مدل‌سازی معادله ساختاری سازمان شخصیت مرزی و روابط موضوعی: بررسی نقش واسطه‌ای مکانیزم‌های دفاعی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه روانشناسی عمومی، واحد قم، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قم، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه روانشناسی، واحد قم، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قم، ایران.

چکیده

سازمان شخصیت مرزی به‌عنوان یکی از سطوح شخصیت از نگاه کرنبرگ است که با هویت آشفته و مکانیسم‌های دفاعی ابتدایی مثل جداسازی مشخص می‌شود. پژوهش حاضر با هدف تبیین سازمان شخصیت مرزی براساس روابط موضوعی اولیه، و مکانیزم‌های دفاعی انجام شد. این پژوهش از نوع توصیفی بود که به روش همبستگی انجام شد. جامعه آماری شامل کلیه دانشجویان دوره کارشناسی و کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه‌‌های تهران در سال تحصیلی 1400-1401 بود، که 412 نفر از آنها با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری در دسترس انتخاب شدند. شرکت کنندگان پرسش‌نامه‌های روابط موضوعی، سازمان شخصیت مرزی و مقیاس مکانیزم-های دفاعی را تکمیل کردند. مدل‌یابی معادلات ساختاری با استفاده از داده‌های بدست آمده از پرسش‌نامه‌ها انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد که روابط موضوعی به‌طور مستقیم ۲۲/0 درصد و به واسطه مقاومت‌پذیری ۳۸/0 درصد از ساختار شخصیت مرزی را تبیین می‌کند. در مجموع، برآورد مدل ساختاری که در آن روابط موضوعی متغیر پیش‌بین و مکانیزم‌های دفاعی به عنوان متغیر میانجی وارد مدل شدند، نشان داد که این مدل 22/0 درصد از ساختار شخصیت مرزی را تبیین می‌کند. بنابراین می‌توان چنین نتیجه‌گیری نمود که سازمان شخصیت مرزی هم به‌صورت مستقیم و هم غیرمستقیم از طریق مکانیزم‌های دفاعی، توسط روابط موضوعی به صورت منفی تبیین می‌گردد.
واژه‌های کلیدی: روابط موضوعی اولیه، ساختار شخصیت مرزی، مکانیزم دفاعی

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Structural Equation Modeling of Borderline Personality Organization and Object Relations: Investigating the Mediator Role of Defense Mechanisms

نویسندگان [English]

  • Faezeh Naseh Jahaghi 1
  • Hasan Mirza Hoseini 2
  • Nader Monirpoor 2
1 Ph.D. student, Department of General Psychology, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Borderline personality organization is one of Kernberg's personality levels that is characterized by Diffused Identity and basic defense mechanisms such as spiliting. The present study aimed to explain the border personality organization based on the initial object relations and defense mechanisms. The research method was a descriptive and correlational. The statistical population included all undergraduate and graduate students of Tehran universities in the academic year 2021-22, for this purpose, 412 of these students were selected using the available sampling method. In order to collect data, Participants completed the Object Relations Questionnaire, The Kernberg Personality Inventory Questionnaire (IPO), and Defense Mechanisms Scale (DSQ-40). Structural equation modeling was used. The results showed that object relations was directly explained 0.22% of the dispersion of the scores of Borderline Personality Organization and in addition, resilience was explained 0.38% of the borderline personality Organization . In addition, the results of this study, estimating the structural model in which the object relations as an independent variable and defense mechanisms were entered the model as mediator variables, showed that this model explains 0.22% of the borderline personality Organization. Therefore, this research can be concluded that the borderline personality organization is directly and indirectly was explained negatively by object relations through defense mechanisms.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Primary Object Relations
  • Borderline Personality Organization
  • Defense Mechanism

مراجع

صمیمی، زینب؛ احتشام­زاده، پروین و پاشا، غلامرضا (1391). مقایسه تاب‌آوری و سلامت روان کارکنان تولید، تعمیرات بخش (احیاءمستقیم) و کارکنان امور اداری شرکت فولاد خوزستان. فصلنامه روان­شناسی تحلیلی شناختی. 3 (11): 73-61.
هادی­نژاد، حسن؛ طباطبائیان، مریم و دهقانی، محمود (1393). بررسی مقدماتی روایی و پایایی پرسشنامه روابط موضوعی و واقعیت آزمایی بل. مجله روانپزشکی و روانشناسی بالینی ایران. 20(2). 162-169.
Abbass, A (2015). "Reaching through resistance: Advanced psychotherapy techniques”. Kansas City, MO: Seven Leaves.
Al Behbahani, M., & Mohammadi, N. (2007). Review the psychometric properties of the Kronberg character organization log. Journal of psychology, 11(2), 195-185.
Andersen, B., LaVoie, J. C., & Dunkel, C. S. (2007). Individuation and parents as people: Measurement concerns regarding two aspects of autonomy. Journal of Adolescence, 30(5), 751-760.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Balikci, A., Erdem, M., Bolu, A., Oznur, T., & Celik, C. (2014). Defense Mechanisms in Endogenous Depression. Journal of Arastirma/Original Article, 56, 154-158.
Bell, M. D. (2003). Bell Object Relations Inventory for Adolescents and Children: Reliability, validity, and factorial invariance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 19-25
Berney, S., Roten, Y, D., Beretta, V., Kramer, U., & Despland, J, N. (2014). Identifying Psychotic Defenses in a Clinical Interview. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70 (5), 428-439.
Besharat, M. A., Ramesh, S., & Moghimi, E. (2018). Spiritual health mediates the relationship between ego-strength and adjustment to heart disease. Health psychology open, 5(1), 2055102918782176.
Blackman, J. S. (2003). Dynamic supervision concerning a patient’s request for medication. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 72(2), 469-475.
Caligor, E., Kernberg, O. F., & Clarkin, J. F. (2007). Handbook of dynamic psychotherapy for higher level personality pathology. American Psychiatric Pub.
Caligor, E., Kernberg, O. F., & Clarkin, J. F. (2007). Handbook of dynamic psychotherapy for higher level personality pathology. American Psychiatric Pub.
Chou, C. P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling.
Clarkin, J. F., Lenzenweger, M. F., Yeomans, F., Levy, K. N., & Kernberg, O. F. (2007). An object relations model of borderline pathology. Journal of personality disorders, 21(5), 474-499.
Drapeau, M., Thompson, K., Petraglia, J., Thygesen, K. L., & Lecours, S. (2011). Defense mechanisms and gender: An examination of two models of defensive functioning derived from the Defense Style Questionnaire. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 11(1), 149-155.
Dziegielewski, S.F. (2010). DSM-IV-TR in action. New Jersey: John Wily & Sons, Inc.
Eurelings-Bontekoe, E. H., Luyten, P., IJssennagger, M., van Vreeswijk, M., & Koelen, J. (2010). Relationship between personality organization and Young’s cognitive model of personality pathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(3), 198-203.
Granieri, A., La Marca, L., Mannino, G., Giunta, S., Guglielmucci, F., & Schimmenti, A. (2017). The relationship between defense patterns and DSM-5 maladaptive personality domains. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1926.
Greenberg, M. (1983). " Horace", Classicism and Female Trouble. Romanic Review, 74(3), 271.
Handelzalts, J. E., Fisher, S., & Naot, R. (2014). Object relations and real-life relationships: A cross method assessment. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55, 160-167.
Hanif, R., Kliewer, W., & Riaz, R. (2019). Personality traits differentiate Pakistani males in recovery versus relapse from substance use disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 226-228.
Hébert, E., Diguer, L., Descôteaux, J., Daoust, J. P., Rousseau, J. P., Normandin, L., & Scullion, M. (2003). "The Personality Organization Diagnostic Form (Podf): A Preliminary Report on Its Validity and Interrater Reliability". Psychotherapy Research., Vol. 13(2): 243–254.
Hibbard, S., & Porcerelli, J. (1998). Further validation for the Cramer Defense Mechanism Manual. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 460-483.
Hoek, H. W. (1995). The distribution of eating disorders. Eating disorders and obesity: A comprehensive handbook, 207-211.
Jamil, L., Atef Vahid, M., Dehghani, M., & Habibi, M. (2015). The mental health through psychodynamic perspective: The relationship between the ego strength, the defense styles, and the object relations to mental health. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, 21(2), 144-154.
Jun, J.Y., Lee, Y.G., Lee, H., Yoo, S.Y., Song, J & Kim, S.J. (2015), Association between Defense Mechanisms and Psychiatric Symptoms in North Korean Refugees. Journal of Comprehensive Psychiatric, 56, 179-187.
Kernberg, O. F. (1984). The couch at sea: Psychoanalytic studies of group and organizational leadership. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 34(1), 5-23.
Kernberg, O. F. (2015, January). Neurobiological correlates of object relations theory: The relationship between neurobiological and psychodynamic development. In International Forum of Psychoanalysis (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 38-46). Routledge.
Kovács, L. N., Schmelowszky, Á., Galambos, A., & Kökönyei, G. (2021). Rumination mediates the relationship between personality organization and symptoms of borderline personality disorder and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110339.
Kramer, U., de Roten, Y., Perry, J. C., Despland, J. N. (2013). Beyond splitting: observer-rated defense mechanisms in borderline personality disorder. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 30: 3-15.
Larsen, A., Bøggild, H., Mortensen, J. T., Foldager, L., Hansen, J., Christensen, A., ... & Munk-Jørgensen, P. (2010). Psychopathology, defence mechanisms, and the psychosocial work environment. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 56(6), 563-577.
Lenzenweger, M. F., Clarkin, J. F., Kernberg, O. F., & Foelsch, P. A. (2001). The inventory of personality organization: psychometric properties, factorial composition, and criterion relations with affect, aggressive dyscontrol, psychosis proneness, and self-domains in a nonclinical sample. Psychological assessment, 13(4), 577.
Millon, T., Millon, C. M., Meagher, S. E., Grossman, S. D., & Ramnath, R. (2012). Personality disorders in modern life. John Wiley & Sons.
Miranda, B., & Louza, M.R. (2015). The Physician`s Quality of life: Relationship with Ego Defense Mechanisms and Object Relations. Journal of Comprehensive Psychiatry, 63, 22-29.
Perry, J. C., Presniak, M. D., & Olson, T. R. (2013). Defense mechanisms in schizotypal, borderline, antisocial, and narcissistic personality disorders. Psychiatry, 76(1), 31-52.
Presniak, M. D., Olson, T. R., & MacGregor, M. W. (2010). The role of defense mechanisms in borderline and antisocial personalities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 137-145.
Rinkinen, J., Jalas, M., & Shove, E. (2015). Object relations in accounts of everyday life. Sociology, 49(5), 870-885.
Russo, S. & Amnå, E. (2016). “The personality divide: Do personality traits differentially predict online political engagement?”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol.34, No.3, 259-277.
Scharff, J. S. (2013). Psychoanalysis online: mental health. Teletherapy and Training.
Weinschenk, A. C. (2017). “Big five personality traits, political participation, and civic engagement: Evidence from 24 countries”, Social Science Quarterly, Vol.98, No.5, 1406-1421.
Westen, D. (1991). Social cognition and object relations. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 429-455.

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 27 بهمن 1400
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 11 فروردین 1401
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 29 فروردین 1401

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار