Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41427644›Full record

ArticleResearch in psychotherapy (Milano)2025

Revisiting defense mechanisms in contemporary clinical practice: evidence and perspectives.

Vittorio Lingiardi, Fabio Madeddu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research in psychotherapy (Milano), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Vittorio LingiardiDepartment of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and Health Studies, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome; Sapienza School for Advanced Studies, Rome.
Fabio MadedduDepartment of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan; PDlab Milano.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The paper revisits defense mechanisms as central regulators of emotional life and self-coherence in contemporary clinical practice, showing how a classical psychodynamic construct has evolved into an empirically measurable, transdiagnostic dimension of functioning. After outlining the historical development of the concept, the authors present the hierarchical model of defenses, operationalized through the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scale (DMRS), as the current reference framework for assessment of thirty individual defenses across seven levels of adaptiveness. Empirical studies using the DMRS - also in its observer-rated Q-sort and self-report versions - indicate that shifts toward more mature defenses predict better outcomes across different treatment orientations, suggesting that changes in defensive functioning may represent a common factor underlying psychotherapeutic change. These advances are integrated with dimensional and transdiagnostic approaches, including the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual, Third Edition (PDM-3), in which defenses play a pivotal role in evaluating personality organization on Axis P and mental capacities on Axis M, thereby complementing symptom-focused systems such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). The paper also discusses conceptual overlaps with coping and emotion regulation, the limitations of cross-sectional and self-report methodologies, and the need for longitudinal, cultural, and neuro-psychodynamic research, proposing defense mechanisms as a unifying language that links psychodynamic theory, empirical psychology, and neuroscience.

Indexed as

assessmentclinical psychologyDefense mechanismsprocess-outcome research

Identifiers

PMID41427644
PMCPMC12878825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.