Reaction Formation Defense Mechanism

Reaction formation is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person adopts behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs that are opposite to their true feelings or desires.

It often develops as a way to cope with anxiety or internal conflict.

For example, someone with unacceptable aggressive impulses might develop reaction formations like excessive tenderness, love, politeness, submissiveness, or humility to keep these impulses under control.

History of Reaction Formation

Sigmund Freud built the idea gradually, across more than three decades, before his daughter Anna gave it its settled place among the ego’s defences.

The Neuro-Psychoses of Defence (1894)

The idea of defence, the ego actively fending off an idea it cannot tolerate, is the seed reaction formation grew from.

In The Neuro-Psychoses of Defence (1894), Freud argued that neurotic symptoms arise when the ego confronts an idea it cannot tolerate. It detaches the idea’s emotional charge and disposes of that charge by other routes (Freud, 1894).

He had not yet named reaction formation as a technique. But he had established the principle it depends on: the mind builds structures whose purpose is to keep an unacceptable idea out of awareness.

The idea, though, was already doing its work.

Symptoms and character traits alike, on this view, can be the visible product of that defensive labour. It is the governing idea reaction formation would later specialise into a single named technique.

Character and Anal Erotism (1908)

Reaction formation first appears as a distinct mechanism in Character and Anal Erotism (1908).

Freud noticed a recurring triad of traits. They were orderly, parsimonious and obstinate. This triad traced back to strong infantile anal erotism that had since vanished (Freud, 1908). It left a trace.

The pattern was specific to one drive.

During the latency period, he argued, excitations from the anal zone are turned back on themselves: shame, disgust and morality are built up as counter-forces against the earlier sexual interest.

The adult’s meticulous cleanliness is, on this account, a monument to the very pleasure it opposes.

Freud placed the mechanism close to sublimation here, treating suppression by reaction formation as a near neighbour of redirecting impulses toward higher aims. He presented it as normal, too.

It is part of how everyone’s character is built during latency, not a symptom of illness.

A single case would soon test the idea.

The Rat Man Case (1909)

Freud’s richest clinical illustration comes in Notes upon a Case of Obsessional Neurosis (1909), the “Rat Man.” The patient’s unconscious hatred toward people he outwardly loved could not be admitted.

So he developed an exaggerated over-solicitude instead: compulsive protective acts, ritual precautions, and an inflated concern for their safety, the exact opposite of the death-wishes underneath (Freud, 1909).

The case supplied the clinical template later writers generalised from. Freud treated the excessive tenderness as proof in itself: the more anxious and watchful the caring looked, the more it pointed to hostility underneath.

Wherever love looks conspicuously too anxious or too self-sacrificing, the classical theory looks for an opposite it is straining to contain.

Freud read the patient’s over-solicitude as direct evidence that the intensity of caring can itself betray the hostility it counters.

Freud’s model of the mind was changing too.

The Structural Theory (1923–1926)

The Ego and the Id (1923) named the superego as the internal source of moral prohibition.

It is the part of the psyche that internalizes societal norms and morals. Reaction formation could now be understood as the ego substituting the superego’s “thou shalt not” for a forbidden impulse (Freud, 1923).

Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety (1926) went further.

It paired reaction formation with isolation and undoing. Both are techniques bound up with obsessional neurosis, each binding anxiety at the cost of continuous effort to sustain the opposite attitude (Freud, 1926).

The cost never stopped accruing.

Reaction formation and its neighbours became, in this account, among the ego’s standing methods for binding anxiety that a repressed impulse would otherwise unleash.

That binding is never free: it costs the continuous anticathexis needed to keep the opposite attitude in force.

Anna Freud’s Systematisation (1936)

Anna Freud‘s The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence (1936) gathered her father’s scattered observations into a catalogue of defences and gave reaction formation its settled place among them.

She stressed its stability: a successful reaction formation becomes a fixed feature of personality, which is exactly why it can pass for ordinary character.

She also specified its cost: a constant expenditure of energy she called anticathexis. And she described its vulnerability. At puberty, when instinctual pressure surges, established reaction formations can “threaten to fall to pieces.”

She also connected the mechanism to specific pathology. In obsessional neurosis, she wrote, a child’s hatred toward her mother is first repressed, then guarded against by an excessive tenderness and worry for the mother’s safety.

Why do people use reaction formation?

Managing unacceptable impulses:

People use reaction formation to protect themselves from anxiety arising from internal conflicts.

These conflicts often involve sexual or aggressive impulses that are unacceptable to the individual’s conscious mind.

Reaction formation serves to alleviate this anxiety by keeping the unacceptable impulse repressed and presenting a socially acceptable façade.

This allows the individual to deny their unacceptable motives and maintain a self-perception consistent with their conscience.

Protecting self-esteem:

Reaction formation can be seen as a strategy for preserving a sense of worth and avoiding negative self-perceptions.

For instance:

Individuals who receive negative feedback or experience failures might engage in reaction formation by becoming overly confident and optimistic, bolstering their self-esteem despite evidence to the contrary.

People accused of prejudice might exhibit exaggerated tolerance and support for minority groups, defending against the threat to their self-image as a fair and unbiased person.

How does reaction formation work?

Reaction formation is a complex psychological defense mechanism that operates outside conscious awareness.

Here’s how it works:

1. Internal conflict: The process begins with an internal conflict between a person’s genuine feelings or desires and what they believe is acceptable or expected.
2. Anxiety triggering: These unacceptable thoughts or impulses cause anxiety or discomfort.
3. Repression: The process begins with repression, pushing the unacceptable impulse or desire out of conscious awareness. This impulse could stem from early childhood experiences or current conflicts.
4. Formation of the opposite: To further ensure the unacceptable impulse remains hidden, the individual develops a conscious attitude or behavior that is diametrically opposed to the repressed impulse. This outward expression serves as a disguise, obscuring the true nature of the internal conflict.
5. Countercathexis: This outward expression requires a significant expenditure of psychic energy, termed countercathexis in Freudian terminology. This energy is directed towards maintaining the repression and reinforcing the opposing attitude or behavior.
6. Maintenance and instability: If the repressed impulse threatens to resurface, the individual may experience guilt and anxiety, leading to an even stronger emphasis on the opposing behavior to maintain the defense. This highlights the unstable nature of reaction formations, as they require constant effort to uphold.

Examples

Reaction formation typically arises in conflict situations, particularly those involving ambivalence, where an individual experiences conflicting emotions or desires towards a specific object or situation.

• Excessive kindness: A person harboring unconscious aggressive impulses might exhibit exaggerated kindness and affection towards others. This behavior serves to mask and counteract their unacceptable aggressive feelings. This could manifest as someone who is quick to forgive, even in situations where anger might be a more appropriate response. They might go out of their way to please others, often to their own detriment.
• Overzealous moral crusader: An individual struggling with unacceptable sexual impulses might become a staunch advocate for strict moral values and condemn others for engaging in behaviors they themselves secretly desire. This could manifest as someone who actively campaigns against pornography or premarital sex, while simultaneously struggling with their own sexual urges.
• Exaggerated cleanliness and orderliness: A person fixated at the anal stage of development might exhibit a reaction formation against anal eroticism, leading to an excessive focus on cleanliness, order, and control. This could manifest as someone who is meticulously organized, has a strict cleaning routine, and becomes highly distressed by any disruption to their order.

What is an example of reaction formation in OCD?

The relationship between reaction formation, a defense mechanism, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is complex.

While not directly equating reaction formation with OCD, research highlights its potential role in the development and maintenance of OCD symptoms. Symptoms include inflated responsibility, hypermorality, and latent aggression.

By reinforcing behaviors that are opposite to one’s true impulses, reaction formation may inadvertently maintain OCD symptoms, creating a cycle of anxiety and compulsive behaviors.

• Suppression of latent aggression: Individuals with OCD often experience latent aggressive impulses, particularly towards significant others. Reaction formation helps suppress these impulses by promoting opposite behaviors, such as being overly caring or responsible.
• Inflated responsibility: A core feature of OCD is an exaggerated sense of responsibility for others’ well-being. This can be seen as a form of reaction formation, where individuals overcompensate for their latent aggression by becoming hyper-vigilant about potential harm to others.
• Hypermorality: OCD sufferers may develop an excessive focus on morality and doing the “right” thing. This hypermorality can be understood as a reaction formation against underlying aggressive or “immoral” thoughts or impulses.

The clearest empirical test of this idea comes from Moritz, Kempke, Luyten, Randjbar and Jelinek (2011).

The design is correlational and the sample is small, so it cannot show that the aggression causes the responsibility.

A separate study of a non-clinical sample found the same variables linked to symptom severity, which points the same way without settling the question (Moosavi, Naziri & Mohammadi, 2012).

Recognizing Reaction Formation

Reaction formation is a complex defense mechanism that can be difficult to recognize, as it involves a transformation of an unacceptable impulse into its conscious opposite.

Here are some insights to help you understand how to recognize this defense mechanism:

1. Exaggerated behaviors: One of the hallmarks of reaction formation is the intensity and inflexibility with which individuals express the opposite of their true feelings. Look for attitudes or behaviors that seem overly intense or exaggerated, especially if they’re inconsistent with the person’s other behaviors or known feelings.
2. Rigid adherence: The person may show inflexibility in maintaining certain attitudes or behaviors, even when it’s not practical or necessary. Reaction formation often manifests in black-and-white attitudes, with no middle ground.
3. Defensiveness and resistance: Individuals utilizing reaction formation are likely to become highly defensive or resistant when their expressed attitudes or behaviors are challenged. This defensiveness stems from the need to protect the ego from the anxiety associated with the repressed impulse.
4. Projection: Reaction formation can sometimes be accompanied by projection, where individuals attribute their own unacceptable impulses to others. Sometimes, people exhibiting reaction formation may accuse others of having the feelings or impulses they’re trying to suppress in themselves.

Defense mechanisms operate unconsciously. Individuals using reaction formation are genuinely unaware of the true motivations driving their behavior.

Confronting someone directly about a suspected reaction formation rarely helps. It tends to harden the defense rather than loosen it.

A skilled clinician or observer instead uses these clues to understand the person’s internal struggles and offer appropriate support.

Impact and Consequences of Reaction Formation

Reaction formation is a double-edged mechanism. It can help a person manage unacceptable impulses and hold together a sense of stability under pressure.

But it becomes maladaptive when it is too rigid, consumes excessive energy, or persists where it no longer fits. Four costs recur in the clinical literature:

• Social Frustration: The rigid, exaggerated attitude can make a person seem aloof or uncomfortably kind, blocking authentic connection.
• Internal Distress: Holding the opposite attitude in place is effortful, and a threatened return of the repressed impulse brings fresh guilt and anxiety.
• Impeded Growth: Denying an important part of oneself cuts a person off from their true feelings, hardening into inflexible personality traits.
• Age-Inappropriate Persistence: A defence adaptive at one developmental stage can fixate and persist into adulthood, where the same rigidity interferes with intimacy and creativity.

Context, intensity and developmental stage all matter here. A mild, flexible reaction formation may be an unremarkable feature of character, while a rigid, energy-consuming one can be a real source of suffering.

Social frustration and strained relationships:

The rigid and exaggerated nature of reaction formation can lead to social isolation and difficulty in forming genuine connections.

Individuals relying heavily on reaction formation may appear aloof, cold, overly conscientious, or excessively kind to the point of discomfort.

This lack of spontaneity and authenticity can make them seem unapproachable and hinder their ability to engage in meaningful social interactions.

This can impact both friendships and romantic relationships. For instance, someone with a reaction formation against aggression might struggle to assert themselves in relationships, leading to resentment and imbalance.

Internal conflict and psychological distress:

Reaction formation, like all defenses, originates in anxiety. It can also become a fresh source of it.

The constant effort to suppress the unacceptable impulse takes real psychic energy. Freud called this countercathexis.

This internal struggle can bring tension, anxiety and guilt if the repressed impulse threatens to break through. The person may experience periodic surges of anxiety and contradictory behavior.

The repression involved can also block access to true feelings and motivations, hindering self-awareness and emotional regulation.

Impeded personal growth and self-development:

By denying and repressing important aspects of themselves, individuals relying on reaction formation can stunt their personal growth and prevent genuine self-expression.

Reaction formation can lead to the development of rigid, inflexible personality traits that limit adaptability and resilience.

For example, someone with a reaction formation against anal erotism might become excessively orderly and controlling, struggling to cope with change and uncertainty.

Reaction formation can also interfere with the development of healthy coping mechanisms for dealing with difficult emotions and situations.

Instead of confronting and processing their feelings, individuals might continue to rely on this defense, leading to a cycle of repression and internal conflict.

Age-inappropriate use of reaction formation:

Reaction formation, like other defenses, can become fixated. This tends to happen at a particular developmental stage.

A defense that was once adaptive for an earlier stage of life can persist into adulthood. It may do so even when it is no longer appropriate or beneficial.

For example, a child might develop a reaction formation against exhibitionistic tendencies. The result is modesty and shyness.

This can be appropriate during certain developmental stages. But if it becomes overly rigid and persists into adulthood, it can hinder intimacy, creativity and the pursuit of personal goals.

Similarly, a child’s disgust towards certain bodily functions can be helpful during toilet training.

If this disgust persists into adulthood and extends to all forms of sexuality, however, it can lead to relationship problems and a diminished sense of well-being.

These examples share a pattern. A reaction formation that was once adaptive can become obsolete, contributing to distress and interfering with healthy functioning.

How can reaction formation be addressed in therapy?

Addressing reaction formation in therapy is a nuanced and gradual process that requires a skilled therapist and a willing client.

Awareness building

The journey often begins with building awareness, as many clients are unaware of their use of this defense mechanism.

Therapists typically start by educating clients about defense mechanisms and reaction formation, helping them identify patterns in their thoughts and behaviors that might indicate its presence.

Once awareness is established, the therapeutic work often explores the underlying emotions the client might be suppressing.

This can involve techniques like free association or guided imagery to access deeper feelings. The goal is to help the client acknowledge and accept the full range of their emotional experiences, rather than pushing certain feelings away.

Cognitive restructuring plays a crucial role in addressing reaction formation. Therapists work with clients to challenge black-and-white thinking patterns and develop more balanced and flexible attitudes.

This might involve examining the evidence for and against certain beliefs, or practicing more nuanced ways of viewing situations.

As the patient gains insight into their reaction formation, therapy can focus on developing healthier and more adaptive coping mechanisms.

This might involve exploring the underlying emotions and needs that are being defended against and finding more constructive ways to address them.

For instance, a patient with a reaction formation of excessive independence might learn to accept help from others and develop more balanced relationships.

Gradual exposure is another key component. Therapists carefully guide clients to confront the thoughts or situations they’re defending against, supporting them in tolerating the resulting anxiety without resorting to reaction formation.

Mindfulness helps too. It’s often taught alongside this work, so clients can observe their thoughts and emotions without judgment.

For many clients, exploring childhood experiences and past relationships provides valuable insight into the origins and maintenance of their reaction formation.

This psychodynamic approach can help clients understand why they developed the defense and how it once served them.

These aren’t the only tools. Behavioral experiments, emotional regulation skills, and interpersonal focus are also common elements of therapy for reaction formation.

Clients might test their fears and beliefs in safe, controlled ways. They learn new coping strategies. And they practice more authentic ways of interacting with others.

Throughout, the therapist’s role is to provide a safe, non-judgmental space for exploration and growth.

The work is often challenging. Dismantling a long-held defense mechanism can initially increase anxiety.

With patience, though, clients can develop more flexible and authentic ways of coping with anxiety and conflicting impulses, leading to improved mental health and more satisfying relationships.

Real-World Applications

Treating a person’s own reaction formation in therapy is only one practical use of the idea.

Professionals in several other fields also draw on it, carefully, as a vocabulary for an exaggerated or moralised reaction that may be doing defensive work.

One example makes this concrete.

Forensic and Clinical Assessment

Structured rating tools give the construct a genuinely operational role.

The Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales Q-sort scores reaction formation, alongside other defences, from an interview or session transcript with acceptable inter-rater reliability (Di Giuseppe & Perry, 2021).

In offender assessment specifically, a scheme like this lets clinicians register something important. An offender’s exaggerated moral outrage, disproportionate to the case at hand, is a pattern worth formulating around. It is not proof of guilt.

Baumeister, Dale and Sommer’s review situates this kind of scoring within a wider forensic and clinical tradition.

It profiles a person’s defensive style, rather than taking a presenting attitude at face value.

This is not new. It echoes the same interpretive caution the OCD literature applies elsewhere to an altruistic façade of exaggerated concern.

Workplace and Education

The broader principle behind the construct has a modest application outside the clinic.

People under threat to their self-image tend to overcorrect toward the opposite of the threatening impulse (Baumeister et al., 1998). The pattern is a small one.

A manager whose rule-enforcement is markedly more intense than the situation calls for may be worth approaching with curiosity rather than confrontation.

The same caution applies in the classroom. A pupil’s exaggerated denial or sudden moral outrage at a minor infraction may be signalling more than the immediate incident. Gentle attention serves better than punishment.

This is a plausible extension of the construct, not a diagnostic claim about any one person.

The same caveat about reading hidden motives into an emphatic attitude applies here with at least as much force as inside the therapy room.

How is reaction formation related to other defense mechanisms?

Anna Freud recognized the complex interplay between reaction formation and other defense mechanisms.

She emphasized that individuals often employ multiple defenses simultaneously, making it challenging to isolate and analyze any single mechanism in its pure form

• Repression: Reaction formation involves substituting a conscious, acceptable impulse for an unconscious, unacceptable one. The unacceptable impulse doesn’t simply disappear; it remains repressed, hidden from conscious awareness. The conscious expression of the opposite impulse helps maintain this repression. Reaction formation might sometimes precede repression, initially involving a denial or distortion of reality that is later pushed into the unconscious through repression.
• Developmental Identification: Reaction formation is also closely tied to developmental identification, specifically the development of the superego. This process involves internalizing the values and prohibitions of parents and society. Reaction formation can be seen as a way of substituting superego-driven motives for id-driven motives, with the “thou shalt not” of the conscience replacing the unacceptable impulse. This connection is especially relevant during childhood, when the superego is forming.
• Displacement: The shifting of an impulse from one object to another, can intertwine with reaction formation. For example, if someone develops a reaction formation of modesty against exhibiting their body, they might displace this modesty onto other aspects of their personality they unconsciously wish to display. The original object of the impulse remains unacceptable, but the reaction formation is redirected toward a safer target.
• Sublimation: Sublimation can also interact with reaction formation. Initially, an individual might sublimate an unacceptable impulse into a socially acceptable activity. However, a reaction formation can then develop against this sublimation, leading to an exaggerated avoidance of even the sublimated form of the impulse.
• Denial: Both reaction formation and denial involve a distortion of reality to protect the ego. However, they operate in different ways. Denial completely negates the existence of a threat or unacceptable impulse, while reaction formation acknowledges the impulse but transforms it into its opposite.
• Projection: Projection, attributing one’s own unacceptable thoughts or feelings to others, can also be related to reaction formation. While both defenses aim to distance the individual from threatening impulses, they do so in distinct ways. Projection externalizes the impulse, while reaction formation internalizes it and transforms it into its opposite. The sources note that projection itself might be a by-product of another defense mechanism, rather than a primary defense.

Critical Evaluation

The evidence for reaction formation is mixed: real support in specific domains, alongside real limits on what any of it can prove.

The Falsifiability Problem

Philosopher Karl Popper used reaction formation as his prime example of an unfalsifiable psychoanalytic claim (Popper, 1963). A man who loves his father confirms it. So does a man who hates him, since the hatred could itself be a reaction formation against love.

A theory that cannot be contradicted by any observation makes no real empirical claim, Popper argued.

Defenders respond that reaction formation should not stand for the whole of psychoanalysis, and that the modern studies below at least state a testable, falsifiable version of the claim.

The chapters below take up that challenge. Each modern study states a prediction that could, in principle, come out the wrong way. The theory would fail if homophobic men showed no unusual response to homosexual stimuli at all.

Key Study: Adams, Wright and Lohr (1996)

The most cited experimental test of reaction formation targets the “overzealous moral crusader”: the idea that hostility toward homosexuality can, in some men, defend against their own same-sex attraction.

The design is correlational, though, and penile arousal is not unambiguous proof of desire, since fear or general arousal can also raise it. Later replications of the effect have been inconsistent.

Contemporary Research

A later review by Baumeister, Dale and Sommer (1998) reframed the question. Rather than asking whether Freud’s exact energetics occur, they asked whether people predictably overcorrect toward the opposite of a threatening impulse, a claim modern studies can actually test.

This is a methodological advance on Adams et al., since attention avoids the “arousal isn’t desire” objection, and it identifies exactly which men show the discrepancy.

A separate survey of 551 young adults found that immature defence styles, as a category, predicted higher homophobia (Ciocca et al., 2015).

And reaction formation itself can now be scored reliably. The Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales Q-sort rates it from a therapy transcript with acceptable inter-rater agreement (Di Giuseppe & Perry, 2021).

Taken together, the construct survives as a measurable pattern of overcompensation, not as proof of Freud’s unconscious mechanism itself.

Strengths

• Real, testable pattern: The theory names a recognisable phenomenon and has produced testable findings, including the OCD and homophobia studies described above.
• Objective methods: The strongest modern evidence uses physiological and eye-tracking measures rather than self-report, reducing the risk of people saying what they think they should feel.
• Now scoreable: The Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales let clinicians rate reaction formation with acceptable reliability, moving it toward ordinary measurement (Di Giuseppe & Perry, 2021).
• Clinical usefulness: It names a pattern practitioners recognise directly, such as OCD’s altruistic façade of inflated responsibility standing in for disowned aggression.

Reviews of the wider evidence for classic Freudian defences rate reaction formation among the better-supported ones (Baumeister et al., 1998). That is a rare vote of confidence for a psychoanalytic construct from experimental social psychology.

Weaknesses

• Correlational evidence: Showing that an opposite attitude and a repressed impulse occur together is not the same as showing the impulse causes the attitude; most support here is correlational.
• Overlapping concepts: Reaction formation blurs into neighbouring defences such as sublimation, displacement and denial, and Freud’s own usage slid between them.
• Not every strong feeling is a mask: Much loud kindness is simply kindness, and treating every emphatic attitude as a disguise is itself a diagnostic error.

None of this is fatal to the concept. But it does mean reaction formation is better treated as one hypothesis among several for a given case. It is not a default explanation for whenever someone’s feelings seem unusually intense or their moral conviction runs hot.

Sources

• Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(3), 440-445.
• Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1081-1124.
• Cheval, B., Radel, R., Grob, E., Ghisletta, P., Bianchi-Demicheli, F., & Chanal, J. (2016). Homophobia: An impulsive attraction to the same sex? Evidence from eye-tracking data in a picture-viewing task. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(5), 825-834.
• Ciocca, G., Tuziak, B., Limoncin, E., Mollaioli, D., Capuano, N., Martini, A., Carosa, E., Fisher, A. D., Maggi, M., Niolu, C., Siracusano, A., Lenzi, A., & Jannini, E. A. (2015). Psychoticism, immature defense mechanisms and a fearful attachment style are associated with a higher homophobic attitude. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(9), 1953-1960.
• Di Giuseppe, M., & Perry, J. C. (2021). The hierarchy of defense mechanisms: Assessing defensive functioning with the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales Q-sort. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 718440.
• Freud, A. (1937). The Ego and the mechanisms of defense, London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
• Freud, S. (1894). The neuro-psychoses of defence. SE, 3: 41-61.
• Freud, S. (1908). Character and anal erotism. Standard Edition, 9, 167-175.
• Freud, S. (1909). Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis. Standard Edition, 10, 151-318.
• Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. Standard Edition, 19, 1-66.
• Freud, S. (1926). Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety. Standard Edition, 20, 75-176.
• Juni, S. (1981). Theoretical foundations of reaction formation as a defense mechanism. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 104(First Half), 107-135.
• Moosavi, S. S., Naziri, G., & Mohammadi, M. (2012). Relationship between latent aggression, inflated responsibility, guilt feeling and reaction formation with severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 14(9).
• Moritz, S., Kempke, S., Luyten, P., Randjbar, S., & Jelinek, L. (2011). Was Freud partly right on obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD)? Investigation of latent aggression in OCD. Psychiatry Research, 187(1-2), 180-184.
• Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul.