Dimensions of projection.

Abstract

Past confusion over the concept of projection, especially with regard to the related research evidence, has stemmed from the fact that numerous types of projections have been proposed which were not clearly differentiated from each other. In the present paper it is pointed out that theories of projection differ with regard to 2 major points: (a) whether the individual projects his own trait or a different (complementary) trait, and (b) whether the individual is aware or unaware of possessing the trait which results in the projection. The 4 possible combinations resulting from these theoretical differences are plotted in a 2 X 2 table, which provides a system in which the various types of projection and related research can be classified and compared. A critical review of the research on each type reveals that there is strong evidence for the projection of S's own trait or the complement of this trait if S is aware that he possesses the trait. There is no evidence for any type of projection resulting from a trait which S is not aware that he possesses. This finding calls into question the existence and interpretive use of "classical" (or similarity) projection, the type of response referred to most frequently by the term "projection.

The Innovation Effect of User Design: Exploring Consumers’ Innovation Perceptions of Firms Selling Products Designed by Users

“…This prediction is backed by the well-established literature in social cognitive psychology that states that people generally project their own characteristics, beliefs, and attitudes onto others (Holmes 1968;Kawada et al 2004; see also Ross, Greene, and House 1977). Accordingly, consumers who are familiar with user innovation are likely to project a proactive user stereotype onto other users in other domains when confronted with a firm pursuing common design by users.…”

Do Older Adults Know Their Spouses' End-of-Life Treatment Preferences?

“…2 This concept has also been referred to as "attributive social projection" (Holmes 1968;Krueger and Clement 1997), "egocentric attribution" (Heider 1958), and "false consensus" (Hoch 1987;Krueger and Clement 1994), although authors differ in their precise definitions and applications of each concept.…”

The Projection of Implicit and Explicit Goals.

“…According to D. S. Holmes (1968), there are two main dimensions of projection: one that deals with the content of what is being projected and the other that deals with the awareness of possessing the projected personal characteristics. Regarding the content dimension of projection, individuals can either project onto others the exact same attribute that they possess (e.g., Eric is generous, and he also sees others as being generous) or they can project onto others an attribute that bears a causal relation to the one that they possess (e.g., Eric is frightened, and he sees others as frightening).…”

“…Some time ago, Holmes (1968Holmes ( , 1981 argued that the classic attempt to demonstrate similarity projection (i.e., to compare the projection of attributes the person claims to possess with those attributes observers think the person possesses) is methodologically unacceptable and thus concluded that no evidence for similarity projection exists. However, recent advances in experimental sophistication enable testing of whether projection can indeed be implicit, and there are already some findings that speak to this issue.…”

“…Regarding the content dimension of projection, individuals can either project onto others the exact same attribute that they possess (e.g., Eric is generous, and he also sees others as being generous) or they can project onto others an attribute that bears a causal relation to the one that they possess (e.g., Eric is frightened, and he sees others as frightening). Regarding the awareness dimension of projection, the projector is either aware or not aware of possessing the personal characteristic that is being projected.On the basis of these two dimensions (i.e., content and awareness), Holmes (1968;Holmes & McCaul, 1989) discusses three types of projection: attributive, complementary, and similarity projection. In attributive projection, an individual possesses a certain attribute, is aware that he or she possesses it, and then projects it onto another person (Bramel, 1963;Edlow & Kiesler, 1966;Feshbach & Singer, 1957).…”