1. University of Ioannina, Greece
Exploring associations between students' defence styles and approaches to learning.
Karagiannopoulou, E., &
Athanasopoulos, V.
University of Ioannina, Greece

2. Defense mechanisms
Defense mechanisms: a theoretical construct underrepresented in psychological studies.
D.Ms:
personality constructs introduced by Freud in clinical settings to regulate behavior and adjustment.
defined as “the ways and means by which the ego wards off unpleasure and anxiety, and exercises control over impulsive behavior, affects and instinctive urges” (Anna Freud, 1966).
(Coping≠Defenses:
(a) involve conscious, purposeful effort ≠ occur without conscious effort and conscious awareness
(b) are carried out with the intent of managing or solving a problem situation ≠ occur without conscious intentionality.

3. Defense styles
Conceptualisation and measurement of defense styles as groups of defenses have been influenced by Vaillant’s (1977) hierarchical model: defenses can be arranged on a immaturity- maturity ego continuum (immature, neurotic, mature).
Immature defenses reduce across the life span
Defenses that are cognitively simple in form will require less cognitive development and so will be available to the child earlier in life (e.g. denial). Defenses that are cognitively complex, requiring greater cognitive capacity, will not emerge until later (e.g. identification) (Cramer, 2006, p. 22).

4. Approaches to learning
The distinction between Deep and Surface approach (Marton & Saljo, 1976)
Deep approach: students seek meaning in order to understand for themselves;
The DA is associated with an intention to comprehend, to engage in active conceptual analysis and usually results in a deep level of understanding (Entwistle, McCune, & Walker, 2001).

5. Surface approach:
Students attempt to rote and subsequently reproduce learned material in an effort to complete the task with little personal engagement
Routine unreflective memorization & procedural problem solving are related strategies resulting in restricted conceptual understanding (Entwistle et al., 2001).
Strategic approach:
Students intend to achieve high grades by using organised study methods and effective time management (Entwistle et al., 2001; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983).

6. Personality & approaches to learning
Recent studies examine relationships between “Big Five” personality traits & approaches to learning: positive links between traits implying emotional maturity (e.g. Openness to Experience & Conscientiousness) with deep and/or strategic approaches;
negative associations between Emotional Stability/Openness & surface approach (Baeten, Kyndt, Struyven, Dochy, 2010; Burton, Taylor, Dowling, & Lawrence, 2009; Chamorro- Premuzic and Furnham, 2009)
no study in psychology of education to link defense mechanisms with approaches to learning.

7. Unconscious processes defend against:
Recent literature reveals the involvement of defense mechanisms in students’ learning (Bainbridge, 2013; Coren, 1997; Karagiannopoulou, 2011)- psychodynamic perspective.
Unconscious processes defend against:
a) new knowledge that threatens the coherent experience and understanding of the self deriving from prior knowledge gained through understanding (Pitt & Britzman, 2003),
b) the anxieties inherent in learning or new knowledge (ambiguity, ambivalence, uncertainty… Bainbridge, 2013; Coren, 1997; Youell, 2006).

8. Surface understanding possibly reflects the actions of unconscious defenses that prevent a personal engagement with new knowledge
Deep understanding is related to individual’s weaker defenses towards new knowledge and to emotional maturity (Bainbridge, 2013).

9. Illeris (2002, 2009) and Jarvis (2006) acknowledge that individuals are bound to use defense mechanisms to deal with the volume and kind of influences that both can be overwhelming.
Ambivalence: one’s contradictory desires to learn or not something (Illeris, 2009)
Perry (1970, p. 183): regression in learning “retreat into previously prepared positions”… “the pain implied (in dealing with ambiguities in relativism) be poignant” (p. 185).
”People who get hurt or overstressed while trying to reason at Position 4 (late multiplicity*) or higher often regress to Position 2 (dualism) and hold it even more vehemently than they did before”.
[*Multiplicity: Subjective Knowledge: There are conflicting answers; therefore, must trust one's "inner voice", not external Authority].

10. The present study Aims:
To explore associations between defense styles, approaches to learning, students’ preferences for different types of course/teaching and achievement (GPA).
To test differences across the year of study
examine the psychometric properties of the DSQ-40.
(General aim: to explore the contribution of defense mechanisms to the Student Learning Research (SLR)

11. Method
Participants
425 Greek social science University students (81.6% women and 18.4% men).
average age: years (first year students: 28.5%; second year: 31.7%; third year: 22.3%, and fourth year: 17.5%.

12. Measures
The Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ-40) (Andrews, Singh, & Bond, 1993)
Three scales measuring
Mature (four subscales*)
Neurotic defense styles (four subscales).
Immature (twelve subscales)
* Mature: Sublimation, humor, anticipation and suppression.
Neurotic: undoing, pseudo-altruism, idealisation, reaction formation
Immature: projection, passive aggression, acting out, isolation, devaluation, autistic fantasy, denial, displacement, dissociation, splitting, rationalization, somatization.

13. Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for STudents (ASSIST)
Revised version of the Approaches to Studying Inventory developed by Entwistle & Ramsden (1983).
Approaches to learning:
Deep (four subscales)*
Strategic (five subscales)
Surface (four subscales)
Preferences for different types of course/teaching:
Supporting understanding &
Transmitting information
*Deep: Seeking meaning, Related ideas, use of evidence, Interest in ideas.
Strategic: Organised studying, time management, alertness to assessment demands, achieving, monitoring effectiveness.
Surface: Lack of purpose, unrelated memorising, syllabus-boundness, fear of failure.

14. Students’ Grade Point Average (GPA)- self-reported answer.
Academic Achievement
Students’ Grade Point Average (GPA)- self-reported answer.
Students’ answer was cross tested by a single, nine point Likert scale, question included in the ASSIST:
“How well do you think you are doing in your studies overall?”
High correlation between the first and the second answer (.79, p= .001)
Evidence exists that self-reported school grades are accurate reflections of the school grades actually obtained. Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, and Fraleigh (1987) reported a correlation of .76 between self-reported and actually obtained grades.

15. Results

16. Table 1: Factor structure coefficients for the two factor varimax solution for DMs, (principal components analysis)

17. Table 2: Internal consistency of the DSQ-40
Defense style
Cronbach’s α
Immature
.79
Mature
.61
Neurotic
.58

18. Approaches to learning
Table 3: Pearson correlations between defense styles, approaches to learning, preferences for different types of course/teaching & G.P.A.
Approaches to learning
Defense style
Deep
Strategic
Surface apathetic
Supporting understanding
Transmitting information
GPA
Mature
.28**
.16**
-.14**
.18**
-.04
.19**
Neurotic
.10
.09
.23**
.08
.15**
-.01
Immature
-.11*
.03
.29**
-.13*
-.03
* p< .05; ** p< .01 (two-tailed test)

19. Table 4: Stepwise multiple regressions with defense styles as independent variables and approaches to learning, preferences for types of course/teaching & GPA as dependent variables.
Approaches to learning, preferences for type of course/teaching & GPA (Dependent variables)
Defense styles (Independent variables)
Beta T R R² F Df
Deep approach
Mature
Immature
Neurotic
.29***
-.15**
.12*
5.43
-2.82
2.13
.33
.11
13.57***
3,328
Strategic approach
.16**
2.94
.16
.03
8.66**
1,342
Surface approach
.25***
-.22***
.18***
4.78
-4.43
3.44
.39
.15
20.14***
3,344
Supporting understanding
.20***
-.14**
3.96
-2.77
.24
.06
10.69***
2.359
Transmitting information
.15**
2.79
.02
7.80**
1.358
GPA
.21***
3.52
.21
.05
12.39***
1.268
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p≤.001

20. Table 5: Factor structure coefficients for the two factor varimax solution for defense styles, approaches to learning, preferences for types of course/teaching & GPA (principal components analysis).
Subscales
Factor loadings 1 2 h2
Deep approach
.83
.69
Strategic approach
.74
(.32)
.65
Supporting understanding
.73
.55
Grade Point Average
.31
Mature defense style
.46
.24
Surface apathetic approach
.82
Transmitting information
.58
Neurotic defense style
.49
.28
Immature defense style
.42
.18
K.M.O.= .61
Bartlett test of Sphericity= , p< .001
Notes: Factor 1= “mature” learning pattern, Factor 2= “immature” learning pattern

21. Table 6: Factor structure coefficients for the two factor varimax solution for DMs, approaches to learning, preferences for types of course/teaching & GPA (principal components analysis)

22. Supporting understanding .76 .58 .60
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year
Deep approach
.83
.80
.78
.88
Strategic approach
.81
.86
.65
.84
Supporting understanding
.76
.58
.60
GPA
.45
.66
.55
.40
Mature defense style
.26
.70
.57 ??
Neurotic defense style
.34
(.29)
.75
.44
Surface approach
.90 67
.63
Transmitting information 66
Immature defense style
.30
.69
.37
Account of variance=47.5 %
Account of variance=52 %
Account of variance=44 %
Account of variance=49 %
KMO=.62
KMO=.65
KMO=.61
KMO=.60
Bartlett test of sphericity=156, p<.001
Bartlett test of sphericity=147,4, p<.001
Bartlett test of sphericity=98,8, p<.001
Bartlett test of sphericity=142,8, p<.001

23. Discussion / Conclusions
Defense styles contribute to the SLR (Student Learning Research) indicating relations with approaches to learning, students’ preferences for different types of courses and achievement.
The study
(a) expands our understanding of the contribution of personality constructs to the SLR to mental health facets of one’s personality… (Links to the psychodynamic theory, Tavistock perspective).

24. The study
(b1) suggests that a particular level of emotional maturity can be considered as a prerequisite for the efficient development of a deep approach and successful learning- academic achievement (Bainbridge, 2013; Davou, 2002; Karagiannopoulou, 2011).
(b2) suggests that the surface approach may reflect the actions of unconscious defenses that prevent a personal engagement with new knowledge
(c ) The study supports the suggestion that students’ preferences with particular courses suit with their personality and learning style (Chamorro-Premuzic, et al., 2007).

25. Mature and immature defense mechanisms coexist…
In the mature pattern some immature defenses (denial & dissociation) seem to act in parallel indicating:
the interplay of mature and immature defenses throughout one’s life
developmental changes in defense mechanisms (Diehl, Chui, Hay, Lumley, Gruhn, & Labouvie-Vief, 2014); denial and similar defenses dominate in late adolescence (Cramer, 2006) to protect the self… (defense against ignorance and feelings of powerlessness that threaten the coherent experience and understanding of the self).

26. The psychometric properties of the DSQ-40
The study
verified the three-component structure, mature-neurotic, immature, suggested in the original study (Andrews et al., 1993)
gives low to moderate Cronbach alphas for the mature and neurotic defense styles (Andrews et al., 1993; Ruuttu et al., 2006; Seaton & Beaumont, 2011; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2008) possibly because of fewer items comprising these two styles (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2008),

27. Future Research may explore
associations between the elements (subscales) comprising each of the approaches to learning and the defense mechanisms.
further aspects of the structure of the self involving mental health dimensions (e.g. self coherence) possibly leading to a new perspective in the SLR (building bridges with the psychodynamic approach to learning).

28. Thank you for your attention!