Ottomanelli G, Heller S, Bihari B, Kramer T, Juni S
State University of New York, Health Science Center, Brooklyn 11203.
J Subst Abuse Treat. 1989;6(4):251-6. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(89)90049-4.
The Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI) and The Risk Behavior Inventory (RBI) were administered to substance abusers hospitalized on a drug detoxification service. The groups were categorized on the basis of self-reported IV versus non-IV substance abuse. Significant between-group differences were obtained on the DMI and RBI. The non-IV group responded less often than the IV group with the Turning Against Object (TAO) response option, resulting in higher scores when Turning Against Self (TAS), Reversal (REV), Principalization (PRN) and Projection (PRO) were summed into a single score. Significant within-group differences were obtained for DMI response levels and defenses. Both groups relied less on TAO at the thought level and more on PRN and REV as primary defenses. The IV group reported twice as many risk behaviors as the non-IV group and risked HIV exposure through needle use and sexual transmission modes. Consideration was given to the role of principalization and denial within the addicted individual's defense structure and the relationship of these defenses to HIV-related risk behavior.
对在药物戒毒服务机构住院的药物滥用者进行了防御机制量表(DMI)和风险行为量表(RBI)测试。根据自我报告的静脉注射与非静脉注射药物滥用情况对这些群体进行分类。在DMI和RBI上获得了显著的组间差异。非静脉注射组使用“转向客体”(TAO)反应选项的频率低于静脉注射组,当将“转向自身”(TAS)、“反转”(REV)、“主体化”(PRN)和“投射”(PRO)汇总为一个单一分数时,非静脉注射组得分更高。在DMI反应水平和防御方面获得了显著的组内差异。两组在思维层面较少依赖TAO,更多地依赖PRN和REV作为主要防御方式。静脉注射组报告的风险行为是非静脉注射组的两倍,并且通过使用针头和性传播方式面临感染艾滋病毒的风险。研究考虑了主体化和否认在成瘾个体防御结构中的作用以及这些防御与艾滋病毒相关风险行为的关系。