When I Think of You I Project Myself

Abstract

Across two studies, we examined the correspondence between targets’ idiographic goals and the goals attributed to them by their social contacts. In both studies, targets listed their personal goals while informants specified the goals they believed targets were pursuing. Target and informant ratings of interpersonal closeness were also collected. Furthermore, in Study 2, informants listed the goals that they themselves were currently pursuing. All goals were coded for motive-based (e.g., power) and domain-based (e.g., health) content. Informant and target reports were largely unrelated and relationship closeness did not moderate this association, although self–other agreement was noted in one domain-based category. In Study 2, the content of informants’ other-attributed goals was strongly predicted by the content of their self-attributed goals. Thus, when individuals perceive the goals and motivations of others, they tend to project their own motivational proclivities.

Accuracy in Perceptions of Fundamental Social Motives: Comparisons to Perceptions of Big Five Traits and Associations With Friendship Quality

“…Thus, although most motives may have some external, behavioral manifestations, we argue that, on average, motives are likely to be less visible than traits, and therefore, accuracy for motives is likely to be lower than accuracy for traits. This is in line with recent work on self-informant agreement regarding motivational themes in a person’s freely listed goals, which found low and generally nonsignificant levels of agreement (Dunlop et al, 2017), suggesting that such information may indeed be more difficult to judge than traits.…”

“…Accurate perceptions of others’ personality traits may thus facilitate better relationships, and indeed, they are associated with greater liking among new acquaintances (Human, Carlson, Geukes, Nestler, & Back, 2018; Human, Sandstrom, Biesanz, & Dunn, 2013) and greater relationship satisfaction and longevity for established romantic couples (Letzring & Noftle, 2010; Luo & Snider, 2009; Neff & Karney, 2005). However, the majority of prior research on accurate personality impressions has focused on traits, paying less attention to other levels of personality—such as motivations—that may be just as useful to accurately perceive (for exceptions, see Bernard, 2009; Dunlop, McCoy, Harake, & Gray, 2017).…”

Heart-followers, hero, maiden: Life story positioning within a romantic couple.

“…This aligns with the body of findings that individuals project their own goals and motivations when ideographically interpreting others, regardless if those others are personally known (Dunlop, McCoy, Harake, & Gray, 2018) or fictional characters, e.g., via Thematic Apperception Test (Emmons & McAdams, 1991;McAdams, 1982).…”

The Social Interaction Model of Objectification: A process model of goal‐based objectifying exchanges between men and women

“…When a man interacts with a woman who can enable his sexual goals, the interaction may proceed in ways that confirm that the woman exists for the man's sexual pleasure. Thus, while a woman could be attributed subjectivity and autonomy, these attributions could be colored by men's sexual desires, through a form of social projection (Dunlop, McCoy, Harake, & Gray, 2018;Lenton, Bryan, Hastie, & Fischer, 2007). To the extent that such misattributed sexual agency is limited to the sexual domain, it represents a cognitive mechanism for objectifying the woman to fulfil the man's sexual goals (Langton, 2009).…”

“…Men think 'I desire this', which transforms to 'She must also desire this'. This contrived empathy represents a form of social projection (Dunlop et al, 2018;Lenton et al, 2007), or the tendency to expect similarities between oneself and others. Faced with some uncertainty about a woman's desires and intentions, men may rely on their own.…”