Manual for the Defensive Verbal Behavior Ratings Scale (Version 3.

0)

Lisa Feldman Barrett, Janet Cleveland, and Tamlin Conner

Boston College

Nathan L. Williams
George Mason University

Last modified: March 31, 2000

 2

Table of Contents

I Introduction to the Concept of Defensive Functioning 3-5

II Overview of the Defensive Verbal Behavior Rating Scale 6-9

III Additional Scoring Instructions 9-10

IV Coding Aids 11-16

2
 3

Introduction to the Concept of Defensive Functioning

Many psychological theories assume that people continuously organize and

interpret a vast amount of self-relevant information. As a result, they construct and
maintain a cohesive self-concept (Kihlstom & Cantor, 1984; Markus, 1980). Emotions,
thoughts, behaviors, or information from the environment that are in conflict with a
person’s self-concept may be perceived as a threat that can potentially lower self-esteem
or induce negative affect (Feldman Barrett, Fong, & Quigley, 1996; Gedo, 1980;
Horowitz, Markman, Stinson et al., 1990; Shapiro, 1989; Vaillant, 1992). Therefore,
people should perceive threat when aspects of their experience that conflict with their self-
concept are made salient.
In an effort to protect the self, people employ defense mechanisms. Defense
mechanisms can be thought of as motivated cognitive-behavioral strategies that protect the
self from perceived threat, maintain or augment self-esteem, reduce negative affect, and
maintain positive representations of attachment figures (Feldman Barrett et al., 1996).
These cognitive strategies regulate perceptions of the environment by transforming the
meaning or emotional consequence of self-relevant information to be more consistent with
a person’s self-concept. That is, defense mechanisms allow individuals to reduce the
perception of threat in the environment by altering how events are represented in
conscious thought. Sometimes people merely change the meaning of threatening
information, and other times they may avoid awareness of the information altogether.
When people perceive a threat to their self-esteem, they attempt to manage surfacing
negative affect by controlling whether the conflict or threat enters consciousness (i.e.,
awareness), as well as the content of the thoughts and feelings that enter consciousness
(i.e., distortion). The result is that they distance themselves from their emotional
experience to some extent, and they avoid thoughts and feelings that are in conflict with
their consciously held self-image.
Each and every day, we face threats to our self-concept and we all use defense
mechanisms when trying to preserve our self-images. Notice here that the term “defense”
is not necessarily pejorative. All it means is that we are motivated to use cognitive
strategies when we process information about ourselves and our world.

3
 4

There are verbal markers of when people use defense mechanisms. According to
Psychotherapy of Neurotic Character (Shapiro, 1989), speech is an action that is
motivated to serve some purpose. How something is said is a clue to the person’s
motivations. People talk to (1) communicate with others, (2) sort out feelings, and/or (3)
bolster or confirm a self-belief. Defense mechanisms are active when the speaker uses
speech primarily to influence him/herself, instead of as a means of communicating with
others.
When speech is directed towards the self (e.g., “I know I did the right thing because ....”),
the speaker is using the other person as an object to speak “at” rather than “with”. As a
general rule, if a person is speaking at him/herself then he/she cannot be genuinely
communicating with other people (Shapiro, 1989, p. 98). Self-directed speech is designed
to help the speaker try to think or feel something different from what he/she actually
thinks or feels. In such cases, speech is a distortion, not a communication, of
consciousness. It represents a method of modifying, dissipating, or preventing the
articulation of thoughts and feelings that will threaten the self that is “unrecognized”
because the individual is not cognizant of the goals of his/her speech. This use of speech
for the purpose of self-protection is a form of self-deception.
Clues to determining self-deceptive speech acts include (modified from Shapiro,
1989, pp. 62-66, 142-143, 190):

 relaying a story with a feigned sense of liveliness or forcefulness (e.g., a person might
speak with exaggerated or artificial brightness, conviction, toughness, or cuteness).

 the use of persuasion when it is unwarranted or unsolicited (e.g., the speaker, believing
that the listener is negatively evaluating him/her, tries to change the listener’s mind,
even though the listener has given no indication of negative evaluation); the speaker
offers a description to prove something, to justify something, to deny something, or to
explain something that was never in question from the listener.

 using the phrase, “I don’t know”, in a stream of speech is a form of censoring oneself.

 speaking in the third person about a personal event.

 contradicting oneself spontanteously in the stream of speech

 content or tone of speech contradicts some non-verbal signal (like a facial expression)

4
 5

 failure to take responsibility for self-relevant events; tendency to attribute exclusive

responsibility to others

 portraying self or others in absolute, black-and-white terms as either entirely positive

or entirely negative. At times, the person may flip back and forth between positive and
negative representations.

 affective reactions that seem out of proportion, given the circumstances

 absence of an affect or behavior (verbal or nonverbal) that would clearly be expected

in the circumstances

 obvious gaps in a narrative or omissions from a sentence; persistent brief, vague,

evasive responses; lengthy hesitations

5
 6

Overview of the Defensive Verbal Behavior Rating Scale

The defensive verbal behavior rating scale is a coding procedure for interview material that
adopts a dimensional strategy for the assessment of defensive functioning. Each response
is coded using a 4-point scale (0-3) that allows coders to conceptualize defensive
functioning in terms of 2 dimensions: (1) the level of awareness of a perceived threat to
the self, and (2) the degree of distortion in the conscious content of thought. The scale
also distinguishes between defenses enacted in the interaction with the interviewer
(defensive process) and defenses described by the participant but not enacted in the course
of the interview (defensive content).

 Awareness: Level of awareness is defined as the extent to which a person is

able to recognize the existence of feelings, cognitions, or behaviors that are
threatening to the self. Full awareness is not only intellectual, but also implies
the ability to be in touch with the distressing affects associated with this
awareness.
 Distortion: Degree of distortion is defined as the denial, avoidance or
modification of threatening information in order to maintain a consistent self-
concept, avoid negative affects, protect self-esteem, or maintain positive
representations of attachment figures. Lack of distortion implies an ability to
allow threatening information and the associated affect into conscious
experience where it is represented in a personalized manner (e.g., responding in
the first person).

The coding procedure distinguishes between defensive process and defensive content:

Defensive process: Defenses are enacted during the interview, in the here-and-
now of the interaction between interviewer and participant. The threat is perceived
as coming from the interview situation. Therefore, the criterion is: during the
interview, to what degree is the participant speaking or acting in a defensive
manner ?

6
 7

Defensive content: The participant describes a situation in which s/he was

behaving defensively (i.e., was seeking to protect the self against negative affects
or perceived threat). The criterion is: in the situation described, to what degree
was the participant speaking or acting in a defensive manner?

Scoring criteria for the Defensive Verbal Behavior Rating Scale

Verbal evidence of self-protection is coded on a four-point scale. The scale allows

a coder to conceptualize the respondent’s defensive verbal behavior in global terms, yet it
preserves the underlying distinctions along our two dimensions.

0 = Defensive behavior absent

 Displays high awareness of self-threatening information. The person consciously
represents information perceived as threatening to the self and is able to express the
associated affects (e.g., regret, embarrassment, vulnerability).
 No distortion - i.e., the person does not seek to protect against awareness of
potentially threatening information by denying, avoiding, or transforming it. Self-
descriptive statements show integration of positive and negative information. There is
minimal distance from self (i.e., the person addresses the question in a personalized
manner and takes responsibility for feelings, cognitions, and behaviors).
OR
 The person genuinely does not feel threatened (i.e., gives no indication of feeling
threatened by questions; responds openly and directly).

1 = Mild defensive behavior:

 Displays moderate awareness of self-threatening information - i.e. the person
consciously represents some elements of threatening information, but also counters or
downplays them. The affects generated by this self-threatening information are
expressed to a moderate degree.
 Some distortion of subjective experience - i.e., the person describes both positive and
negative aspects of experience but minimizes, justifies, or otherwise transforms the
self-threatening aspects to a small degree. Self-descriptive statements include some

7
 8

elements of self-threatening information, but positive and negative representations are

not integrated. There may be some distancing from affects but little distance from the
self - i.e., the question is still answered in a personal fashion, although there may be
some reference to social norms or justification.

2 = Moderate defensive behavior

 Displays limited awareness of self-threatening information - i.e., there is little
conscious representation of such information. Affects generated by this self-threatening
information are masked or suppressed to a substantial degree.
 Moderate distortion of subjective experience. Self-descriptive statements contain little
self-threatening information, or such information is denied, avoided, or transformed to
a substantial degree. In some cases, the person incorrectly attributes negative self-
perceptions to others. There is an increased distance from the self - i.e., addresses the
question in a less personalized fashion, refers to social norms, takes less responsibility
for personal behavior.

3 = High defensive behavior

 Displays little or no awareness (conscious representation) of self-threatening
information. Affects generated by this self-threatening information are completely
masked or suppressed.
 High distortion in subjective experience - i.e., admits only positive aspects of
experience, or attributes all responsibility for negative experiences to other people or
external circumstances. There is great distance from self - i.e., addresses the question
in an impersonal fashion, denies that the question is relevant to self, or takes no
responsibility for personal behavior.

Additional scoring instructions

Conservative Coding
The coder should take a conservative stance towards coding verbal evidence of
defense. Only clear examples of defensiveness are coded as defensive (so that false
positives are avoided). Responses that cannot be coded on verbal content, but might be

8
 9

coded on the basis of intonation, latency of response, etc., are therefore coded a 0 or a 1.
Sometimes, a respondent will say that they “cannot remember a time when that happened”
or they will completely deny all experience associated with a particular question. In such
instances, responses should be coded 0 for non-defensive. (Typically, after a response like
this is given, the interviewer will say “Never?” or “Take a moment to think about it; often,
people can remember some type of experience like this”, inviting the respondent to
continue. If the respondent maintains his or her initial position, the response must be
coded a 0). A score of 3 is distinguished from this type of 0 score by the respondent
taking an active stance to avoid the question (e.g., “This is a stupid question”).

Unscorable Responses
Responses that are not codable should be scored 9 for missing data. (If a
respondent answers in this way for the first 2 to 3 questions, the interviewer should have
stopped the interview to see if the respondent is comfortable and cooperative).
Often individuals will respond using terms like “never,” “always,” “all of the time,”
or “none of the time.” Such absolute responses are treated as unscorable, because they
may reflect a verbal habit, as opposed to defensiveness.

1. Question: “Tell me about a time in your life when you’ve secretly

acted in a self-destructive way.”
Response: “I’ve never done that.”
Interviewer Queries: “Never?”
Response: “No, never.”

2. Question: “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”

Response: “Very satisfied.”
Interviewer Queries: “All of the time?”
Response: “Yes, my boyfriend is great.”

The coder cannot infer, with any validity, that the individual is responding defensively in
either case, so each example would be coded 9.

Independence

9
 10

Each question is treated as an independent observation and is coded in this fashion.

Questions cannot be cross coded. For instance, if a subject mentions his/her boyfriend
positively on question #2, but negatively on question #10, we do not code this.

10
 Coding aids
Here is a list of concrete descriptors to help you code. The following descriptors only concern defensive
process (not content).

Code 0: awareness = high, distortion = absent

1. Admits to feelings, cognitions, or behaviors that threaten self-esteem or self-concept, or to negative
self-relevant feelings (e.g., vulnerability, regret), without expressing self-pity or self-accusation.
2. Answers questions in a personalized manner (e.g., speaks in the first person singular), taking full
responsibility for personal behavior.
3. Self-enhancing information, if mentioned, is integrated with self-threatening information.
4. Elaborates freely on emotional experiences, with corresponding affect.

Code 1: awareness = moderate, distortion = low

1. Admits to feelings, cognitions, or behaviors that threaten self-esteem or self-concept, or to negative
self-relevant feelings, but only briefly, or quickly adds an exculpatory statement. (e.g., “I feel kind of
bad about having gotten mad at my mom… but she always nags at me.”). Justifications may include
reference to a norm (“I felt a little guilty, but I think anyone would have reacted the same way”).
Other examples include:
 Admits to self-threatening information, but in general, non-specific terms (“Yeah, there have been times
when my parents have let me know they were disappointed in me, mostly about my grades… but I can’t
think of any specific examples”)
 Minimizes self-threatening information or tries to explain it away (“I guess it was unethical to have
worked on a mid-term assignment with other people, but I don’t think it changed my grade anyway.”).
 Admits something and immediately takes it back or qualifies it (“I was angry at my friend the other
day… Well, not really angry, I was just a little impatient” or “Wait - that’s not what I meant”)
2. The person still anwers in a personalized manner, but with a mild tendency to distance from self. For
example:
 Attempts to avoid the question (“I’m not sure if my opinion would be relevant here”), followed by a
shift (“Well, maybe”)
 Looks for confirmation (e.g., asking “Don’t you think?” several times in a response)

3. Admits to both self-threatening and self-enhancing (or self-protective) information, but the two are not
integrated (e.g., flips back and forth from one to the other).
For example:
 Expresses confidence and then uncertainty about a fact that enhances or protects the self (e.g., “Yes she
accepted me… well, at least I’m pretty sure she did”).
 Immediately changes a negative response to a positive one (“I don’t think she accepted me… well…
yes she did”). However, a response is coded 0 if (i) the respondent is able to give a context to his/her
response (“Yes… she did… but in situation X she had difficulty accepting my Y”) or (ii) the respondent
integrates mixed emotions (“Yes, she did in most ways, although I was disappointed that she could not
accept me when…”)
 Speaks in broken up sentences with abrupt changes of mind (e.g., “Yes she did… wait. No, I guess she
didn’t.”).

4. There is a mild tendency to distance oneself from unpleasant affects. This includes minor discrepancies
between nonverbal and verbal expressions of affect. For example:
 Giggling or nervous laughter when referring to “taboo” subjects
 12
Code 2: awareness = low; distortion = moderate
1. Few references to feelings, cognitions, or behaviors that threaten self-esteem or self-concept, or to
negative self-relevant feelings. When they are expressed, there is lengthy justification. For example:
 Mentions information that could be self-threatening, but in a manner that is non-specific and distant
from the self (“Yeah, I suppose there might have been occasions when my parents were disappointed in
me… but I can’t think of any specific examples”)
 Gives lengthy, detailed, unsolicited explanations or justifications

2. Answers the question in a less personalized manner, with a moderate tendency to distance from the self
(rarely speaks in the first person, refers to social norms instead of personal feelings or values, takes less
responsibility for personal behavior).
 Responds in question form (“Well, when do parents really accept their children?”).
 Explains own behavior exclusively by reference to a norm, without making any personalized statements
of feeling or taking personal responsibility (“Everybody does it, so it’s OK.”).
 Denial of responsibility - e.g., “not me” responses (“Something inside me made me do it, it’s not really
me”).
 Blames someone else for his/her behavior, but also mentions negative self-relevant feelings or takes
some degree of responsibility
 Makes sweeping negative statements about the self, but without any expression of personal
responsibility and little negative affect (“I’m such a terrible person - I’ll just never change!”).
 Tends to attribute his/her own unacknowledged feelings to other people instead of to him/herself (if the
attribution is plausible). Example: a girl describes having flirted with a male other than her boyfriend
and adds “My boyfriend thinks that I’m not satisfied with him anymore”.
 Pressures the interviewer to confirm that the participant’s behavior was justified or acceptable (“I
really had no choice. Don’t you agree?”)
 Accepts the meaning of a question, but answers in an impersonal fashion (response in the third person,
e.g., “A person could worry about something like that”)

3. Self-enhancing or self-protective statements are emphasized, overshadowing any recognition of self-

threatening information OR positive and negative statements about self (or others) are expressed
sequentially, without making any connection or recognizing the discrepancy. For example:
 Tendency to portray the self in a predominantly positive light, minimizing any vulnerability or failing.
 Tendency to portray self and others in absolute, black-and-white terms. In some cases, the self is
portrayed positively and others negatively; in other cases, the person makes absolute positive and
negative statements about self (or others) without any recognition that the two are connected. The
distinction between 2 and 3 is that at level 2, the person makes at least fleeting reference to self-
threatening information.
 Denigrates other people, but without making self-aggrandizing statements.

4. Substantial distancing from negative affects. For example:

 Substantial discrepancies between nonverbal and verbal expression of affect (e.g., smiling steadily
while telling a story about being angry).
 Talks at length about others but says very little about own feelings

12
 13
Code 3: awareness = absent, distortion = high
1. No references to feelings, cognitions, or behaviors that threaten self-esteem or self-concept, or to
negative self-relevant feelings. There may also be active avoidance of such self-threatening information.
For example:
 Denies the existence of a discrepancy (accurately) identified by the interviewer.
 Completely avoids answering a question (“I don’t know”) or answers quickly and dismisses the
question with a one-word response (“Yeah, maybe”).
 Gives a response unrelated to the question.
 Denies the relevance of a question (“I don’t see how that is relevant”).
 Expresses doubt or disbelief concerning the behavior described in a question (“Is that something people
actually do?” “That’s so disgusting! I just can’t believe that anyone could feel that way!”).
 Denies ever having experienced certain common negative emotions (“No, I’ve never really felt angry at
close friends or family members. I just don’t feel comfortable with anger. It’s quite foreign to me.”).
 Denies having experienced a negative emotion in a situation in which it is virtually impossible not to
have experienced such an emotion (“I was my father’s favorite until he left the family when I was 6
years old, we were very close. Then he just left and never came back. All the rest of the family were
really angry at him. But I have never felt angry at him - not at all.”).

2. Answers in an impersonal fashion, with a great distance from self, or attributes all responsibility for
negative experiences to other people or external circumstances. For example:
 Answers questions in a completely impersonal fashion.
 Expresses anger at being questioned or suspicion of the interviewer’s motives.
 Blames someone else for his/her behavior, without elaborating on negative self-relevant feelings or
taking any responsibility. This is more distorted than a “not-me” response because the participant is not
merely avoiding responsibility, but is attributing it to someone else.
 Attributes his/her own unacknowledged feelings to other people instead of to him/herself (if the
attribution is clearly implausible). Example: a woman describes at length how she gives orders to her
husband and how he submits to her, and then says “He always has to get his own way, he’s always
trying to be in control”. Or: the participant talks angrily about someone else, without recognizing
his/her anger, and adds “That guy is so aggressive! It’s a good thing I don’t react the same way!”.

3. Self-enhancing or self-protective statements are expressed in a way that obliterates any self-threatening
information. For example:
 Boasts, proclaims his/her own superiority, and denigrates other people
 Self and others are portrayed in absolute, black-and-white terms; the self, positively and others,
negatively.

4) The participant seems disconnected from his/her feelings

 Major discrepancies between nonverbal and verbal expressions of affect
 Talks exclusively about others, or speaks in general, impersonal terms, but says nothing about own
feelings

13
 2/6/2018   14

Practice Examples

Please try and code the following examples.

1. Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”
Response:  “In general, I’m satisfied, but certain activities are more satisfying than others
and sometimes, I don’t get to do everything that I would like to try.”

Code:

2. Question:  “Tell me about a time when you’ve done something unethical on an 
assignment.”
Response:  “There has only been one time since I’ve been here.  I don’t like to do that 
because I don’t believe in cheating.  I think it’s senseless and, actually, I don’t believe in doing 
that sort of thing because if I’m here going to school, then I want to get out of it what I do and 
what I don’t get out of it, then it doesn’t mater what my grades say.  It’s silly to cheat on 
something and get an “A” if I really haven’t learned it.  But, there was one time and it was in my 
first year.  We had a lot of papers to do for a class and my husband and I are friends with a 
typing teacher and an English teacher.  And they helped me with certain things, as far as like 
looking over them.  But, the one year, I just felt like I was putting a lot into things and I wasn’t 
getting graded the way I thought I should be graded. And I, for some reason, and its the only 
time since I’ve been here, I thought the person was grading me, not on what was written, but on 
personal things.  And I had the English teacher write more of my paper than what I should have.  
But I don’t like to do that sort of thing.”

Code:

3. Question:  “Tell me something you don’t like about your physical appearance and why.”
Response:  “Uhmm, I wish I was taller.  The reason for that is our society is very, uhh, 
height is directly correlated with how much you know, how much people listen to you, how, just 
you’re likability.  Your desirability is directly correlated with height. There is definitly a height 
range between six foot and six foot four that our society has labeled desirable, intelligent, 

14
 2/6/2018   15

charismatic, a leader.  If myself and a person of the desirable height presented two equal 
arguments to you, you would most likely choose his argument. And that would be something I 
would like to improve upon.”

Code:  

4. Question:  “Tell me about a time when you’ve thought or fantasized about being with 
someone other than your partner at the time when you were dating your partner.”
Response:  “I was seeing this guy and I really didn’t like him that much.  I liked him, but 
not enough to be going out with him.  And so it got to the point where it was hard to break up 
with him, but I liked somebody else.  So, I had to imagine this other person when I kissed him.  I 
really didn’t want to kiss him any more, so to make it more exciting for me, I imagined the other 
guy who I liked.”

Code:

5. Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”
Response:  “I don't have a sex life (laughs).  I want to wait until I get married. So I guess 
I’m not exactly satisfied with that right now.  I wish that I could have a sex life, but I don’t 
believe that that’s right for me right now, so I abstain.”

Code:

6.  Question:  “Tell me something you don’t like about your physical appearance and why.”
Response:  “I like everything about my physical appearance. People usually tell me that 
I’m very good looking.  Do you think I’m good looking?  Well, I actually don’t like my nose, it’s

15
 2/6/2018   16

too big.  I hate it, in fact.  It disgusts me, it’s so unattractive.  How could anyone like a person 
with a nose as disgusting as mine?”

Code:  

7.   Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”
Response:  “My sex life is fine.  I’m really busy most of the time so I don’t really have 
much time for sex.  Well, I guess I’m not really that satisfied.”

Code:  

8.  Question:  “Tell me about a time when you’ve done something unethical on an 
assignment.”
Response:  “Well, actually, yesterday.  The first time, when I was taking my test, I wrote 
damn. And I never write a curse word.”
Interviewer Queries:  “What about a time when you’ve done something unethical on an 
assignment?”
Response:  “Well the one class that we do have, it was a take home mid­term and the 
professor didn’t want us to work with people, and we worked with people.  I mean, we kind of 
helped each other, but how can’t you, it’s a take home. Obviously people are going to work 
together to figure out the right answers.”

Code:

9.   Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”

16
 2/6/2018   17

Response:  “Sometimes when I become angry with my husband we go for weeks without
having sex.  When this happens I’m not satisfied with my sex life at all.  But if he wouldn’t act 
the way he sometimes does, being inconsiderate and all, things would be fine.  He has this habit 
of just coming in and saying goodnight, I’m going to bed, without even thinking about what I 
might like to do.  The honeymoon is certainly over.”

Code:  

10.  Question:  “Describe a time when you’ve felt less sexually desirable than a friend.”
Response:  “Uhmm, like I said, I don’t really look for that. That’s never really 
happened.”
Interviewer queries:  “Never?”
Response:  “No, not really, because I don’t make myself out to be desirable. Nobody 
could think a person like me is attractive. It’s pretty warm in this room, don’t you think?”

Code:  

11.  Question:  “Describe a time when you’ve broken the rules.”
Response:  “Uhmm, anytime I’ve broken a rule?”
Interviewer Queries:  “Anything you can think of.”
Response:  “I guess just maybe in school or maybe at work I do things that I’m not 
supposed to do.  Just little things, like if I’m supposed to be working and I’m just talking about 
giving someone free food and I’m not supposed to.  Uhmm, I guess one time I used to work at a 
pizza shop and I would give my boyfriend free pizza.  I know that I wasn’t supposed to, but I did
just because I didn’t think it was a big deal.”

Code:  

17
 2/6/2018   18

12.   Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”
Response:  “Ha, ha.... I never have a problem getting a date.”

Code:

13.   Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”
Response:  “Sex life?  What sex life?  Students don’t have time for sex.”

Code:  

14.   Question:  “Tell me about a time when you’ve done something unethical on an 
assignment.”
Response:  “I found out that actually my analysis report, there was some plagarism there,
and I think it was because I didn’t fully grasp what plagarizing was.  I say that in honesty, but 
while I was writing the report I questioned myself and said, “I wonder if I was plagarizing?”  So 
that was something more recent.”

Code:

15.   Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”

18
 2/6/2018   19

Response:  “Sex is certainly enjoyable.  When two people become intimate, they really 
feel good.  I mean, people enjoy having sex.  It’s just one of those things that everyone likes to 
do.”

Code:  

16.   Question:  “Describe a time when you’ve questioned your sexual orientation.”
Response:  “I don’t know why you are asking me a question like that?  Why does 
everyone wonder about my sexual orientation?”

Code:  

17.  Question:  “Describe a time when you’ve done something on purpose to annoy someone 
you were living with.”
Response:  “Sometimes when I become angry with my husband, I would play loud rock 
and roll music in the house when I know that my husband enjoys classical music. I did it because
I was probably mad that he went to bed early and didn’t tell me, so I wanted to annoy him. 
Uhmm, he has this habit of coming in and just saying, ‘Goodnight. I’m going to bed.’  So I turn 
on loud music to relax and just get out some anger.”

Code:

18.  Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”
Response:  “Very satisfied.  My boyfriend is great.”

Code:  

19
 2/6/2018   20

19.   Question:  “Tell me about a time when you’ve broken the rules?”
Response:  (long pause) “Uhmm, probably when, it’s kind of like, it’s not illegal, but it 
could be.  I wanted to find out about somebody because I was really attracted to him, so I called 
him and said I was part of this group project.  I came up with this whole questionnaire of 
questions to ask, and it worked really nice, because I found out what I wanted to know.  I don’t 
know if that’s illegal or not.”

Code:

20.   Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”
Response:  “Wow, that certainly is a hot topic.  Sex has become such an issue in our 
society.  I’m not sure what satisfied means.  Does it mean that I engage in sexual activities 3.5 
times per week, which is the national average for people of my age group?  Or does it mean that 
I enjoy any individual encounter?  It is very difficult to say.”

Code:

21. Question:  “Tell me about a time when others have considered you boring.”
Response:  “Uhh, let’s see here. How many people do you really know that actually tell 
you that you’re boring?  That’s just an inference that you try to draw out.  But, when I’ve felt 
boring.....it’s not really the communicative of when I’ve been boring.  I think they are two 
different subjects, but I’ll still answer the question.  Boring is probably along the lines of when 
I’ve talked about deeper issues of life and basically some people choose not to operate at that 
level and not to contemplate those things. Instead, they choose to operate at the surface level and 
the feedback that you receive would make anyone feel boring and uninteresting. This does not 
happen often because you tend to gravitate toward people who think along the same lines.” 

20
 2/6/2018   21

Code:

22.   Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”
Response:  “I don’t know why you are asking me a question like that?  Why does 
everyone always ask me about my sex life?  It’s like everyone is wondering about my sexual 
orientation.”

Code:

23.  Question:  “Tell me about a time when you felt less sexually desirable then a friend.”
Response:  “Less sexually desirable?  When I was with my friend Andrew. She’s in a 
marriage in which her husband has to constantly compliment her on her beauty and stuff, and it’s
just like get off it.  I’m getting annoyed.  Stop it!  I’m usually around people who are half my 
size. They wear size one and stuff, and so I’m just like O.K., I’ll get away from this now. Thin 
people really start to get to me.” (laughs)
Interviewer Queries:  “Can you describe a specific time?”
Response:  “Perkins, when I was back home.  My best friend came up and she does her 
anorexic I don’t like myself, I’m a mother, my husband’s going to leave me, and then her 
husband has to jump in and say you’re beautiful hon.  And she’s a size eight, but she believes her
thighs are too fat so she is going to go on another no eat diet.”

Code:

24. Question:  “How satisfied are you with your sex life?”
Response:  “I’m satisfied.” (laughs)
Interviewer Queries:  “Are you always satisfied?”

21
 2/6/2018   22

Response:  “Well, I just broke up with my boyfriend (laughs), but before that I guess I 
was mostly satisfied.”

Code:  

22
 2/6/2018   23

Answers to Practice Examples

1.  This response would be coded a 0 because it is balanced, highlighting both positive and 
negative aspects of the person’s experience in a personalized nature.

2.  This example is coded 1.  The subject reports a detailed account of her experience, but 
demonstrates little awareness of the conflict between the first part of her response (i.e., her 
beliefs about cheating) and the second part of her response (i.e., her actions).  In addition, the 
subject rationalizes her actions by presenting an account of why she was motivated to behave as 
she did, in an effort to convince the interviewer that her actions were justifiable (e.g., “I thought 
that the person was grading me, not on what was written, but on personal things,” and “it’s the 
only time since I’ve been here.”).

3.  This example is coded 2.  The subject presents an intellectualized account of his wish to be 
taller, in which he both speaks in the third person and makes reference to social norms (i.e., high 
distance from self and degree of distortion).  In addition, the subject attempts to rationalize his 
distorted view of how being taller would make him appear more “desirable, intelligent, and 
charismatic” by stating that others would be more likely to believe the argument of an individual 
of “the desirable height”.

4.  This example is coded 0.  The subject presents an integrated response, including the positive 
and negative aspects of her cognitions (e.g., the subject states that she has thought about being 
with someone other than her partner and elaborates on this experience in a balanced fashion). 
The subject also demonstrates the ability to report both her positive and negative emotions (e.g., 
I liked the guy at one time, but wasn’t as attracted to him at this time).

5.  This example is coded 0.  The subject reports that he does not have a sex life at the current 
time, as well as his reason for currently abstaining.  In an integrated fashion, the subject displays 
the ability to present both the positive and negative aspects of his experience (e.g., “I wish that I 
could have a sex life, but I don’t believe that that’s right for me right now.”).

23
 2/6/2018   24

6.  This response is coded 3.  The subject presents a highly conflictual response in which he first 
states that he likes everything about his appearance and then states that he hates his nose to the 
point of disgust. Though he reports positive and negative aspects of his experience, his emotions 
are disintegrated and bipolar.  

7.  This response would be coded 1 because the subject responds in one way, and then goes on to
explain the opposite response without recognizing the inherent contradiction.  Although positive 
and negative aspects of experience are mentioned, they are presented in an unintegrated way.

8.  This example is coded 2.  Following the interviewer’s query, the subject responds in the third 
person about what led her to act unethically on an assignment. The subject demonstrates high 
distortion throughout the statement,“we kind of helped each other, but how can’t you, it’s a take 
home,” in an effort to justify her actions.  In addition, the subject does not display the ability to 
report her emotional experience.

9.  This response would be coded 1 because the subject only elaborates on the negative aspects of
her experience.  In addition, the subject attempts to justify her response be explaining away her 
lack of satisfaction as entirely the result of her husband’s “inconsiderate actions”.

10.  This example is coded 3.  The subject displays abrupt topic changes (e.g., switches from 
speaking of her attractiveness to the conditions of the room.).  She demonstrates high distortion 
and low awareness in her statements:  “I don’t make myself out to be desirable,” and “Nobody 
could think a person like me is attractive”.

11.  This response is coded a 0. The participant displays awareness that she was breaking a rule 
through her actions and that she did so any way. There is no attempt by the subject to justify her 
actions, she simply presents them in a factual manner.

24
 2/6/2018   25

12.  This response would be coded 3 because the subject failed to provide a substantive answer to
the question, thus avoiding the central meaning of the question.

13.  This response would be coded 2 because the response is distanced from the self and there is 
an attempt to “explain away” or normalize an underlying conflict or dissatisfaction.  

14.  This example is coded 1. The subject presents a moderately conflictual account of 
plagarizing an assignment, in that he does not acknowledge the conflict between his 
rationalization that he “didn’t fully grasp what plagarizing was,” and his recollections of 
wondering if he was plagarizing as he was completing the assignment.
15.  This response would be coded 2 because the subject responds in the third person (i.e., the 
response is distanced from the self) and refers to social norms (e.g., “It’s just one of those things 
that everyone likes to do”).  Further, the response is distorted in that the subject believes that 
everyone enjoys having sex.

16.  This example is coded 3.  The subject responds by first questioning the relevance of the 
question and the interviewer’s motivation in asking him that particular question.  Further, the 
subject provides no substantive response to the question and demonstrates high distortion by 
stating that everyone wonders about his sexual orientation.

17.  This response is coded a 1.  The subject demonstrates the ability to communicate her 
cognitions, but only elaborates on the negative aspects of her experience.  In addition, the subject
attempts to justify her actions by essentially making the case that due to her husband’s 
inconsiderate actions, she feels the need to purposefully annoy him. 

18.  This response would be coded 9, unscoreable, because one cannot infer that the subject is 
responding defensively.  Therefore, because of the global nature of this response (i.e., the 
participant essentially states that he or she is always satisfied), no numerical value would be 
assigned and this response would not be used in calculating the person’s defensiveness rating.

25
 2/6/2018   26

19.  This response is coded 1.  The subject does not display an awareness of the conflict in her 
statement:  her actions were not illegal, but could be (e.g., “It’s kind of like, it’s not illegal, but it 
could be.”).  The response is personalized, yet plagued by moderate awareness and some 
distortion.
20.  This response would be coded 2.  The subject presents an intellectualized account of what 
sexual satisfaction is and makes reference to social norms (e.g., “Does it mean that I engage in 
sexual activities 3.5 times per week?”).  In addition, the response is distanced from the self in 
that the subject provides a response, but fails to provide a personalized answer to the question.  

21.  This response would be coded 2.  The subject first responds with a rhetorical question and 
then proceeds to present a detailed account of the difference between infering that one is boring 
and being told that you are a boring person.  In the last two sentences of the response, the subject
presents an impersonal account of how anyone can be made to feel boring and refers to, what he 
believes to be, a social norm of human interaction.  In addition, the subject does not demonstrate 
the ability to report either positive or negative examples of his emotional experience.

22.  This response would be coded 3 because the subject first responds by questioning the 
relevance of the question and the interviewer’s motivation in asking him that particular question. 
The subject provides no substantive response to the question and demonstrates high distortion by
stating that “everyone wonders about his sexual orientation”.

23.  The response is coded a 2.  The subject’s response becomes more defensive and moderately 
distorted following the query.  Her gestalt response does not provide a substantive answer to the 
initial question.  In addition, she fails to demonstrate any awareness of her subjective experience.

24.  This response would be coded 1.  Following the interviewer’s query, the response becomes 
more defensive (i.e., the subject progresses from a global response to a conflictual response). 
Therefore, the gestalt response that is rated demonstrates the subject’s lack of awareness between

26
 2/6/2018   27

the first and second part of her response (e.g., she first reports always being satisfied and then 
states that she has recently broken up with her boyfriend).

27