Academia.eduAcademia.edu

The Projection of Implicit and Explicit Goals

Profile image of Peter GollwitzerPeter Gollwitzer

2004, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

visibility

…

description

15 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

In 3 studies, the authors analyzed whether projection occurs for both conscious and nonconscious goals. In Experiment 1, participants who were predisposed to hold a learning goal over a performance goal rated others as possessing more of a learning goal. In Experiment 2, participants who were either implicitly primed with or explicitly assigned to have the goal to compete perceived others as striving for competitive goals more than control participants. In Experiment 3, the authors demonstrated that it was the actual goal to compete rather than the trait construct of competitiveness that was projected. The control of automatic goal projection effects is discussed, and interpersonal consequences of goal projection are delineated. In its most general sense, projection refers to ascribing one's own characteristics onto others. The classical definition of projection, though, refers to a more motivational process by which individuals ascribe their own negative characteristics onto others, while also denying these same characteristics in themselves . In this sense, projection acts as a defense mechanism that lessens the discomfort caused by possession of these undesirable characteristics by thrusting "forth upon the external world whatever within itself gives rise to pain [i.e., the process of projection]" (Freud, /1953, p. 78), p. 78). 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). 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), 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 . In similarity projection, an individual possesses a certain attribute and projects it onto another person but is not aware of its possession. And last, in complementary projection, the individual possesses a certain attribute, is aware of possessing it, and then projects the cause of it onto others. For all of these types of projection, it is assumed that the person remains unaware of the projection process. Past research has found support for the existence of complementary projection, demonstrating that frightened individuals see others as more frightening and that individuals who are placed in an electric chair see others as being more dangerous and threatening . Ample empirical support also exists for attributive projection (e.g., a helpful person will see others as more helpful), as people are found to see others as they see themselves (Sherman, Presson, & Chassin, 1984). For instance, research on the false

Related papers

Social Projection Increases for Positive Targets Ascertaining the Effect and Exploring Its Antecedents
Claudia Toma

Imagine you are at a party with a lot of people whom you do not know very well. There is one person, Thomas, whom you find particularly interesting, friendly, and, more generally, positive. At the same party there is another person, John, whom you see as rather unfriendly, cold, and, more generally, negative. Because people typically go beyond the information given, you may form expectations about Thomas and John even before getting to know them better. The question is how you form expectations about them. Obviously, there are several ways to form expectations about others with stereotyping being probably the most prominent one. Another option would be to use your own characteristics to draw inferences about Thomas' and John's characteristics, a process referred to as social projection. Would you project your characteristics to the same extent onto Thomas and onto John? And would you project more your positive or your negative characteristics? Finally, would this process occur irrespective of how you feel about yourself? The present research aims at addressing those important and unanswered questions. Social projection denotes the assignment of one's own characteristics, attitudes, and behavioral preferences to other people or social groups (

View PDFchevron_right
Social Projection Increases for Positive Targets
Vincent Yzerbyt

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2014

Social projection denotes the attribution of characteristics of the self to others and, therefore, increases perceived self–other similarity. The present research tests the assumption that positive but not negative targets elicit social projection. Earlier research has attributed an effect of target valence to mere consistency principles of judgment and has, thus, questioned projection processes to be the origin of self–other similarity. Building on more recent evidence, we suggest that target valence influences self–other similarity above and beyond a consistent response behavior. The results of three experiments in which target valence was manipulated through evaluative conditioning and by smiling versus neutral facial expression support our hypothesis. We discuss how cognitive versus motivated processes can account for these findings and suggest a new conceptualization of social projection whereby projection is a means to regulate social distance.

View PDFchevron_right
Anticipated cooperation vs. competition moderates interpersonal projection
Claudia Toma

2010

Two experiments investigated the impact of anticipated interdependence on people's projection of their characteristics onto an unknown target. After participants had rated themselves on a list of personality traits, they were led to expect a situation of cooperation or competition with another participant and rated this participant on the same list of traits. In both experiments, projection of self-attributed traits was stronger under cooperation than competition. This effect was independent of trait valence, whether defined a priori (Expt 1) or as an idiosyncratic measure (Expt 2). Experiment 2 also revealed that the moderation of interpersonal projection by interdependence was not driven by changes in participants' self-representation. These findings suggest that the anticipated interdependence context influences the way we perceive similarity with unknown others. We discuss possible cognitive and motivational mechanisms underlying this effect.

View PDFchevron_right
Holding a Mirror Up to the Self Egocentric Similarity Beliefs Underlie Social Projection in Cooperation
Claudia Toma

2012

Similarity between partners entails positive consequences for cooperative interactions. But do people rely on this assumption to construe egocentric judgments about others? Five experiments examined the possibility that people project onto their partners because they believe that similarity to the self leads to success in cooperation. Studies 1a and 1b show that people hold an egocentric similarity belief in cooperation. Studies 2a and 2b test the existence of this belief in more indirect ways. The next three studies manipulate the applicability of the similarity belief and investigate its impact on projection. Study 3 finds that cooperation no longer leads to projection when participants expect a low probability of success. Study 4 replicates this effect in a real cooperative setting. Finally, Study 5 shows that projection occurs only when participants expect their characteristics to be responsible for the success of cooperation. The negative consequences of overestimating similarities in cooperation are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
Motivational and Contextual Considerations Concerning the Social Projection Hypothesis
Karl-andrew Woltin, Claudia Toma

Psychological Inquiry, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
A new look at defensive projection: Thought suppression, accessibility, and biased person perception
Leonard Newman

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997

It has long been assumed that people perceive in others qualities that they wish to deny in themselves, but empirical evidence for defensive projection is limited and controversial. A new model of projection is presented in this article. People might try to actively suppress thoughts about the possibility that they have undesirable personality traits, but it was hypothesized that this response to threat ultimately causes thoughts about the unwanted traits to become chronically accessible. As a result, those trait concepts will be used to interpret others' behavior. Studies 1-4 showed that those people who both avoid thinking about having threatening personality traits and deny possessing them (repressors) also readily infer those traits from others' behavior. Studies 5-6 provided experimental support for the model. Unfavorable traits were attributed to participants, who, when they were asked or predisposed to not think about the traits, subsequently projected them onto someone else. Why do so many people regard their rivals and opponents as exploitative and unscrupulous? Why are some people consumed with intense, irrational suspicions that their lovers are unfaithful? Why are gay people vilified and attacked by many heterosexuals? How do people form stereotypes of out-groups whose members they scarcely know? One traditional answer to such questions invokes the concept of projection (A. Freud, 1936; S. Freud, 1915/1957). According to this view, when people are motivated to avoid seeing certain faults in themselves, they contrive instead to see those same faults in others. In recent years, a number of researchers have analyzed and investigated the social-cognitive mechanisms underlying phenomena that have traditionally been associated with psychoanalytic theory (e.g.,

View PDFchevron_right
Nice or smart? Task relevance of self-characteristics moderates interpersonal projection
Vincent Yzerbyt

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2012

Two studies investigated the impact of trait relevance to a specific task on people's projection of their characteristics onto a cooperative partner. We either measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2) the relevance of a trait to a specific cooperative task. In both studies, participants first rated themselves on a list of traits. Then they imagined completing a cooperative task with an unknown partner. Finally, they rated the partner on the same list of traits. In Study 1, we found partner ratings to be positively influenced by self ratings and the idiosyncratic measure of trait relevance. In Study 2, participants rated the self and the partner on competence and warmth traits while completing an intellectual or a social task. We found partner ratings to be positively influenced by self ratings more on competence than on warmth in the intellectual task, but more on warmth than on competence in the social task. These results suggest that people project onto others in a way that maximizes their chances to succeed in cooperation.

View PDFchevron_right
Thought Suppression, Projection, and the Development of Stereotypes
Leonard Newman

Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2005

The psychodynamic approach to stereotyping and prejudice focuses on how out-group denigration can result from people's efforts to defend themselves against unpleasant thoughts and feelings. In line with that approach, the role of defensive projection in the development of unfavorable impressions of other groups of people was investigated. Hypotheses were derived from Newman, Duff, and Baumeister's (1997) model of projection. Participants were told that they belonged to groups that might have some unfavorable attributes. When they were asked to suppress thoughts about one of those attributes, they subsequently projected it onto another group. This effect was strongest for groups that most successfully suppressed the thought (i.e., those that never mentioned the trait even once during a group discussion). In sum, when people avoid thinking about their own groups' shortcomings, thoughts about those characteristics could become highly accessible and be used to form impressions of other groups of people. Stereotyping and prejudice are complex phenomena (Fiske, 1998), but research on these topics has traditionally been organized in terms of three broad approaches (see Ashmore &

View PDFchevron_right
Social Categorization Moderates Social Projection
Joachim Krueger

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2002

When categorized into social groups, people view members of in-groups, but not members of out-groups, as being similar to themselves. In three experiments, social categorization moderated the spread of social projection in both minimal and value-tagged laboratory groups and regardless of whether individual perceivers judged both groups or only one. The categorization effect tracked changes in the perceiver's group status so that most perceivers projected only to present but not past in-groups. The lack of out-group projection supported an anchoring hypothesis, according to which self-referent information is engaged only when it is considered applicable to the judgment at hand. The induction hypothesis and the differentiation hypothesis, which predicted positive and negative out-group projection, respectively, were not supported. Implications for theories of intergroup perception and bias are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
Stereotypes Focus Defensive Projection
Olesya Govorun

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2006

Defensive projection is the process of perceiving one's undesirable qualities in others. The present research shows how stereotypes guide and justify the projection of specific traits onto specific group members. In four studies, the authors demonstrated that people who experienced a threat to a specific dimension of their self-concept selectively activated this dimension in a stereotype and derogated stereotyped others on this dimension. They further showed that stereotyped individuals are more likely to serve as targets of projection than are nonstereotyped individuals. These results demonstrate the functional role of stereotypes in guiding and constraining motivated self-enhancement.

View PDFchevron_right

References (105)

  1. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationship as including the other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.
  2. Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). A dynamic theory of action. New York: Wiley.
  3. Bargh, J. A. (1990). Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of thought and behavior. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 93-130). New York: Guilford Press.
  4. Bargh, J. A., Bond, R. N., Lombardi, W. J., & Tota, M. E. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessi- bility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 869 -878.
  5. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462-479.
  6. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and per- sonality psychology (pp. 253-285). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Bargh, J. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1994). Environmental control of goal- directed action: Automatic and strategic contingencies between situa- tions and behavior. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 41, 71-124.
  8. Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Tro ¨tschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014 -1027.
  9. Bargh, J. A., & Pietromonaco, P. (1982). Automatic information process- ing and social perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 437-449.
  10. Baumeister, R. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 680 - 740). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  11. Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology: Re- action formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublima- tion, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66, 1081-1124.
  12. Bramel, D. (1963). Selection of a target for defensive projection. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 318 -324.
  13. Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109 -131.
  14. Brunstein, J. C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). Effects of failure on subse- quent performance: The importance of self-defining goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 395-407.
  15. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automatic activation of impres- sion formation and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 464 -478.
  16. Chartrand, T. L., Kawada, C. L. K., & Bargh, J. A. (2002). It takes one to know one: When your own behavior influences your judgment of others. Unpublished manuscript.
  17. Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositions and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 19 -30.
  18. Coie, J. D., Cillessen, A. H. N., Dodge, K. A., Hubbard, J. A., Schwartz, D., Lemerise, E. A., & Bateman, H. (1999). It takes two to fight: A test of relational factors and a method for assessing aggressive dyads. De- velopmental Psychology, 35, 1179 -1188.
  19. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social-information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjust- ment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74 -101.
  20. Dill, K. E., Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, E. (1997). Effects of aggressive personality on social expectations and social perceptions. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 272-292.
  21. Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678 -1683.
  22. Dodge, K. A., & Somberg, D. R. (1987). Hostile attributional biases among aggressive boys are exacerbated under conditions of threats to the self. Child Development, 58, 213-224.
  23. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
  24. Dweck, C. S., & Henderson, V. L. (1988). Theories of intelligence: Background and measures. Unpublished manuscript.
  25. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (2000). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Motivational science: Social and personality perspectives (pp. 394 - 415). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
  26. Edlow, D., & Kiesler, C. (1966). Ease of denial and defensive projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 56 -69.
  27. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
  28. Feshbach, S. (1963). The effects of emotional restraint upon the projection of positive affect. Journal of Personality, 31, 471-481.
  29. Feshbach, S., & Feshbach, N. (1963). Influence of the stimulus object upon the complementary and supplementary projection of fear. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 498 -502.
  30. Feshbach, S., & Singer, R. (1957). The effects of fear arousal and sup- pression of fear upon social perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 283-288.
  31. Fiedler, F. E., Warrington, W. G., & Blaisdell, F. J. (1952). Unconscious attitudes as correlates of sociometric choice in a social group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 790 -796.
  32. Flavell, J. H., & Miller, P. H. (1998). Social cognition. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychol- ogy: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 851-898). New York: Wiley.
  33. Freud, S. (1953). Instincts and their vicissitudes. Collected Papers (Vol. 4). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1915)
  34. Gage, N. L., & Exline, R. V. (1953). Social perception and effectiveness in discussion groups. Human Relations, 6, 381-396.
  35. Gattis, M., Bekkering, H., & Wohlschlager, A. (2002). Goal-directed imitation. In A. N. Meltzoff & W. Prinz (Eds.), imitative mind (pp. 183-205). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 117, 21-38.
  37. Gilovich, T. (1990). Differential construal and the false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 623-634.
  38. Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of another's ability to read one's emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332-346.
  39. Goldings, H. J. (1954). On the avowal and projection of happiness. Journal of Personality, 23, 30 -47.
  40. Goldman, A. I. (1995). Simulation and interpersonal utility. In L. May, M. Friedman, & A. Clark (Eds.), Mind and morals: Essays on cognitive science and ethics (pp. 181-197). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  41. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Kirchhof, O. (1998). The willful pursuit of identity. In J. Heckhausen & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Life-span perspectives on motivation and control (pp. 389 -423). New York: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
  42. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). Goal effects on action and cognition. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychol- ogy: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 361-399). New York: Guilford Press.
  43. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Wicklund, R. A. (1985). Self-symbolizing and the neglect of others' perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 48, 702-715.
  44. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1994). Minds, bodies and persons: Young children's understanding of the self and others as reflected in imitation and theory of mind research. In S. T. Parker, R. W. Mitchell, & M. L. Boccia (Eds.), Self-awareness in animals and humans: Developmental perspectives (pp. 166 -186). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  45. Gordon, R. M. (1986). Folk psychology as simulation. Mind and Lan- guage, 1, 158 -171.
  46. Heal, J. (1986). Replication and functionalism. In J. Butterfield (Ed.), Language, mind, and logic (pp. 135-150). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
  47. Heilbrun, A. B., & Cassidy, J. C. (1985). Toward an explanation of defensive projection in normals: The role of social cognition. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3, 190 -200.
  48. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
  49. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.
  50. Holmes, D. S. (1968). Dimensions of projection. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 248 -268.
  51. Holmes, D. S. (1978). Projection as a defense mechanism. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 677-688.
  52. Holmes, D. S. (1981). Existence of classical projection and the stress- reducing function of attributive function: A reply to Sherwood. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 90, 460 -466.
  53. Holmes, D. S., & Houston, B. K. (1971). The defensive function of projection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 208 -213.
  54. Holmes, D. S., & McCaul, K. D. (1989). Laboratory research on defense mechanisms. In R. W. J. Neufeld (Ed.), Advances in the investigation of psychological stress (pp. 161-192). New York: Wiley.
  55. Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588 -599.
  56. Hornberger, R. (1960). The projective effects of fear and sexual arousal on the rating of pictures. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16, 328 -331.
  57. Horowitz, M. W., Lyons, J., & Perlmutter, H. V. (1951). Induction of forces in discussion groups. Human Relations, 4, 57-76.
  58. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Oxford, England: Holt.
  59. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad- vances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219 -266). New York: Academic Press.
  60. Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Adult egocentrism: Subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 157-175.
  61. Keysar, B. (1994). The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic per- spective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 165-208.
  62. Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in compre- hension. Psychological Science, 11, 32-38.
  63. Keysar, B., & Henly, A. S. (2002). Speaker's overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13, 207-212.
  64. Klein, M. (1940). Mourning and its relationship with manic-depressive states. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 21, 47-82.
  65. Kline, T. J. B., & Sell, Y. P. (1996). Cooperativeness vs. competitiveness: Initial findings regarding effects on the performance of individual and group problem solving. Psychological Reports, 79, 355-365.
  66. Krueger, J., & Stanke, D. (2001). The role of self-referent and other- referent knowledge in perceptions of group characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 878 -888.
  67. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., & Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  68. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  69. Malle, B. F., & Knobe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 101-121.
  70. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  71. Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re- enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 838 -850.
  72. Meltzoff, A. N. (1996, August). Understanding intentions in infancy. Paper presented at the symposium Children's Theory of Mind (A. Leslie, Chair), conducted at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  73. Meltzoff, A. N., & Gopnik, A. (1993). The role of imitation in understand- ing persons and developing a theory of mind. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other minds: Perspectives from autism (pp. 335-366). New York: Oxford University Press. Meltzoff, A. N., Gopnik, A., & Repacholi, B. M. (1999). Toddlers' understanding of intentions, desires and emotions: Explorations of the dark ages. In P. D. Zelazo, J. W. Astington, & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Developing theories of intention (pp. 17-41). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  74. Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1995). Infants' understanding of people and things: From body imitation to folk psychology. In J. Bermudez, A. J. Marcel, & N. Eilan (Eds.), The body and the self (pp. 43-69). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  75. Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1997). Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting, 6, 179 -192.
  76. Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perception of others: The role of projective mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1022-1034.
  77. Moskowitz, G. B., Gollwitzer, P. M., Wasel, W., & Schaal, B. (1999). Preconscious control of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 167-184.
  78. Murray, S. T., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79 -98.
  79. Newman, L. S., Duff, K. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). A new look at defensive projection: Thought suppression, accessibility, and biased person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 980 -1001.
  80. Ogden, T. H. (1982). Projective identification and psychotherapeutic tech- nique. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
  81. Ogden, T. H. (1990). The matrix of the mind. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
  82. Precker, J. A. (1952). Similarity of valuings as a factor in selection of peers and near-authority figures. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 406 -414.
  83. Preston, M. G., Peltz, W. L., Mudd, E. H., & Froscher, H. B. (1952). Impression of personality as a function of marital conflict. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 326 -336.
  84. Riskind, J. H., & Wilson, D. W. (1982). Interpersonal attraction for the competitive person: Unscrambling the competition paradox. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 444 -452.
  85. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The "false consensus effect": An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279 -301.
  86. Ryckman, R. M., Libby, C. R., van-den-Borne, B., Gold, J. A., & Lindner, M. A. (1997). Values of hypercompetitive and personal development competitive individuals. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 271- 283.
  87. Sears, R. (1936). Experimental studies of projection: I. Attribution of traits. Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 151-163.
  88. Segal, H. (1975). Introduction to the work of Melanie Klein. London: Hogarth Press.
  89. Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2000). Aspects of goal networks: Implications for self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 85-110). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  90. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robber's cave exper- iment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
  91. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. An integration of studies of intergroup relations. New York: Harper and Brothers.
  92. Sherman, S. J., Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., & Agostinelli, G. (1984). The role of the evaluation and similarity principles in the false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1244 -1262.
  93. Sherman, S. J., Presson, C. C., & Chassin, L. (1984). Mechanisms under- lying the false consensus effect: The special role of threats to the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 127-138.
  94. Smith, A. J. (1957). Similarity of values and its relation to acceptance and the projection of similarity. Journal of Psychology, 43, 251-260.
  95. Smith, A. J., Jaffee, J., & Livingston, D. G. (1955). Consonance of interpersonal perception and individual effectiveness. Human Relations, 8, 385-397.
  96. Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660 - 1672.
  97. SuperLab Pro (Version 1.05) [Computer software]. (2001). San Pedro, CA: Cedrus.
  98. Taylor, M. (1996). A theory of mind perspective on social cognitive development. In E. Carterette, M. P. Friedman (Series Eds.), R. Gelman, & T. Au (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Vol. 13. Per- ceptual and cognitive development (pp. 283-329). New York: Academic Press.
  99. Tomasello, M. (1999). Having intentions, understanding intentions, and understanding communicative intentions. In P. D. Zelazo, J. W. Asting- ton, & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Developing theories of intention (pp. 63-75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  100. Trope, Y., & Alfieri, T. (1997). Effortfulness and flexibility of disposi- tional judgment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 73, 662-674.
  101. Wegner, D. M. (1989). White bears and other unwanted thoughts: Sup- pression, obsession and the psychology of mental control. New York: Penguin Books.
  102. Wegner, D. M., & Vallacher, R. R. (1986). Action identification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cogni- tion: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 550 -582). New York: Guil- ford Press.
  103. Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1981). Symbolic self-completion, attempted influence, and self-deprecation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 89 -114.
  104. Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic self-completion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  105. Wright, R. A. (1996). Brehm's theory of motivation as a model of effort and cardiovascular response. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 424 -453). New York: Guilford Press.

Related papers

Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception
D Vaughn BEcker

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Social Projection to Ingroups and Outgroups: A Review and Meta-Analysis
Joachim Krueger

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Conditional Projection: How Own Evaluations Impact Beliefs about Others Whose Choices Are Known
Oleg Urminsky

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
In-group-out-group differences in social projection
John Dovidio

1992

View PDFchevron_right
Do We Look Like Me or Like Us? Visual Projection as Self- or Ingroup-Projection
Roland Imhoff

Social Cognition, 2013

View PDFchevron_right
Social Stereotypes and Automatic Goal Pursuit
henk aarts

Social Cognition, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
On using what we know about ourselves in thinking about others: Not so fast
Jerzy Karylowski

Self and Identity

View PDFchevron_right
The Power of Projection for Powerless and Powerful People
Claudia Toma

Social Psychological and Personality Science

View PDFchevron_right
Projection in Person Perception among Spouses as a Function of the Similarity in their Shared Experiences
Amiram Vinokur

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you
Peter Harms

2010

View PDFchevron_right
An experimental study of the non-self-serving attributional bias within the impostor phenomenon and its relation to the fixed mindset
Philipp Herzberg

Current Psychology

View PDFchevron_right
Collange, J., Fiske, S. T., & Sanitioso, R. (2009). Maintaining a Positive Self-Image by Stereotyping Others: Self-Threat and the Stereotype Content Model. Social Cognition, 27(1), 138–149.
Julie Collange

Social Cognition, 2009

View PDFchevron_right
Failure to recognize the effect of implicit social influence on the presentation of self
Dale Miller

Journal of Personality and Social …, 1997

View PDFchevron_right
Objectivity in the Eye of the Beholder: Divergent Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others
Lee Ross

Psychological Review, 2004

View PDFchevron_right
Competence over Communion: Implicit Evaluations of Personality Traits During Goal Pursuit
Marta Roczniewska
View PDFchevron_right
What Can a Looking Glass Reflect? Trait Observability Predicts What Feedback is Incorporated into Self-Knowledge
Alexandra Suppes

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
Uncovering the Multifaceted-Self in the Domain of Negative Traits: On the Muted Expression of Negative Self-Knowledge
Constantine Sedikides

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
Shared representations between self and other: a social cognitive neuroscience view
Jean Decety

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003

View PDFchevron_right
Enhancement Bias in Portrayal of Self and Others on Personality Traits: A Test of Two Explanations
supriti mishra

Psychological Studies, 2015

View PDFchevron_right
Self-esteem, construal, and comparisons with the self, friends, and peers
H. Lockett Stewart

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2002

View PDFchevron_right
From regulation to projection: Reliance on regulatory mode in predictions about others
Karl-Andrew Woltin

European Journal of Social Psychology, 2020

View PDFchevron_right
Goal projection and giving help
Andreas Kappes
View PDFchevron_right
Thinking about oneself and others: The relational-interdependent self-construal and social cognition
Jonathan Gore

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

MarketingPsychologyCognitive PsychologyCognitive ScienceSocial PsychologyInterpersonal CommunicationPsychology of UnconsciousMedicineControl ManagementLanguage tests
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104