frequency scores, MANOVAs indicated no significant effects for condition, multivariate F(4,73) = 1.92, for sex, multivariate F(4,73) = .49, or for Condition x Sex, multivariate F (4,73) = .47. For the postcriticism aggression frequency scores, MANOVAs indicated a significant effect for condition, multivariate F(4,73) = 4.55, p < .002, with higher aggression frequency ratings obtained by the experimental group. There were no significant effects for sex, or for Condition X Sex, multivariate Fs (4,73) = 1.97 and 1.69, respectively.
Use of Defense Mechanisms Preliminary analyses of the individual TAT cards revealed no clearly unambiguous affects attributable to the stimulus situation (individual or interpersonal). Thus the results from the four precriticism cards and the four postcriticism cards were combined in the following analyses. Precriticism defenses. The precriticism scores for the use of denial, projection, and identification are summarized in Table 3. In order to
in o
in o
fN —
O
— fN
'"i —
Tt- m
fN fS
•*
a3 O
5 tcriticii
i IA
Ul
n o o A 0 H
in o 00 q
O O
