How we (do not) trust. Defensive profiles of the three epistemic stances

Introduction. In contemporary research, epistemic trust and its disruptions have surfaced as pivotal elements in enriching our understanding of complex psychological dynamics. However, the interplay between defense mechanisms and epistemic trust remains a relatively unexplored territory. This study aims to advance our understanding of this interaction by developing narrative defensive profiles of the three epistemic stances, that is, epistemic trust (ET), mistrust (EM), and credulity (EC). Methods. A sample of 416 Italian participants (60.6% females and 39.4% males; Mage = 29.4, SDage = 10.8, range 18-70 years) completed an online survey which included two self-report questionnaires: Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire and Defense Mechanisms Rating Scale-Self-Report-30. Results. While ET was primarily associated with mature defense mechanisms, the results showed a positive correlation between epistemic disruptions (EM and EC) and both immature and neurotic defense mechanisms, as well as a negative association with overall defensive functioning. Multiple regression analyses identified three distinct defensive profiles corresponding to each epistemic stance. These findings enhance our understanding of the specific differences between EM and EC, both of which are associated with psychopathological outcomes. Discussion. As far as we are aware, this is the first study that presents the development of defensive narrative profiles based on the three epistemic stances. This study's findings highlight the importance of evaluating epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity in research and clinical settings. Results may be important for clinical assessment, providing an understanding of the three epistemic stances, aiding clinicians in the development of tailored interventions.