In defence of the Defence Mechanism Test (DMT)—a reply.

A paper by I. Zuber and B. Ekehammar in this Journal (38, 1997) is reviewed. The paper advocates that the non-veridical contents in the series of reports in the DMT should preferably be referred, not to psychoanalytic defence mechanisms, but to factors of stimulus order. The methods and the arguments of this investigation are critically examined.