Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41645772›Full record

ArticleResearch in psychotherapy (Milano)2025

The relationship between defense mechanisms and attachment: a narrative review.

Rose Howell, Vera Békés

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Rose HowellFerkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, New York.
Vera BékésFerkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While a substantial number of studies investigate the nuances and clinical relevance of attachment styles and defense mechanisms separately, relatively few studies have explored the relationship between attachment styles and defense mechanisms. We aimed to provide a narrative review of empirical studies that used validated measures to assess the relationship between defense mechanisms and attachment styles in adolescents or adults. Twenty peer-reviewed studies published over the past 30 years were included. Except for one study involving high school students, all others focused on adults, mostly from community samples, with a few including clinical populations. Most studies employed various self-report questionnaires, though several used observer-rated or interview-based methods, with the majority using a cross-sectional design; a few studies used experimental and longitudinal designs as well. The studies' findings indicate an association between insecure attachment and greater use of immature defenses, while secure attachment is associated with more mature defenses. Anxious attachment was particularly linked to defenses such as projection, splitting, and devaluation, whereas avoidant attachment was associated with emotional suppression and denial. A subset of studies examined changes in these constructs during psychotherapy, suggesting that both defense mechanisms and attachment security may improve over time, and indicating the potential importance of reflective functioning as a mediator, as well as depressive immature defenses as obstacles to change. These results underscore the clinical relevance of assessing both attachment and defensive functioning and highlight the importance of addressing them as potential mechanisms of change in clinical contexts.

Indexed as

attachmentDefense mechanismsnarrative reviewpsychotherapy

Identifiers

PMID41645772
PMCPMC12910262

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.