See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225374929

Control Processes and Defense Mechanisms

Article  in  The Journal of psychotherapy practice and research · October 1992

Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
12 276

6 authors, including:

Mardi Horowitz Bram Fridhandler

University of California, San Francisco Independent Researcher
231 PUBLICATIONS   19,544 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   358 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

John Christopher Perry Michael Bond

McGill University McGill University
170 PUBLICATIONS   7,113 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   2,805 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Adult personality growth and assessment of level of current social cognitive capacities View project

change in defenses and coping in recurrent major depression in relation to outcome View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Christopher Perry on 30 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

REGULAR ARTICLES

Control Processes
and Defense Mechanisms

MARDI HoROWITz, M.D.

STEVEN COOPER, PH.D.
BRAM FRIDJIANDLER, Pu.D.
J. CIIRIsT0PIIER PERRY, M.D.
MIChAEl. BOND, M.D.
GEOR;i VAILLANT, M.D.

Defense-mechanism theoy and control- P atients

expression
in psychotherapy
of key concerns
often ward
to avoid
off
process theoiy are related psychodynamic ap-
proaches to explaining and classifying how emotional upset. Clinicians observe such
defensive maneuvers and facilitate safe con-
people ward off emotional upsets. Although
frontations with what is being avoided. An
both theories explain defensive maneuvers in
understanding of how control processes ac-
the same motivational terms, each defines
complish defensive aims can help clinicians
categories dfferent1y. Classic categories de- make precise interventions. This article pre-
fine defense mechanisms at a relatively mac- sents a clinical example with microanalysis of
roscopic level, whereas control-process theoiy control processes and habitual defense
aims at relatively microgenetic analysis of mechanisms. The goal is to clarify and ad-
how cognitive maneuvers-involving what vance theory in this area, integrating cogni-
is thought, how it is thought, and how it is tive and psychodynamic points of view.
organized-may generate defensive states.
B A (: K C R 0 F N D
The theories are not contradictoiy, but they
are foc-used on different levels of observation;
Freud initially referred to defense and re-
it is useful to compare how these classifica-
pression as one and the same’3 and later
tions are applied to specific case material. described additional unconscious, self-
regulatory stratagems.4 The term defense mech-
anisms and a classification of these mecha-
nisms was then offered by Anna Freud.5
Additional defenses were defined and empir-
ically verified.” Meanwhile, Kroeber’2 and

ReceivedJanuary 14, 1992; revised March 16, 1992; ac-

cepted March 16, 1992. From Langley Porter Psychiatric
Institute, University ofCalifornia, San Francisco. Address
reprint requests to Dr. Horowitz, Box 0984, Langley
Porter Psychiatric Institute, 401 Parnassus Avenue, San
Francisco, CA 94143.
Copyright © 1992 American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

VOLUME 1 NUMBER
#{149} 4. FALL 1992
HoRowITz fT AL. 325

Haan’3”4 developed cognitive theory, in sion toward others. A fa#{231}adeof overt compli-
which various types of control processes were ance masks covert resistance toward others.
defined and categorized according to behav-
ioral results. Horowitz’5”6 modified that ap- Displacement: The individual deals with emo-
proach, defining levels of control processes tional conflicts or internal or external
in terms of regulations of attention to mental stressors by generalizing or redirecting a feel-
contents, forms of representation or expres- ing about or a response to an object onto
sion, and schemas of self and others as orga- another, usually less threatening, object. The
nizations of different states in which a topic person using displacement may or may not
might be contemplated or acted upon. In be aware that the affect or impulse expressed
microanalyses of repression,’7”8 undoing,’9 toward the displaced object was really meant
devaluation ,20 role-reversal,2’ and splitting, for someone else.
Horowitz indicated how the classic psychoan-
alytic mechanisms of defense resulted from Devaluation: The individual deals with emo-
the convergence of several simultaneous cog- tional conflicts or internal or external
nitive control processes. stressors by attributing exaggeratedly nega-
To continue to relate cognitive control- tive qualities to self or others. Unlike reaction
process theory to psychodynamic defense- formation, devaluation may conceal admira-
mechanisms theory, we chose to study a single tion or positive feelings toward others.
case in a microanalytic way. We began by
reviewing classifications of defense mecha- Projection: The individual deals with emo-
nisms and control processes. Then some of tional conflicts or internal or
external
us (J.C.P., G.V., M.B., S.C.) located defensive stressors by falsely attributing his or her own
episodes from an hour of a video-recorded unacknowledged feelings, impulses, or
psychotherapy. Each episode was thenjudged thoughts to others. The subject disavows feel-
in relation to a defense-mechanisms classifi- ings, intentions, or experience by means of
cation (J.C.P., G.V., M.B., S.C.) and a control- attributing them to others, usually others by
process classification (M.H., B.F.). whom the subject feels threatened and with
We define the terms of each type of clas- whom the subject feels some affinity.
sification and then present microanalyzed
examples. Definition of Terms:
Control Processes
Definition of Terms:
Defense Mechanisms During the communicative process of
psychotherapy the patient is asked to disclose
Many defense mechanisms have been de- all contents of consciousness. By observing
scribed. We will focus on the four that were the effort to do so, the clinician can observe
most frequently observed in moments of expressions, resistances, and changes
heightened defensiveness in our case illustra- microgenetically. Mental content disclosed in
tion. The defenses were passive aggression, one moment may be obscured, distorted, or
displacement, devaluation, and projection, retracted in the next. Generations of psycho-
each defined by Perry and Cooper8 in a con- dynamic clinicians have observed these short-
tent analysis manual as follows: order shifts in expression but have found
them difficult to locate within the classic cat-
Passive Aggression: The individual deals with egories of defense mechanisms. The defini-
emotional conflicts or internal or external tions that follow describe these shifts in terms
stressors by indirectly, unassertively, and of more specific cognitive operations. The
often self-detrimentally expressing aggres- categories are listed in Table 1.

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

326 CoNTROL PROCESSES

Control processes will be defined in classifies maneuvers that shift organized

three sectors of cognitive operations. The structures of knowledge in the domain of
first sector is control of content, that is, selec- internalized object relations. These moves
tion of the content that will be expressed as include various maneuvers to shift self-image
actions, ideas, and feelings. The second sec- and alter inner models of relationships, as
tor is control of form, the formal properties well as changes of enduring but contradictory
of representing and sequencing these ac- attitudes within repertoires. A detailed case
tions, ideas, and feelings. The third sector is illustration of control-process analysis follows
control of repertoires of schematization; it the definitions.

TABLE!. Cognitive operations in the control process

Control of Content 4. Action planning:

1.Focus of attention: Settings for level of action planning may vary
The setpoint for attentional focus determines in from using thought as non-action, to thought as
part the probabilities for the next topics for trial action, to rehearsals of action, to reflexive
conscious representation. actions.
2. Concepts: 5. Arowsalorvigilance leveL
Shifts in settings at this level may facilitate or The setting of arousal level involves thresholds
inhibit different types of concepts relative to one for excitation or dampening of how various
another. The settings will affect how a chain of systems react to input from other systems.
concepts on the topic of attention is formed and
Control of Repertoires of Schematization
represented.
1. Self schemas:
3. Appraisal of importance of a chain of con cepL:
In any state of mind one of several potential self
Chains of concepts are weighed for their relative
schemas tends to be dominant. Shifting which
importance in terms of their implications for the
schema is primed may change the state of mind.
motives or intentions of self and others. By
shifting the appraisal and valuation of a chain of 2. Otherpersonschemas:
concepts, a person can alter the emotional Shifting which schema is primed will affect how
consequences of ideas, memories, fantasies, or the behaviors, intentions, and motives of the
plans that are involved. other person are interpreted.

4. Threshold for decision or interruption: 3. Role-relationship modetc:

One may change the setting of the threshold for By shifting which role-relationship model is used
shifting attention to a new topic, allowing a for interpreting an interpersonal situation a
point of decision or interruption. person may change mood, states, plans, and
actions, and may alter how a topic is
Control of Form contemplated.
1. Modes of representation: 4. Value schemas (thtic roles):
These settings determine the ratio of words, The appraisal of a topic, chain of concepts, or
quasi-sensory images, and enactions in the remembered action sequence includes
sphere of conscious representation. judgments in relation to values. The judgments
2. Time span: can range from harsh to accepting views.
The setting of time span establishes a focus for Judgments can be experienced in thought as if
considering a topic in terms of past, present or they were made by critics. By shifting schemas
future as well as a temporal range from very and values a person may vary the degree of
short to very long periods. praise and blame.
3. Qua1iy of logical contemplation: 5. Executive-agency schemas:
The setting for type of logic and organization A person may view the body and mind as that of
determines in part the forms that will be used an individual (I, me) or as that belonging to
for the simultaneous and sequential another person or larger group (we). Shifts in
organization of concepts. The forms used may how topics are viewed may occur with changes in
vary from the logic of rational problem solving which executive schemas are currently primed.
to reverie-like rules.

VOLUME 1 NUMBER
#{149} 4. FALL 1992
HoRowITz ETAL. 327

Control of Content: Control processes that chains of concepts. The relative weight-
can alter content include four levels of regu- ing for importance of alternative
lation. These can control 1) shifts in the focus chains of concepts will determine, in
of attention, 2) shifts in concepts within and part, the course of information process-
frames around that focus, 3) shifts in the rel- ing and whether or not changes in in-
ative weighing of the importance of concepts ternalized knowledge structure will
to the self, and 4) decisions to shift the focus occur after new life events.
of attention to another topic. These levels of 4. Shifting the Threshold for Decision on
control of content are defined as follows: a Focus of Attention: One may change
the threshold for shifting attention to a
1. Shifting the Focus of Attention: Atten- new topic, allowing an interruption.
tion can be disengaged from one focus Such shifts may occur on completion of
and reengaged on another. The as- processing a topic or to avoid accelerat-
sumption is that topics of importance ing emotional tension when a topic is
are contained in a storage of intentions conflictual.
and that they may be selectively inhib-
ited or facilitated relative to one an- Control of Form: Control processes that can
other. The selected topic for alter the form of thought and expression
representation will affect the direction include five levels of regulation. These can
of perception, thought, and action. control shifts in 1) the modes of representa-
2. Shifting Concepts: Concepts are ele- tion, 2) the time span under contemplation,
ments of meaning within an overall 3) the logic for contemplation, 4) the level of
topic. These elements may be derived access to action, and 5) vigilance.
from external perception, internal sen-
sation, and stored internal knowledge. 1. Shifting Modes of Representation: The
Control processes may facilitate or in- setting of modes of representation de-
hibit different types of concepts relative termines the ratio of words, quasi-
to one another, and that will affect how sensory images, and inactions in the
a sequence of concepts is expressed. sphere of conscious representation.
The frame of attention may range from Controls may emphasize verbal or non-
wide to narrow, amplifying, diminish- verbal modes as well as the degree of
ing, or even excluding concepts associ- translation or nontranslation across
ated with a given topic. This can affect modes.
how one topic is linked to or segre- 2. Shifting Time Span: The setting of time
gated from another topic. span establishes a focus for considering
3. Shifting the Appraisal of Importance of a topic in terms of past, present, or fu-
a Chain of Concepts: Chains of con- ture as well as a temporal range from
cepts are weighed for their relative im- very short to very long periods. A short
portance to the safety, status, pleasure, span primes for the here and now; a
or displeasure motives of the self and long span primes for reconstructing
others. By shifting the appraisal and val- past memories and reconsidering fu-
uation of a chain of concepts, a person ture implications.
can alter the emotional consequences 3. Shifting Logic Level: The setting for
of the ideas, memories, fantasies, or type of logic determines in part the
plans that are involved. The signifi- forms that will be used for the simulta-
cance to the self and others of a given neous and sequential organization of
chain of concepts can be exaggerated concepts. The forms may vary from the
or minimized relative to alternative logic of rational problem solving to the

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

328 CONTROL PROCESSES

rules for magical and primary-process interpersonal schematizations called

reasoning. role-relationship models. These in-
4. Shifting Level of Action Planning: Set- clude expected sequences of action
tings for level of action planning may and reaction (e.g., “If! am trusting, the
vary from using thought as non-action, other person will exploit me”). By alter-
to thought as trial action, to rehearsals ing which role-relationship model is
of action, to direct action. used for interpreting an interpersonal
5. Shifting Vigilance: The setting of vigi- situation, a person may change mood,
lance level involves thresholds for exci- state, plans, and actions and may alter
tation or dampening of various systems how a topic is contemplated.
of mental activity, especially those for 4. Shifting Value Schemas (Critic Roles):
external perception. The appraisal of a topic, chain of con-
cepts, or remembered action sequence
Control of Repertoires of Schematization: Each includes judgments in relation to val-
individual has repertoires of schemas of both ues. This critical appraisal can lead to
self and others that may be called person sche- pride or shame, esteem or guilt. The
mas.226 Schemas within a repertoire may be judgments can range from harsh to ac-
primed or dampened. Control processes can cepting views. Judgments can be experi-
alter the primacy of certain 1) self schemas, enced in thought as if they were made
2) schemas of others, 3) role-relationship by critics (self as self-critic and/or oth-
models, 4) value schemas, and 5) schemas of ers). A person may have, as schematic
executive agency. structures, introjects of people, spirits,
or ideological groups. By altering
1. Shifting Self Schemas: We assume each which schemas and which sets of values
individual has a repertoire of multiple are currently amplified, a person may
schematizations of self. In any state of vary the degree of praise and blame.
mind one of several potential self sche- 5. Shifting Executive-Agency Schemas: A
mas tends to be dominant. Altering person may view the body and mind as
which schema is primed may change belonging to an individual (I, me) or as
the state of mind, how topics are belonging to another person or larger
thought about, and how actions are group (we). For example, a person may
planned and carried out. prime as his or her current executive
2. Shifting Other-Person Schemas: We as- agency an “I” or a “we” (marital unit,
sume that each person can view an- family, group, ideology, tribe, nation)
other person in terms of a variety of that transcends the framework of his or
roles, characteristics, and attributes. Al- her individuality. Shifts in emotionality
tering which schema (e.g., nurturing and in how topics are viewed may occur
parent versus neglectful caretaker) is with changes in the executive schemas
primed from this repertoire will affect that are currently primed.
how the behaviors, intentions, and mo-
tives of the other person are viewed. By CASE ILLUSTRATION

altering the schemas selected for inter-

preting the other person, a subject may Subject
alter emotional responses during inter-
personal situations. The patient was a young married woman
3. Shifting Role-Relationship Models: with children, who had suffered from social
Schemas of self and other and scripts phobia for several years. She responded to an
for interaction may be combined into advertisement for subjects with such condi-

VOLUME 1 #{149}
NUMBER 4. FALL 1992
HoRowITz ETAL. 329

tions who would be seen in a research context receive excessive attention, and then be sex-
involving videotaped psychotherapy. The ually abused and abandoned when she be-
time-unlimited psychodynamic psychother- came enthralled and excited.
apy was conducted by an experienced clini- She expected that becoming enthralled
cian twice a week for 50-minute sessions. The and excited would lead to dreaded conse-
few minutes of dialogue to be reported came quences. She would be abused, then become
from an hour during the third month of this enraged at the person who victimized her,
treatment. A larger-scale review makes it pos- then feel shame and fear at undercontrol of
sible to summarize briefly what topics and rage, along with guilt about experiencing or
feelings were defensively warded off during expressing this rage. An aspect of shame
these few minutes from the beginning of the would be humiliation that she had let the
session and what the patient’s purposes were sequence of events happen. Eventually, after
in warding them off. the period of interest and then exploitation,
The patient was warding off entry into a she expected dejection and depression at
state characterized by feelings of intense being abandoned as worthless. One way to
shame and ideas that she had performed or ward off such scenarios was to retreat to a
acted so badly that she would be humiliated withdrawn, suspiciously guarded state of
before scornful others. She had a recurrent mind in which, if approached, she would
maladaptive interpersonal pattern of seeking respond querulously with challenges or sar-
the interest of mentor figures such as teach- casm to fend off the other person’s interest.
ers and older friends. When she saw signs of In the hour before the one we microana-
gaining their interest, she would become lyzed, the patient conveyed to her therapist
afraid of entering a state of undercontrolled, recognition of some aspects of these recur-
enthralled excitement. She expected that she rent patterns as she experienced them in her
would act badly, leading to unbearable humil- transference reactions. She was able to speak
iation. She tended to enact this pattern again about ideas and feelings that she did not
as a transference reaction with her older male ordinarily express. Between that hour and
therapist. the present one, she observed herself enter-
To avoid a dreaded state of shame (or- ing an angry and petulant mood. She felt she
ganized by a worthless, degraded, weak self had exposed herself too much.
schema) she protected herself with states of
surly sarcasm (organized by a stronger self Rating Scales
schema as a critical observer of others), irri-
table whining (self schema as a disappointed The patient filled out rating scales after
but needy person), or withdrawal (schema of every therapy session as a part of the research.
self as an eccentric loner). Each of these She rated the session on which we focus here
states was experienced as less dangerous than as “pretty good” but indicated that she had
the desired state of excitement and its oblig- “considered not coming” to the session. She
atory linkage to the threatening conse- checked off that she felt “well understood” by
quences of humiliation. the therapist. The most useful thing the ther-
There was also an alternate cycle of ex- apist did, she wrote, was to be “not judg-
citement leading to humiliation. Once she mental about what I was talking to him
was enthralled, the other might abuse and about.” The affect that she rated as occurring
abandon her. Included in the scenario being to a “major extent” during the hour was
warded off by control processes was a path anger. On ratings of the therapeutic alliance27
on which she would behave as an enticing for the hour, the patient indicated that she
and talented adolescent before mentors, be felt “quite a bit” pressured by the therapist to
mistaken for a sexually interested woman, make changes before she was ready but also

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

330 CONTRol. PROCESSES

felt that the therapist accepted and respected Passive Aggression: The opening remark of
her “quite a bit.” the session was made by the patient: “I am
more jumpy than usual.” The therapist re-
Process Note sponded: “Is it because of what we have been
talking about?” The patient replied, “I don’t
In his process note, the therapist re- think it matters what we talk about,” and then
ported that he found the patient more angry paused at length.
and complaining and less seductive than in Breaking the silence, she said, “I went to
previous hours. He believed she had become bed mad and when I woke up I was still mad.”
angry and petulant after the previous therapy The therapist said, “Do you know what
hour because she may have felt that she had about?” She replied, “Ostensibly it was
revealed too much and then felt “toyed with about. . . . “ and then related an argument
or trivialized” by him. He felt that “angry she had had with her husband, which within
petulance” itself was being used to ward off a minute she said was a symbol of something
the otherwise increasingly “intense positive else. The transcript, and a parenthetical para-
transference” that was frightening to her be- phrase of what was meant, are shown at the
cause of its intensity. left in Figure 1.
The key feature in identifying this as pas-
Defense Mechanisms sive aggression was her statement, “I don’t
think it matters what we talk about” in re-
Four defense mechanisms were rated as sponse to the therapist’s question about why
the most repetitive ones within the total 62 she might feel jumpy. She stated this response
instances of defensive responses located in in a manner that seemed meant to frustrate.
this 50-minute therapy session. These were 1) The silence, followed by her saying she was
passive aggression (12 instances), 2) displace- and perhaps is still mad, pointed to the “ag-
ment (9 instances), 3) devaluation (11 in- gression” component in the passive stance of
stances), and 4) projection (7 instances). The walling off the therapist.
first instance of each defense mechanism was In the control-process analysis of the
selected for microanalytic exposition in this same episode, the first step was to infer the
article. purpose of shifting levels of control. The epi-

FIGURE!. Modeling the episode of passive aggression.

Change Points of Controls

Speaker Statement (Paraphrase)
Focus of Attention Concepts Role-Relationship Models
Patent I’m more jumpy than Her jumpy mood More jumpy Self Other
usual wants attention
Therapist: Is ft because of what Linkage to
rastrint)
trusng trustworthy
weve been talking about relationsh)
vulnerable helps therapist
(anxious aspects el ott
patent
relationship discussed in
last hour)?
Change Change Change
Patent I don think ft matters Frustration wfth To whom does Self Other
what we talk about. (I and therapy this dialogue
what I say do nct matter matter infenor
enough to you, so I say vulnerable 4e( superior

in a way that matters to

youarenottalkingtome
me.)
) provocation therapist

VOLUME 1 NUMBER
#{149} 4. FALL 1992
HoRowITz ETAL. 331

sode in question pivoted on the statement, “I her inner working model of the dialogue
don’t think it matters what we talk about,” between herself and the therapist. We in-
made in a withdrawn, guarded, querulous ferred that when she presented the “Why am
state. It meant both “It’s not your fault” and, Ijumpy?” topic, she viewed herself as a trust-
on a more covert level, “I’m suffering and ing, vulnerable patient and the therapist as a
you’re making it worse.” We inferred from trustworthy expert, both aiming at helpful
the entirety of the hour that the patient was transactions of give-and-take on “Why am I
angry at the therapist for observing her as a jumpy?”. Then, with the shift in frame of
patient rather than being more personally attention to the “Who cares?” topic, there was
interested in her as a pupil or as an attractive, a concomitant shift to a role-relationship
intellectual woman. Her purpose was to ward model in which she, an inferior, vulnerable
off expressing her anger because to experi- patient, was also a remote critic taking pot-
ence it seemed irrational and therefore hu- shots at a neglectful, self-centered, and too-
miliating. superior therapist.
By saying, “I don’t think it matters what Now we compare defense-mechanism
we talk about,” she signaled both some irrita- and control-processes analyses of this epi-
tion and an emotional-relational concept sode. The defense-mechanism analysis “pas-
that might be paraphrased as “I don’t think I sive aggression” says what she does, which is
matter enough to you.” Her remark was a to be aggressive toward the therapist indi-
compromise: it warded off the direct emo- rectly by being passive, partly as a way to
tionality of “I don’t matter to you,” yet it thwart him. The control-process analysis says
contained some elements of what was warded how she does it: she shifts topics and she shifts
off (“it doesn’t matter to us”). role-relationship models. The defense-mech-
The control processes that regulated the anism term says more about the quality of
contents of her communication included relationship (passive) and the emotions (ag-
changing the focus of attention. The patient gression) than do the terms for control pro-
first introduced a topic that might be called cesses. The term “passive aggression” itself
“How and why am I jumpy?”. The therapist implies the aim of being hostile or hurting,
maintained this topic as he asked whether the threat of being actively hostile, and the
“jumpy” related to a topic of the last hour turning to passive provocation to be annoy-
(anxiety about humiliating exposure of her- ingly resistant to the other. The term also
self). His comment could maintain the focus conveys a general purpose: the wish to be
of attention on her and link “jumpy” to her hostile but to avoid, by passivity, fear of the
anticipations about their relationship. She consequences of direct hostility. The control-
did not, however, maintain the topic of “How process level of analysis requires the addition
and why am I jumpy?”, shifting instead to a of explicit and specific contents: What was the
new topic that might be called, “Who cares?”. shift in attention? What was the shift in role-
We paraphrase the communication in this relationship models? The control-process
way: “I don’t think I can afford to believe that analysis is thus open to more detail about the
what I say might matter to you, so I blur the relationship pattern and emotionality of a
topic and challenge you to show your interest specific instance because it does not imply
or admit your disinterest. Both frighten me, them by its terminology but rather can name
so the topic of our joint attention must re- them using any language.
main diffuse.”
The control-process analysis team also Displacement: Unlike the term passive aggres-
inferred that the patient altered role-rela- sion and more like control-process language,
tionship models during this episode. This dicplacenzent does not say what intention or
brought about a change in how she organized affect is displaced: that can be identified in a

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

332 CONTROL PROCESSES

case-specific way. The first instance of dis- was in the videotape of this episode that
placement occurred shortly after the exam- showed a discord between the higher inten-
ple of passive aggression. The patient again sity of anger in her voice prosodics and the
shifted the topic, describing an argument lower intensity of the mild language she used
with her husband. She said she was still mad verbally.
that he, by neglect, had harmed one of her She shifted from a self schema to an
creative products. The therapist repeated a object-symbol-of-self schema. As already men-
phrase the patient had just uttered with a tioned, her husband neglecting “it” is less
questioning tone. She responded, “Yes, and anxiety-provoking than her husband neglect-
it turned into more of a symbol of something ing herself (see Figure 2). In a later moment
else.” She did not clarify what that something she focused on a friend of her husband’s
else was, but it seemed to be her anger at her rather than on the husband or the therapist
husband for using and then neglecting her as the target object. This change is shifting
(just as she anticipated the therapist would the schemas of other persons in the role-rela-
use and then neglect her). Instead, she stayed tionship model of being neglected by the
on the topic of the neglect of the product. other and then reacting resentfully. The
She said, “I accused him of not thinking of other is shifted from “husband” to “his
(the product) as very significant; it was so friend.”
trivial to him and I had worked really hard on
it.” She continued by telling the therapist Devaluation: The first episode rated as deval-
some details about the product, then turned uation began at the seventh minute of the
to feeling resentment targeted at a friend of therapy hour. The patient began to talk more
her husband who, she felt, had neglected her. directly about her husband, complaining that
Our defense-mechanisms team scored he had neglected her on a holiday. She then
this episode as displacement because the pa- recounted a memory of how her mother tried
tient displaced the annoyance about her hus- to pay attention to her on such a holiday but
band not caring for her to her husband not had done so in such a “stupid” way that the
caring for a product of her creation. Because attention was worse than nothing. She deval-
the particular item could be taken as trivial, ued her mother’s image, dismissing her with
she could dismiss the episode-and so her insulting terms.
anger-as unimportant, thus reducing the Devaluation was combined with displace-
danger of excessive rage, humiliation for ment and role reversal. The patient felt deval-
being enraged, or rejection and abandon- ued by her husband and wanted to reduce
ment because she got angry. She also dis- her pain by devaluing him. She then deval-
placed anger from being directed at her ued her mother and returned within a min-
husband to being directed at his friend. ute to reporting how she had “fought dirty”
Our control-processes team related this with her husband. (“Dirty” fighting was be-
episode to shifting concepts, shifting the ap- littling him by recounting lapses in his con-
praisal of importance of a chain of concepts, duct of business, reminding him of failed
and shifting schemas of the other person. attempts to succeed, and implying that his
The topic was now her husband’s attitude vision was too short-sighted).
toward her and her things. Of the array of A control-process analysis of this episode
concepts on this topic, she facilitated expres- includes shifting concepts. Those concepts
sion of a relatively minor one (his neglect of most central to the emotional core of her
a thing) and inhibited a major one (his ne- humiliation and self-blame were inhibited as
glect of her). she moved instead to concepts at the periph-
She even underplayed the importance to ery of this topic. These more peripheral top-
herself of her creative product. The evidence ics had to do with memories of the past, when

VOLUME I #{149}
NUMBER 4. FALL 1992
HOROWITZ ETAL. 333

her mother was so unempathic as to provide directing shame at her husband, she would
only “stupid attention,” rather than with the reduce his importance as a person and then
more intensely emotional topic of what was not care as much that he would find her
going on currently with her husband. This unworthy and direct shame at her. She antic-
maneuver involved shifting the time span ipated, however, that the therapist, as a critic,
under consideration, from the present time might side with her husband and might de-
span of her relationship with her husband to value her. So she shifted to the clearer epi-
a more temporally remote span. sode where her blatantly unempathic mother
She also shifted person schemas. She had was more likely to be blamed.
been using as a working model a relationship The several control processes of content,
schema in which she was in the role of a critic, form, and schemas were convergent. Moving
trying to evoke an equivalent role in the ther- to the periphery of a set of concepts (con-
apist. Jointly they would appraise the patient tents), changing the time to the past (form),
as the victim of trivialization by a husband and shifting the other-person schema in her
who was too selfish to be empathic to her working model combined to allow her to feel
needs. The critics would direct shame toward more secure as the one who was devaluing
him, thereby reducing her vulnerability to another and to move away from the danger
humiliation. of a state in which she would be the humili-
Within this model of herself and the ther- ated target of devaluation.
apistjointly criticizing her husband for deval- Observing such maladaptive regulatory
uing her, she changed the object to be operations, the therapist could encourage
blamed from her husband to her mother. By more adaptive use of the patient’s control

FIGURE 2. Modeling the episode of displacement.

Change Points of Controls

Speaker Statement (Paraphrase)
Concepts Role-Relationship Models
Patent (My husband neglected my (Therapist neects her) deswes Therapist
minor creative product.) I attention

Husband neects her neglects Change

Therapist (He neglected
resents Husband
p

Change Change
Patent “Yeah, and illumed mto a Husband neects a small
symbol of something else .1 thmg
accused him of not thinking of I
(the product) as very sniflcant; I
it was so trivial to him and I hod I
worked really hard on ii’ She resents ft
(Contriues, wfth details on the I
product.) I

Change Change
(later)...
She resents neglect by a
(She resents neect by a friend fhend of her husband
of her husband.)

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

334 CONTROL PROCESSES

processes. He could suggest a change in the logic level from wakeful thinking to dream-
set point for time, from the past to the pres- state thinking.
ent. He could suggest a change in the set More important to the formation of a
point for the relationship under consider- defensive state was an inferred shift in self
ation, from that between her and her mother schemas from active to passive roles. At the
to that between her and her husband or that level of altering role-relationship models,
between her and himself. With the latter there was a role reversal, from self as the
choice, they could clarify options in the here source of a sexual wish toward the other (the
and now of their dialogue. He could focus on therapist) who is a bystander, to the other as
her self-criticism as well, in relationship to urging an affair upon her. This role reversal
others or to himself. related to the “obligatory script” already men-
tioned, the one in which she began an inter-
Projection: The first episode of projection oc- active sequence by solicitation of interest,
curred when the patient, 14 minutes into the then found the situation too out-of-control,
hour, reported a dream. In this dream, a enthralling, and sexualized, and finally
strange man was putting his arms around her feared the disasters of being abused or aban-
as they stood by the edge of a cliff. He sug- doned. She was interesting to the other but,
gested that they both jump off. As part of her being the cool passive bystander, she re-
associations to the dream, she said, “I don’t mained less threatened: she did not suggest
know, it seemed like, you know, he was going anything, she did not jump off the cliff, and
to have an affair with me or something.” she had nothing to feel guilty about.
Our defense-mechanisms team inferred
from this and the surrounding material that I) I C t i o N

the patient’s dream contained wishes for sex-

ual excitement with a strange man, probably Defense-mechanisms language usually labels
the therapist. The wishes, the initiative, and what was done over time.23’ Control-process
the fantasied actions were all projected onto language tells more precisely how immediate
the man. defensive alteration of mental activities is
The control-process analysis of this epi- achieved. Defense-mechanisms language is
sode begins with shifting concepts. At first useful for describing habitual compromises,
the patient indicated meanings clearly, by as in longitudinal assessment of personal-
using the words “going to have an affair,” and ity.32’33 The addition of control-process lan-
by describing an image of danger-standing guage allows description of several combined
at the edge of a cliff. Then she shifted to mental activities in a current state of mind.
concepts that obscured these meanings by This microanalytic focus may be useful to
saying “or something,” a vagueness we infer therapists as they think about how to phrase
was meant to obscure the danger of “an an intervention aimed at reducing an auto-
affair.” matic (unconscious) defensiveness of the pa-
At the level of regulation of form, the tient by encouraging a change in conscious
control process shifted from present waking efforts. For example, a therapist may make
ideas to dream imagery in order to partially very brief interventions, such as, “You seem
disown immediate ideas and feelings of ex- vague,” or, “You want to take that idea back.”
citement toward the therapist by forming The patient can act on that information by
these in a dream space. She did not acknowl- striving to be clear or by reexamining the
edge herself as the dreamer who forms the recently disavowed idea.
dream. This warding off involved a shift in Much of psychodynamic technique
time span from the here and now to the works from this point of view without being
then-in-my-dream. There was also a shift in explicit about control processes. For exam-

VOLUME 1 #{149}
NUMBER 4 FALL
#{149} 1992
HoRowITz ETAL. 335

ple, the type of intervention emphasized by ment levels over the 0.80 level and Cohen’s
Gray begins with a focus of the patient’s kappa values over the 0.60 level; they are cited
attention upon his or her own shifts in affect in a paper submitted by Horowitz, Milbrath,
or topic. These narrow-focus interventions and Reidbord. With the sound off so that only
are used as a preliminary technique for sub- nonverbal communication is rated, signs of
sequent interpretations of what is warded off non-warding off, which relate to the inter-
and of why the ideas and feelings are so personal expressive aspects of control of
threatening. This sequence fosters develop- form, have also been rated with satisfactory
ment of a self-observing capacity before re- reliability. These results appear in submitted
pressed memories or regressive schemas are papers by Horowitz, Stinson, Curtis et al. and
clarified, reconstructed, or interpreted. Horowitz, Milbrath,Jordan, et al., 1992).
Schafer,35 in discussing the mterpreta- Thus, control-process theory may have
tion of projection, pointed out how often the utility in research on the processes of psycho-
therapeutic effort falters if it is made without therapy and the processes of adapting to
particular reference to the many processes stressful life events, where periods of high
that converge in constructing the projection. warding-off operations may indicate continu-
For example, he suggested that if the patient ing nonintegration of the meanings of
is projecting a particular affect onto the ther- changed circumstances. Such empirical dem-
apist and if this is pointed out initially it may onstrations may help cognitive scientists to
appear “false” to the patient. It may be more include in their theories the concept of de-
productive to remark that the patient is em- fensiveness in dealing with meanings that
phasizing or observing something that he or would otherwise have strong tendencies to
she believes to be so and that the reasons for activate intense emotional states of mind.
this are potentially productive to explore.
As mentioned earlier, the classification of S U M \i A H V

types of control processes as offered in this

article is an effort at systematic assessment of Control-process theory is derived from stud-
what clinicians often observe in the moment- ies of how patients under stress modify their
to-moment discourse of psychotherapy. Fo- cognition, affect, and organized knowledge
cusing at this microgenetic level allows for structures about self and others. Control-
empirical studies. These can proceed process theory can be integrated with de-
through clinical ratings by a classification sys- fense-mechanism theory from psychoanaly-
tem using blind judgments of excerpted case sis. By microanalysis of defensive episodes, a
material and by development of content-anal- clinician may gain more insight into how to
ysis manuals that can be applied to segments help the patient make small but incremental
of transcripts or videotape. The former stud- changes in habitual styles of excessive inhibi-
ies are under way. The latter studies have tion and/or distortion. Control-process the-
indicated reliable results. ory may also provide a language for
For example, the four types of control increasing communications between psycho-
processes listed under “control of content” dynamic and cognitive domains of psycholog-
have been developed into a measure called ical science.
“dyselaboration” that can be applied to tran-
scripts of discourse. In this related research, This article is based on research supported by the
the reliabilities of different categories of dys- Program on Conscious and Unconscious Mental
elaboration applied to the text from diverse Processes of the John D. and Catherine T. Mac-
patients are satisfactorily high, with agree- Art hurFoundation.

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

 336 CONTROL PROCESSES

REFERENCES

1. Freud S: The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), in The 17. Horowitz MJ: Image Formation and Psychotherapy.
Standard Edition of Complete Psychological Works Northvale, NJ, Aronson, 1983
of Sigmund Freud, vol 4-5, edited by Strachey J. 18. Horowitz MJ: Structure and the processes of change,
London, Hogarth Press, 1958, pp 1-751 in Hysterical Personality, edited by Horowitz MJ.
2. Freud 5: The neuro-psychoses of defense (1894), in Northvale, NJ, Aronson, 1977, pp 193-261
The Standard Edition of Complete Psychological 19. Horowitz MJ: Stress Response Syndromes, 2nd edi-
Works of Sigmund Freud, vol 3, edited by StracheyJ. tion. Northvale, NJ, Aronson, 1986
London, Hogarth Press, 1962, pp 43-68 20. Horowitz MJ: Sliding meaning: a defense against
3. Freud 5: Repression (1915), in The Standard Edition threat in narcissistic personalities. Int J Psychoanal
of Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, vol 14, edited Psychother 1975; 4:167-180
by StracheyJ. London, Hogarth Press, 1957, pp 141- 21. Horowitz MJ: Psychodynamic phenomena and their
158 explanation, in Psychodynamics and Cognition, ed-
4. Freud 5: Inhibition, symptoms and anxiety (1926), in ited by Horowitz MJ. Chicago, University of Chicago
The Standard Edition of Complete Works of Sig- Press, 1988, pp3-20
mund Freud, vol 20, edited by StracheyJ. London, 22. Horowitz MJ: Cognitive and interactive aspects of
Hogarth Press, 1959, pp 87-1 75 splitting. AmJ Psychiatry 1977; 134:549-553
5. Freud A: The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. 23. Horowitz MJ: Person schemas, in Person Schemas
New York, International Universities Press, 1936 and Maladaptive Interpersonal Patterns, edited by
6. Vaillant GE: Theoretical hierarchy of adaptive ego Horowitz MJ. Chicago, University of Chicago Press,
mechanisms: a 30-year follow-up of 30 men selected 1991, pp 13-31
for psychological health. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1971; 24. Horowitz MJ, Merluzzi TV, Ewert M, et a!: Role-rela-
24:107-118 tionship models configuration (RRMC), in Person
7. Bond M, Gardner ST. Christian J, et al: Empirical Schemas and Maladaptive Interpersonal Patterns, ed-
study of self-rated styles. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1983; ited by Horowitz MJ. Chicago, University of Chicago
40:333-338 Press, 1991, pp 115-154
8. PerryJC, Cooper SH: An empirical study of defense 25. Horowitz MJ: Emotionality and schematic control
mechanisms, I: clinical interview and life vignette processes, in Person Schemas and Maladaptive Inter-
ratings. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1989; 46:444-452 personal Patterns, edited by Horowitz MJ. Chicago,
9. Erdelyi MH: A new look at the new look: perceptual University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp 413-423
defense and vigilance. Psychol Rev 1974; 81:1-25 26. SingerJL, Salovey P: Organized knowledge structures
10. Erdelyi MH, Goldberg B: Let’s not sweep repression and personality, in Person Schemas and Maladaptive
under the rug: toward a cognitive psychology of re- Interpersonal Patterns, edited by Horowitz MJ. Chi-
pression, in Functional Disorders of Memory, edited cago, University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp33-79
by Kihlstrom JF, Evans FJ. Hilisdale, NJ, Lawrence 27. Marmar CR, Weiss DS, Gaston L: Toward the valida-
Erlbaum, 1979, pp 355-402 tion of the California Therapeutic Alliance Rating
11. Erdelyi MH: Repression, reconstruction, and de- System. Psychological Assessment 1989; 1:146-152
fense: history and integration of the psychoanalytic 28. Brenner C: The Mind in Conflict. New York, Interna-
and experimental frameworks, in Repression and tional Universities Press, 1982
Dissociation: Implications for Personality Theory, 29. Cooper SC: Recent contributions to the theory of
Psychopathology, and Health, edited by Singer JL. defense mechanisms: a comparative view. J Am Psy-
Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1990, pp 1-32 choanal Assoc 1989; 37:865-891
12. Kroeber TC: The coping function of the ego mecha- 30. Modell AH: Psychoanalysis in a New Context. New
nisms, in The Study of Lives, edited by White R. New York, International Universities Press, 1984
York, Atherton, 1963, pp 178-198 31. Kohut H: How Does Analysis Cure? Chicago, Univer-
13. Haan N: Coping and Defending. New York, Aca- sity of Chicago Press, 1984
demic, 1977 32. Vaillant GE: Adaptation to Life. Boston, Little,
14. Haan N: An investigation of the relationship of Ror- Brown, 1977
schach scores, patterns, and behavior to coping and 33. PerryJC, Cooper SH: What do cross-sectional mea-
defense mechanisms. Journal of Projective Tech- sures of defense mechanisms predict? in Empirical
niques 1964; 28:239-441 Studies of Ego Mechanisms of Defense, edited by
15. Horowitz MJ: Psychological response to serious life Vaillant GE. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric
events, in Human Stress and Cognition: An Informa- Press, 1986, pp 32-46
tion Processing Approach, edited by Hamilton V, 34. Gray P: “Developmental lag” in the evolution of ana-
Warburton D. New York, Wiley, 1980 lytic technique.J Am Psychoanal Assoc 1982; 30:621-
16. Horowitz MJ: The mechanisms of defense, in Intro- 639
duction to Psychodynamics. New York, Basic Books, 35. Schafer R: Mechanisms of defense. IntJ Psychoanal
1988, pp 187-210 1968; 49:4-62

VOLUME 1 #{149}
NUMBER 4 FALL
#{149} 1992

View publication stats