Part II    Psychodynamic Theories60
fei75766_ch02_019-071.indd 60  02/19/20 08:59 AMbrain-imaging research havedemonstrated theconnection between thefrontal- limbic 
system andimpulse regulation (Chow &Cummings, 1999; Goldenberg etal.,2013; 
Pincus, 2001). Thefirstreported andbest-known caseofthiswasthe19th-century 
railroad worker Phineas Gage. While working ontherailroad, anexplosion caused a
metal rodtoshoot upward andthrough thebottom ofhisjawupandoutthetopof
hisforehead, damaging hisfrontal lobes. Amazingly, perhaps because thespeed ofthe
rodcauterized brain tissue, Gage never lostconsciousness andsurvived. Physically 
(except forlossofbrain tissue) hewasrelatively fine,buthispersonality changed. By
allaccounts, thisrather mild-mannered, responsible, andreliable worker became, in
thewords ofhisdoctor, “fitful, irreverent, indulging attimes inthegrossest profanity 
(which wasnotpreviously hiscustom), manifesting butlittledeference forhisfel-
lows, impatient ofrestraint oradvice when itconflicts withhisdesires, attimes per-
tinaciously obstinate, yetcapricious andvacillating” (ascited inSolms &Turnbull, 
2002, p.3).Inother words, hebecame hostile, impulsive, andnotatallconcerned 
withsocial norms andappropriateness. InFreudian lingo, hisegonolonger could 
inhibit basic drives andinstincts andhebecame veryid-driven.
According toSolms, theunderlying theme inthefrontal lobe-injured patients 
istheirinability tostay“reality-bound” (ego) andtheirpropensity tointerpret events 
much more through “wishes” (id);thatis,theycreate thereality theywanted or
wished for.Allofthis,according toSolms, provides support forFreud’s ideas con-
cerning thepleasure principle oftheidandthereality principle oftheego.
Repression, Inhibition, and Defense Mechanisms
Another corecomponent ofFreud’s theory involved thedefense mechanisms, espe-
cially repression. Theunconscious actively (dynamically) keeps ideas, feelings, 
andunpleasant orthreatening impulses outofconsciousness. Theareaofdefense 
mechanisms remains anactive areaofstudy forpersonality researchers. Some ofthis
research hasfocused ontheuseofprojection andidentification inchildhood and
adolescence (Cramer, 2007), whereas other work hasinvestigated whoismore likely 
tobeatarget ofprojection (Govorun, Fuegen, &Payne, 2006).
From theneuropsychological perspective, Solms (2004) reports cases thatexplore 
theareas ofthebrain thatmaybeimplicated intheuseandperseverance ofdefense 
mechanisms. Specifically, Solms (2004) describes cases demonstrating repression of
unpalatable information when damage occurs totherighthemisphere and,ifthisdam-
agedregion becomes artificially stimulated, therepression goesaway; thatis,awareness 
returns. Additionally, these patients frequently rationalize away unwelcome factsbyfabri-
cating stories. Inother words, theyemploy Freudian wish- fulfilling defense mechanisms. 
Forinstance, onepatient, when asked about thescaronhishead, confabulated astory 
about itsbeing aresult ofdental surgery oracoronary bypass, bothofwhich hehadhad
years before. Furthermore, when thedoctor asked thispatient whohewas,thepatient 
would variously respond thathe(thedoctor) waseither acolleague, adrinking partner, 
orateammate fromcollege. Allofthese interpretations weremore wishthanreality.
Astudy byShevrin, Ghannam, andLibet (2002) examined theneurophysi -
ological underpinnings ofrepression. More specifically, theyaddressed thequestion 
ofwhether people withrepressive personality styles actually require longer periods 
ofstimulation forabriefstimulus tobeconsciously perceived. Prior research hadFinal PDF to printer