Comparison of Object Relations and Ego Functions in Individuals with Migration Intent, Without Migration Intent, and Migrants

Abstract

Introduction and Aim: Migration, as one of the most complex contemporary psychosocial phenomena, influences not only individuals’ economic and social structures but also their psychological organization, defensive styles, and interpersonal representations. The present study aimed to compare object relations and ego functions among individuals with migration intention, individuals without migration intention, and migrants in order to identify potential psychodynamic differences among these groups.

Methodology: This study employed a causal-comparative design. The statistical population consisted of all psychotherapy applicants aged 25 to 45 years who belonged to one of three groups: migrants, individuals with migration intention, and individuals without migration intention. The sample included 264 participants selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected using the Bell Object Relations Inventory (1986) and the Defense Style Questionnaire developed by Bond et al. (1983). Descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were applied using SPSS-27 software, with the significance level set at 0.05.

Findings: The results of multivariate analysis of variance indicated no significant differences among the three groups regarding object relations dimensions, including social incompetence, egocentricity, insecure attachment, and alienation (P=0.374). However, significant differences were found in ego functions and defense styles. Neurotic defense style scores were significantly higher among migrants compared to individuals with migration intention (P=0.047). Significant differences were also observed in denial, sublimation, altruism, rationalization, and undoing defense mechanisms. Individuals with migration intention showed higher denial scores than those without migration intention, whereas migrants demonstrated significantly higher rationalization, undoing, and altruism scores. Furthermore, individuals with migration intention used sublimation more frequently than migrants.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that the primary distinction among migrants, individuals with migration intention, and individuals without migration intention lies not in deep object-relational structures but rather in their defensive patterns and ego functioning. Migration and migration-related processes appear to activate or reinforce specific defense mechanisms rather than fundamentally altering internal object representations. These findings highlight the importance of psychological interventions focused on strengthening mature defenses and enhancing psychological adaptation before and after migration.

rants. The method of the present study was a causal comparative study. The statistical population of the study consisted of all individuals requesting psychotherapy sessions who were between 25 and 45 years old and who were classified into one of the three groups of immigrants, with the intention of emigration, or without the intention of emigration. The statistical sample consisted of 264 individuals who were selected through purposive sampling. The instruments used in the study were: the Bell et al. Subject Relations Questionnaire (1986) and the Bond et al. Defense Styles Questionnaire (1983). Descriptive statistical methods including frequency distribution tables, central and dispersion indices were used to analyze the data. Inferential statistical methods including multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were also used to compare the three groups of immigrants, with and without the intention of emigration. SPSS software was used to perform the analyses. The results showed that there was no significant difference between thematic relations in individuals with the intention of emigration, without the intention of emigration, and immigrants. The results also showed that there was a significant difference between the three groups in the neurotic defense mechanism. The average of the immigrant group in neurotic defense mechanisms was significantly higher than the group with the intention of emigration. There was a significant difference in the defense mechanism of denial between the two groups without emigration and the group with the intention of emigration. This significant difference was observed in the defense mechanisms of neurotic, denial, sublimation, otherness, rationalization, and invalidation between the three groups.