If kathleen moves to another state (where her boyfriend also happens to reside) but she states that he had nothing to do with her decision, and that her only reason for moving is that she prefers the climate in the new state, she is most likely to be using as an ego-defense mechanism.

The correct answer is Rationalization.

Explanation: Rationalization is a defense mechanism in which individuals justify uncomfortable or unacceptable behaviors rationally and coherently to avoid consciously acknowledging the true explanation or motive behind said behaviors because it may not be tolerable to them.

Colloquially rationalization can be understood as the act of making excuses for oneself or others to avoid explaining real motives.

In this particular case, Kathleen is rationalizing the act of moving to another state (where her boyfriend resides). She states that he has nothing to do with her decision and goes on to explain that her only reason for moving is that she prefers the climate in the new state.

The correct answer then is a rationalization.

explanation:

i believe the primary and secondary sectors

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.