R
Rationalization (Defense
Mechanism)
Megan Knoll1, Claire J. Starrs2 and J. Christopher
Perry2
1
Department of Educational and Counselling
Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC,
Canada
2
Department of Psychiatry, McGill University at
the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC,
Canada
Synonyms
Lying; Lying to oneself; Justifying; Making
excuses; Bullshitting
Definition
Rationalization is a disavowal defense mechanism
which permits an individual to deal with emo-
tional conflicts, or internal or external stressors,
by devising reassuring or self-serving but incor-
rect explanations for his or her own or others’
thoughts, actions, or feelings, which cover up
other motives (Perry 1990).
Entry to appear in Zeigler-Hill, V. & Shackelford,
T.K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual
Differences. Springer Science and Business Media.
# Springer International Publishing AG 2016
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1419-1
Introduction
Defense mechanisms are automatic psychological
processes that protect an individual from emo-
tional conflicts or awareness of internal or external
stressors. They impact individuals’ reactions to
conflicts and stressors (American Psychiatric
Association 2013). Defenses can be arranged hier-
archically based on their usual level of adaptive-
ness. Within the hierarchy, defenses are grouped
into different levels based on common functions.
These levels include the psychotic (0), action (1),
major image-distorting (2), disavowal and
autistic-fantasy (3), minor image-distorting (4),
neurotic (5b), hysterical (5a), obsessional (6),
and high adaptive (7) defenses (Perry 2014).
Rationalization falls into the disavowal level
along with neurotic denial and projection. Dis-
avowal defenses allow an individual to uncon-
sciously deny or refuse to acknowledge the
existence of certain stressful aspects of reality or
internal experience (Perry 2014; Perry and Coo-
per 1989). Emotional conflicts and internal or
external stressors are therefore managed via this
lack of awareness. For rationalization specifically,
this lack of awareness is made possible through a
reinterpretation of reality (Juni 1997). An individ-
ual using rationalization is usually unaware or
minimally aware of the true, underlying motive.
2 Rationalization (Defense Mechanism)
Rationalization
History Ernest Jones first introduced the psycho-
analytic term rationalization in 1908 to describe
how individuals make sense of their unconscious
motivations. He posited rationalization as provid-
ing a plausible but false explanation to justify
one’s irrational acts to others. When justifying
such acts to oneself, Jones (1908) used the term
evasion; in contemporary psychoanalytic
schemes, however, rationalizing refers to justify-
ing acts both to others and oneself (Perry 1990).
Function Rationalization functions to distance
the individual from motives that may be difficult
to acknowledge by substituting more socially
acceptable reasons for one’s actions (Perry 1990).
Identifying Rationalization may present itself in
the form of overelaborations to describe behavior,
or alternatively, it may involve evasions of per-
sonal responsibility by referencing plausible,
external reasons for failures. Rationalization is
often occurring when an individual omits refer-
ence to personal motives; when explanations pos-
sess a “conning” quality; when misdeeds, failings,
or faults are described without apparent anxiety or
shame; or when there is a disavowal of responsi-
bility for antisocial thoughts, actions, or feelings
(Perry 1990). Ironically, a rationalization might be
introduced by phrases like “to tell you the
truth. . .” or “honestly. . .” or “I know you’re not
going to believe this but. . .” Additionally, a con-
ning or histrionic tone of voice may be a clue
indicating the presence of rationalization.
Discrimination Rationalization is similar to
lying as they both involve the concealing of true
motives through the use of self-serving, incorrect
explanations. However, they differ in that lying is
a fully conscious act, whereas rationalization
operates partly or largely outside of conscious-
ness. The boundary between these two can be
indistinct, as in the everyday construct of
bullshitting, that is, building oneself up by
claiming half-truths and fanciful elaborations
(Frankfurt 2005). However, whenever the individ-
ual appears to believe at least part of the incorrect
statements, it is reasonable to identify it as a
rationalization. Rationalization is employed
because it protects the individual by keeping
them unaware, or minimally aware, of their true
motive (e.g., avoiding feeling shame) by covering
it up; it may be described as “lying to oneself”
(Perry 1990).
Rationalization has some similarity to the
defense of intellectualization, which is the exces-
sive use of abstract thinking to avoid or minimize
experiencing disturbing feelings. While both
these defense mechanisms protect the individual
from unpleasant or unacceptable aspects of real-
ity, intellectualization does not distort facts
through a reinterpretation of situations or motives,
whereas rationalization does. Intellectualization
uses abstract thinking to detach oneself from feel-
ings, while rationalization uses excuses and alter-
native reasons to cover up facts and motives
(Perry 1990).
Rationalization is also similar to the defense of
projection, which is the attribution of one’s own
unacknowledged feelings, impulses, or thoughts
to others. Both of these defenses help the individ-
ual to disavow true motives and actions. However,
projection involves the added step of mis-
attributing the motives to others, whereas ratio-
nalization is mainly concerned with disavowal of
motivations from oneself (Perry 1990).
Examples The following examples include
excerpts from research interviews and psycho-
therapy sessions where rationalization has been
rated using the Defense Mechanism Rating Scale
(Perry 1990).
In the following excerpt, the interviewer
(I) inquires about previous experiences in therapy.
The patient (P) discusses his resistance to seeing a
psychiatrist after a previous suicide attempt and
rationalizes his ex-girlfriend’s use of psychiatric
services as a reason to not seek out services
himself.
P: . . .but at the time, she was seeing a psychiatrist
cause she’s a very, very, very bad hypochondriac
and she constantly thinks that she has a problem
[. . .] and I didn’t want to go and see a psychiatrist
for the simple fact that [Rationalization begins]I
didn’t need two of us at the psychiatrist at the same
Rationalization (Defense Mechanism)
time. I wanted to just be there for her instead of me
going off and trying to settle my own problems
[ends].
In this excerpt, the therapist (T) confronts a
patient (P) about missing a session to go purchase
a new phone. The patient becomes angry and
accuses the therapist of not being authentic before
rationalizing that the missed session was not a
function of his feelings toward the therapist.
I: You’re saying that the relationship is less
important than going and buying a phone.
P: [Rationalization begins] No. That’s not what I’m
saying. I’m saying that I see you twice a week and
I have no phone in my apartment and that I can
see you at any other time of the week or, you
know, I’m going to see you next week or the week
after.
I: I’m, I’m not on call. We set up appointments.
P: Yeah, so, I’m here now. It doesn’t say anything.
I: Well, it does to me.
P: But it doesn’t to me and that’s, that’s more
important because I am the one that did it [ends].
In this excerpt, the interviewer (I) and the sub-
ject (S) are discussing the tips the subject makes
while working as a server. Earlier, the subject
described a scenario where he gave customers
free coffee in an effort to be repaid in tip money.
S: I don’t care if I make fifteen cents on a dollar,
I make fifteen percent. That’s all I think about. I’m
not worried about anything else. And those are
good points, man. Waiters make good points
[. . .].
I: That’s why when you got sort of the possible
conflict of interest with the coffee, because the
likelihood is what you’ve done is you’ve knocked
five dollars off the bill. . ..
S: Hoping to get five dollars in my pocket.
I: Well, the chances they will appreciate the service
and. . ..
S: So what would it be, it would be about seventy-
five more cents for me, an extra dollar. That’s
what it would work out to. Actually, yeah,
seventy-five cents. You’re right. [Rationalization
begins] But you know what, when I was doing it,
I mean, I know that. I wasn’t even thinking
about – I won’t say – I was thinking about let’s
serve them, you know and if that meant, yeah, a
better tip, it also meant a better name for the
house. Okay, it wasn’t just for me. I wasn’t selfish
3
in the act. It was really a selfless act. You know,
‘cause for me a dollar here, and a dollar there is
not going to change my life [ends] (Perry and
Presniak 2012).
In the following excerpt, the interviewer
(I) inquires about a past break-up. The patient
(P) rationalizes his understanding of his
ex-girlfriend’s extended time spent away prior to
their separation. It functions to prevent him from
looking at other reasons that relate to himself.
P: [Rationalization beings] I think she was just more
focused on her career and her own personal
goals and the relationship, which is
understandable, just took a back seat. You know,
the relationship was good but she was not going
to change any plans she had to accommodate it
[ends].
Correlation with Health In a recent study com-
paring women with breast cancer to healthy con-
trols, rationalization was used by 77% of healthy
mothers. It also contributed to a relatively high
proportion (8.6%) of their overall defensive func-
tioning (Perry et al. 2015).
When considering clinical populations, a study
conducted among adults with borderline person-
ality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, or
bipolar type II affective disorder examined the
relationship between the use of defenses and psy-
chosocial symptomology and behaviors (Perry
and Cooper 1989). The use of disavowal defenses
(rationalization, denial, or projection) was associ-
ated with observer-rated symptoms of depression,
anxiety, hypomania, alcohol abuse, and antisocial
behavior over a one- and two-year follow-up.
When considering self-reported symptomology,
this group of defenses was only associated with
measures of anger and hostility. This finding sug-
gests that while disavowal defenses may protect
the individual from awareness of most of their
symptoms and problematic behaviors, they do
not effectively hide them from others. In addition,
the study found associations between the use of
disavowal defenses and poor psychosocial and
global functioning (Perry and Cooper 1989);
again suggesting that while these defenses may
protect the individual from awareness of poor
4 Rationalization (Defense Mechanism)
functioning, they do not actually translate to
healthful functioning.
When relating rationalization to specific diag-
noses, one study compared the defense use
between individuals with dysthymia and individ-
uals with panic disorder (Bloch et al. 1993). Those
with dysthymia demonstrated higher use of dis-
avowal defenses when compared to those with
panic disorder. No associations were identified
when looking at rationalization as an individual
defense, however. Another study examined the
potential role of defenses in personality disorders
(Perry et al. 2013). Rationalization was found to
be among the most prevalent defenses present in
all examined personality disorders (schizotypal,
borderline, antisocial, and narcissistic). Other
researchers have theorized that rationalization
may be the major defense operating among indi-
viduals with hypochondriasis. For example,
Holmes (1981) suggested that physical symptoms
and complaints typical of those with hypochon-
driasis are rationalizations of their experienced
anxiety; in this way they are able to acknowledge
their anxiety while disavowing the psychological
cause.
Changes in Psychotherapy and Develop-
ment Other studies have examined changes in
the use of defenses over the course of long-term
therapy. One recent study demonstrated that indi-
viduals with depressive, anxious, and personality
disorders’ use of less adaptive defenses decreased,
while their use of more adaptive defenses
increased (Perry and Bond 2012). Interestingly,
however, an exception to this trend was demon-
strated by the disavowal defenses. Although not
significant, there appeared to be a trend for dis-
avowal defenses to increase with time. Despite an
association between decreased frequency of dis-
avowal defenses and improved functioning and
symptoms (Perry and Bond 2012), it appears that
this level of defenses is somewhat resistant to
treatment.
Defensive Shifts It has been suggested that there
may be a shift over time in the use of rationaliza-
tion to the use of intellectualization. In rationali-
zation, there is an unconscious cover-up of the
true reasons for thoughts, actions, or feelings. As
an individual becomes more willing to tolerate the
anxiety of not distorting the facts, they may divert
to detaching themselves from the affective com-
ponent of the conflict via the excessive use of
abstract thinking. Thus, while now acknowledg-
ing reality, they still protect themselves from the
uncomfortable associated feelings.
Future Directions Considering the associations
between the use of disavowal defenses and health
and adaptiveness (Perry and Cooper 1989), future
research should continue to explore these relation-
ships, looking at associations with individual
defenses such as rationalization. Direction of cau-
sality, potential interventions, and associations
among community and nonclinical populations
should all be explored. Additionally, more
research may be needed to better understand dis-
avowal defenses resistance to psychotherapy
treatment, especially given the documented rela-
tionship between the decreased use of disavowal
defenses and improved functioning and
symptomology (Perry and Bond 2012).
Conclusion
Rationalization is a disavowal defense which pro-
tects the individual from emotional conflicts and
internal or external stressors by devising incorrect
but plausible explanations for thoughts, actions,
and feelings. The term was first used in psycho-
dynamic theory in 1908 by Ernest Jones and has
been studied as one of the several defense mech-
anisms since. When examining rationalization at
the level of disavowal defenses, associations with
symptoms, functioning, and disorders have been
demonstrated. This is indicative of the importance
of future research in this domain of defenses.
Cross-References
▶ Defense Mechanisms
▶ Intellectualization (Defense Mechanism)
▶ Projection (Defense Mechanism)
▶ Psychoanalysis
Rationalization (Defense Mechanism) 5

▶ Psychodynamic Perspective Perry, J. C. (1990). Defense mechanism rating scales:

▶ Psychodynamic Processes Manual (5th ed.). Boston: Cambridge University.
Perry, J. C. (2014). Anomalies and specific functions in the
▶ Unconscious clinical identification of defense mechanisms. Journal
▶ Undoing (Defense Mechanism) of Clinical Psychology, 70(5), 406–418. doi:10.1002/
jclp.22085.
Perry, J. C., & Bond, M. (2012). Change in defense mech-
anisms during long-term dynamic psychotherapy and
References five-year outcome. The American Journal of Psychiatry,
169(9), 916–925. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.11091403.
Perry, J. C., & Cooper, S. H. (1989). An empirical study of
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and
defense mechanisms. I. Clinical interview and life
statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arling-
vignette ratings. Archives of General Psychiatry,
ton: American Psychiatric Association.
46(5), 444–452.
Bloch, A. L., Shear, M. K., Markowitz, J. C., Leon, A. C., &
Perry, J. C., & Presniak, M. D. (2012). Conflicts and
Perry, J. C. (1993). An empirical study of defense mech-
defenses in Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In J. S.
anisms in dysthymia. The American Journal of Psychi-
Ogrodniczuk, Understanding and treating pathological
atry, 150(8), 1194–1198. doi:10.1176/ajp.150.8.1194.
Narcissism. Washington: American Psychological
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton: Princeton
Association.
University Press.
Perry, J. C., Presniak, M. D., & Olson, T. R. (2013). Defense
Holmes, C. B. (1981). Rationalization as the major defense
mechanisms in schizotypal, borderline, antisocial, and
in hypochondriasis. Psychological Reports, 49(2), 676.
narcissistic personality disorders. Psychiatry (Edgmont),
doi:10.2466/pr0.1981.49.2.676.
76(1), 32–52. doi:10.1521/psyc.2013.76.1.32.
Jones, E. (1908). Rationalization in everyday life. Journal
Perry, J. C., Metzger, J., & Sigal, J. J. (2015). Defensive
of Abnormal Psychology. 3, 161–169.
functioning among women with breast cancer and
Juni, S. (1997). Conceptualizing defense mechanisms from
matched community controls. Psychiatry (Edgmont),
drive theory and object relations perspectives. Ameri-
78(2), 156–169. doi:10.1080/00332747.2015.1051445.
can Journal of Psychoanalysis, 57(2), 149–166.