Tunca, Işıl ÖzüakÖzen-Akın, GayeDayi, Ali2025-03-092025-03-0920241302-55702791-9846https://doi.org/10.51982/bagimli.1355379https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/1211463https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12662/4776Objective: This study aimed to identify both the shared and distinct aspects of the codependency characteristics of individuals with (clinical group, n=56) and without dependent relatives (non-clinical group, n=59) by comparing them in terms of personal (defense-mechanisms), domestic (family-functionality), and relational (attachment-styles) contexts. Method: Codependency Assessment Tool (CODAT), Defense Styles Questionnaire 40 (DSQ-40), Family Assessment Device (FAD), and Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ) were used as data collection tools. Results: The clinical group scored statistically significantly higher on CODAT (other focus/self-neglect, low-self-worth, family-of-origin-issues subscales and total), DSQ-40 (immature-defenses subscale), FAD (failure in problem-solving, communication, role-distribution, affective-responsiveness, affective-involvement, general-functioning subscales and total), RSQ (preoccupied-attachment subscale) than the non-clinical group. The non-clinical group scored significantly higher on the mature-defenses subscale than the clinical group. Immature-defenses, failure in problem-solving and preoccupied-attachment predicted codependency in the clinical group whereas in the non-clinical group, immature-defenses and unhealthy-communication were significant predictors of codependency. Conclusion: Codependency characteristics differ among individuals with and without dependent family members. As immature defenses predicted codependency in both groups, the use of this defense mechanism may be a fundamental feature of codependency.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAttachment stylesdefense mechanismsCodependencyfamily functioningArticle10.51982/bagimli.13553792022191121146325