Social projection

Last updated

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. [1] Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. [2] Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. [2] [3] In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others. [4]

Contents

History

The term social projection was first coined by Floyd Allport in 1924. The idea refers to the process of creating knowledge about the characteristics of an individual or group of individuals based on the self as a reference point. [5] Building off Leon Festinger’s theory of  social comparisons, researchers became interested in how attitudes about groups or individuals were created in the absence of information about the comparison group. [6] Modern investigation of social projection diverges from Festinger’s conception of social comparison theory by emphasizing that the consensus creation process is an implicit rather than explicit phenomenon. Further, the process can and does occur without clear information about the true consensus of the individual or reference group. [6] The classic study by Ross, Greene, and House(1977) [7] on the false consensus effect sparked further interest in how social projection processes lead individuals to believe that their own behaviors and beliefs are common among other individuals. [6] Research has since shown that this phenomenon has links to the projection of attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs onto others in a wide variety of social contexts. [1] Current lines of research are concerned with three main facets of social projection: the extent to which the projection process is automatic, differentiating the effect of social projection from self-stereotyping, and moderators of the social projection process. [4]

Experimental evidence

At a general level, social projection appears to be robust, as research shows individuals continue to rely on social projection when evaluating others even when they have been made explicitly aware of the phenomenon. [4] Social projection research has also demonstrated that this phenomenon has consistent effects across different social contexts. [1] Early research found that as a prerequisite for social projection to occur, individuals must perceive the other or group as similar to themselves in some capacity. [6] In addition to similarity, the effect of social projection is also determined by an evaluation of valence. Research shows that individuals are more likely to project their own thoughts or beliefs onto others when their perception of the other person or group is more positive. [2] Despite the consistency of these effects across domains of emotion and behavior, differences in the strength of this phenomenon have been shown to depend on whether projections are targeted towards a common ingroup or an outgroup. [1]

Effect

Research has shown that when no information is available for an individual to create a social comparison, individuals tend to believe that others will generally agree with their positions. [6] This concept holds true for several other attitudinal measures. For example, in relationships people tend to project their own attitudes onto their partner. Those who feel positively about themselves also tend to feel more positively about their partners, while those who feel negatively about themselves report less positive evaluations. [8] Social projection is also relevant when predicting the emotions of others. Research investigating the influence of social projection on stock market behavior found that those who were fearful of a crash felt that others were also fearful and were more likely to pull out of the market. [9] Research in political psychology has demonstrated that social projection also occurs in the political process. An American study found that those with more polarized opinions on political issues perceive others to be more polarized as well. [10]

Behavior

Studies have also shown that social projection often informs the way that individuals create information around the behavior and intentions of others in a variety of contexts. Research has shown that after receiving self relevant feedback, individuals tended to either overestimate or underestimate the performance of others depending on how they personally performed, such that successful individuals estimated that others would also be successful and unsuccessful individuals estimated that others would be unsuccessful as well. [11] The over or under estimation in this context was dependent on receiving feedback, but in general situations where feedback was not provided, individuals tended to have more optimistic perceptions of other people’s behavior in general, believing that people were more likely to succeed on average. [11] A similar effect was found in studies assessing social projection and the perception of cooperative behavior. Using a prisoner's dilemma task, research has shown that those who decide to cooperate tend to believe that others will cooperate as well. [12] The same finding has been replicated in evaluations of goal oriented behavior in both learning oriented and competitive situations. [13] Regardless of whether an individual's personal goals are held implicitly or have been explicitly assigned, individuals tended to project their own goals onto others. [13] Psychologists argue that this tendency for individuals to believe others will act in similar ways as themselves has functional impacts on improving group cohesion and cooperative behavior. [4]

Ingroup projection

While social projection may occur and both individual and group level comparisons, a meta-analysis revealed that the effects of ingroup projection are much stronger than outgroup projection. [1] In line with general social projection, ingroup projection research has shown that individuals have a tendency to project features of their own ingroup onto another superordinate group category. [14] For example, Germans may project what they perceive to be German qualities onto the superordinate group category of Europeans. Michael Wenzel and Amélie Mummendey created the ingroup projection model to describe the specific process of group-based social projection which states that individuals compare their ingroup to other similar groups using the frame of a common superordinate group identity. [15] As a process, ingroup projection is thought to have important implications for core intergroup relations processes like ingroup favoritism and ingroup differentiation. [3] Studies of ingroup projection also show that the projection process is sensitive to beliefs about the ingroup. In situations where the ingroup is perceived as positive, ingroup projection has a stronger effect. However when the group is viewed negatively, individual level social projection becomes the dominant effect in ascribing traits to others. [14]

Outgroup projection

Contrary to common sense assumptions that an individual’s outgroup projections would lead to negative or opposite evaluations of an outgroup, one meta-analysis indicates that there seems to be little support for negative projection to outgroups. [1] In this meta-analysis, researchers found a small effect of social projection where individuals projected their own characteristics to a smaller extent on outgroup members as well. Researchers believe the existence of social projection to outgroup members is a function of perceived similarity, such that if the outgroup target is perceived as similar to the individual, social projection processes will occur. [1] Another possible explanation for smaller observed levels of outgroup projection is that the implicit process of projecting may be mitigated or suppressed when the individual realizes they are dissimilar from the outgroup. [4] One study that addresses this similarity claim by asking individuals to imagine having a conversation with a member of the outgroup. Results suggest that imagined contact is able to facilitate social projection processes in outgroup contexts. [16] Experiments have confirmed the presence of counter-projections to out-groups, however. [17]

Effect of social categorization

Research has shown that aspects of social categorization have an effect on the extent to which individuals rely on social projection. An example of the influence of social categorization is the impact of the individual's own group evaluation. One analysis found that the strength of social projection is dependent on group member status and actual consensus. [18] In general, as actual consensus increased, majority group members tended to underestimate and minority group members tended to overestimate their beliefs as being shared by others. [18] Additionally, group membership appears to moderate the effects of social projection and stereotyping, such that both projection and stereotyping only occur when an individual is a member of the group they are evaluating. [19] Some researchers have utilized minimal group paradigms that directly compare the effects of different types of social categories and found that social projection is strongest in clearly defined ingroups, intermediate effects in groups with a mixture of relevant and non-relevant characteristics, and weak effects in clearly defined outgroups. [3] The influence of social categorization appears to be a major determinant of the social projection process. Research has found that changes in an individual’s social categorization(the groups to which they belong) affects an individual’s use of social projection. One study found that when individuals are recategorized into new groups, they will only socially project onto the most recent group and do not project to previous ingroups. [20]

Cognitive versus motivational approach

The two main beliefs regarding the psychological underpinnings of social projection are based in cognitive and motivational approaches. Those who endorse the cognitive approach to understanding social projection believe that this phenomenon is an automatic cognitive heuristic that is built off of a holistic comparison of the self to the projection target. [2] The motivational approach posits that social projection is a result of an individual’s needs to feel connected to others, and that social projection is a means through which these needs are met. [2]

Cognitive perspectives

Cognitive approaches seek to investigate social projection as an underlying psychological heuristic in the evaluation of others. [2] One cognitive approach using reaction times in self-other evaluations has shown that when the reference point is well defined(either the self or the ingroup), evaluating the self onto the ingroup (social projection) was significantly faster than evaluations of the ingroup to the self. Researchers suggest that this is evidence that social projection is a heuristic process that is readily utilized when group based information is ambiguous. [21] Research utilizing implicit association tests have also been used as evidence of social projection as a heuristic process, as researchers claim the tendency for individuals to ascribe self relevant traits to targeted groups in an implicit paradigm suggests a level of automaticity in processing. [22] Familiarity may also have a role in social projection. Researchers found that when an individual gained more personal experience with a behavior, they tended to project their experience more onto others, suggesting that projection is a result of highly salient self-relevant information. [23] Further underscoring this point, priming studies show that reliance on social projection may be the result of salient information. Researchers suggest that primed information is more readily available to an individual and may therefore appear in the appraisal of others. [24]  

Motivational perspectives

Motivational approaches assert that projection happens as a result of a need to be seen in a positive light [3] or to make connections with others. [25] Researchers suggest that the presence of projection in minimal group paradigm studies (where groups hold no prior meaning to an individual) is evidence that projection is motivated by a need to positively differentiate one’s own group from others. [3] In research on the effects of positive ingroup evaluations, social projection shown to predict higher levels of preference for fellow ingroup members. [14] There is also evidence that social projection increases when mortality is made salient, suggesting that social projection is a means through which individuals make interpersonal connections with others. [25] Others have found that the impact of valence on social projection processes points to the need for individuals to drive connection through positive attributions. [2] Moreover, research on attachment styles has demonstrated that an individual’s attachment style determines the type of qualities they project onto others, leading researchers to believe that social connection in part informs social projection processes. [26] Some researchers also argue that the context dependent nature of social projection provides evidence of projection as a motivated phenomenon. In a study on cooperation and social projection, researchers found that an individual’s projection of traits only occurred when the individual believed their traits were beneficial in performing the cooperation task. [27]

Social projection versus self-stereotyping

Meta-analyses of social projection have noted that the effects of social projection in laboratory experiments are higher than those seen in real world group scenarios. [1] Many in turn, believe that self-stereotyping may contribute to the differential effects found between real world and minimal group projection effects. [19]  This has led to debate on how and when individuals rely on social projection or self-stereotyping to evaluate others in the absence of information about other individuals or groups. [19] To address these problems, modern research has sought to understand when and how social projection and self-stereotyping contribute to the formation of beliefs about others using self-relevant information. [19] [21] In some cognitive approaches, researchers have pointed to shorter reaction times in self to group evaluations as evidence that social projection can be meaningfully distinguished as a more implicit process than self-stereotyping in explaining the process of self-other correspondence. [21] Other researchers focus on the different contextual factors that lead to either social projection or self-stereotyping. One study found that perceived similarity directly affected the use of social projection as a means to gain information about another individual or group of individuals. Greater levels of perceived similarity result in more reliance on social projection and less reliance on stereotyping in making evaluations of other individuals or groups. [28] Others have argued that social projection and self-stereotyping are processes that work in tandem when an individual evaluates similarities between the self and others. In other words, views about the self influence projections made to others and beliefs about others in the ingroup influence views about the self. [19] Some researchers claim that reliance on social projection or self-stereotyping changes as a function of development. A study on attitudes towards deviant behavior found that through adolescence, individuals rely more heavily on self-stereotyping, but as individuals transition from adolescence to adulthood social projection becomes more prominent. [29]

See also

Related Research Articles

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In sociology and social psychology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

In social psychology, social salience is the extent to which a particular target draws the attention of an observer or group. The target may be a physical object or a person. If the target is a person, they may be alone or a member of a group or else in a situation of interpersonal communication. It is based on the way a particular feature can be linked to a certain type of speaker, who is then associated with social and emotional evaluations. These evaluations are then transferred to the linguistic feature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black sheep</span> Idiom for oddness or disreputability

In the English language, black sheep is an idiom that describes a member of a group who is different from the rest, especially a family member who does not fit in. The term stems from sheep whose fleece is colored black rather than the more common white; these sheep stand out in the flock and their wool is worth less as it will not dye.

Moral disengagement is a meaning from social psychology and Educational Psychology for the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply to oneself in a particular context. This is done by separating moral reactions from inhumane conduct and disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation. Thus, moral disengagement involves a process of cognitive re-construing or re-framing of destructive behavior as being morally acceptable without changing the behavior or the moral standards.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

The ultimate attribution error is a type of attribution error which describes how attributions of outgroup behavior are more negative than ingroup behavior. As a cognitive bias, the error results in negative outgroup behavior being more likely to be attributed to factors internal and specific to the actor, such as personality, and the attribution of negative ingroup behavior to external factors such as luck or circumstance. The bias reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudice about the outgroup and favouritism of the ingroup through positive stereotypes. The theory also extends to the bias that positive acts performed by ingroup members are more likely a result of their personality.

In social psychology, self-stereotyping is a process by which an individual integrates and internalizes commonly held characterizations of an in-group into their self-concept. It is described as part of social identity theory (SIT) and, more specifically, self-categorization theory (SCT).

In social psychology, collective narcissism is the tendency to exaggerate the positive image and importance of a group to which one belongs. The group may be defined by ideology, race, political beliefs/stance, religion, sexual orientation, social class, language, nationality, employment status, education level, cultural values, or any other ingroup. While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, collective narcissism extends this concept to similar excessively high opinions of a person's social group, and suggests that a group can function as a narcissistic entity.

An implicit bias or implicit stereotype is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group.

The imagined contact hypothesis is an extension of the contact hypothesis, a theoretical proposition centred on the psychology of prejudice and prejudice reduction. It was originally developed by Richard J. Crisp and Rhiannon N. Turner and proposes that the mental simulation, or imagining, of a positive social interaction with an outgroup member can lead to increased positive attitudes, greater desire for social contact, and improved group dynamics. Empirical evidence supporting the imagined contact hypothesis demonstrates its effectiveness at improving explicit and implicit attitudes towards and intergroup relations with a wide variety of stigmatized groups including religious minorities, the mentally ill, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and obese individuals. Researchers have identified a number of factors that influence the effectiveness of the imagined contact hypothesis including vividness of the imagery and how typical the imagined outgroup individual is. While some researchers question the effectiveness of the imagined contact hypothesis, empirical evidence does suggest it is effective at improving attitudes towards outgroups.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

Accentuation effect occurs when something is placed into a category. The differences between the categories are then exaggerated, and differences within the categories themselves are minimised. Memory of anything that can be categorized is subject to an accentuation effect in which the memory is distorted toward typical examples.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

Social identity threat is a theory in social psychology derived from social identity theory to explain the different types of threats that arise from group identity being threatened as opposed to personal identity. This theory distinguishes between four distinct types of social identity threats: categorization threat, distinctiveness threat, threats to the value of social identity, and acceptance threat. Each type is associated with particular social contexts that make the threats more or less likely to occur. This theory emphasizes how the level of commitment with the social identity shapes the nature of the threat experienced.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Robbins, Jordan M.; Krueger, Joachim I. (2005). "Social Projection to Ingroups and Outgroups: A Review and Meta-Analysis". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 9 (1): 32–47. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.470.8102 . doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_3. ISSN   1088-8683. PMID   15745863. S2CID   10229838.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Machunsky, Maya; Toma, Claudia; Yzerbyt, Vincent; Corneille, Olivier (2014-07-31). "Social Projection Increases for Positive Targets". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 40 (10): 1373–1388. doi:10.1177/0146167214545039. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   25081995. S2CID   18474094.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 DiDonato, Theresa E.; Ullrich, Johannes; Krueger, Joachim I. (2011). "Social perception as induction and inference: An integrative model of intergroup differentiation, ingroup favoritism, and differential accuracy". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 100 (1): 66–83. doi:10.1037/a0021051. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   20939650.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Krueger, Joachim I. (2007). "From social projection to social behaviour". European Review of Social Psychology. 18 (1): 1–35. doi:10.1080/10463280701284645. ISSN   1046-3283. S2CID   145765397.
  5. ↑ Allport, Floyd (1924). "Chapter 13: Social Attitudes and Social Consciousness". Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 320–335.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Orive, Ruben (1988). "Social projection and social comparison of opinions". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54 (6): 953–964. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.953. ISSN   0022-3514.
  7. ↑ Ross, Lee; Greene, David; House, Pamela (1977). "The "false consensus effect": An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 13 (3): 279–301. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-x. ISSN   0022-1031. S2CID   9032175.
  8. ↑ Murray, Sandra L.; Holmes, John G.; Griffin, Dale W. (1996). "The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70 (1): 79–98. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.1027.2009 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.79. ISSN   1939-1315.
  9. ↑ Lee, Chan Jean; Andrade, Eduardo B. (2011). "Fear, Social Projection, and Financial Decision Making". Journal of Marketing Research. 48 (SPL): S121–S129. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.spl.s121. ISSN   0022-2437. S2CID   45083903.
  10. ↑ Van Boven, Leaf; Judd, Charles M.; Sherman, David K. (2012). "Political polarization projection: Social projection of partisan attitude extremity and attitudinal processes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 103 (1): 84–100. doi:10.1037/a0028145. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   22545744.
  11. 1 2 Alicke, Mark D.; Largo, Edward (1995). "The Role of Self in the False Consensus Effect". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 31 (1): 28–47. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1002. ISSN   0022-1031.
  12. ↑ Krueger, Joachim I.; DiDonato, Theresa E.; Freestone, David (2012-01-01). "Social Projection Can Solve Social Dilemmas". Psychological Inquiry. 23 (1): 1–27. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2012.641167. ISSN   1047-840X. S2CID   144390646.
  13. 1 2 Kawada, Christie; Oettingen, Gabriele; Gollwitzer, Peter; Bargh, John (2004). "The projection of implicit and explicit goals". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86 (4): 545–559. doi:10.1037/e633912013-377. PMID   15053705 . Retrieved 2020-11-29.
  14. 1 2 3 Bianchi, Mauro; Machunsky, Maya; Steffens, Melanie C.; Mummendey, Amélie (2009). "Like Me or Like Us". Experimental Psychology. 56 (3): 198–205. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.3.198. ISSN   1618-3169. PMID   19289362.
  15. ↑ Mummendey, Amélie; Wenzel, Michael (1999). "Social Discrimination and Tolerance in Intergroup Relations: Reactions to Intergroup Difference". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 3 (2): 158–174. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4. ISSN   1088-8683. PMID   15647144. S2CID   41786779.
  16. ↑ Stathi, Sofia; Crisp, Richard J. (2008). "Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to outgroups". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 44 (4): 943–957. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.003. ISSN   0022-1031.
  17. ↑ Denning, K. R., & Hodges, S. D. (2021). When Polarization Triggers Out-Group “Counter-Projection” Across the Political Divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 014616722110212. doi:10.1177/01461672211021211
  18. 1 2 Mullen, Brian; Smith, Colleen (1990). "Social Projection as a Function of Actual Consensus". The Journal of Social Psychology. 130 (4): 501–506. doi:10.1080/00224545.1990.9924612. ISSN   0022-4545. PMID   28135511.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 Cho, Jeff C.; Knowles, Eric D. (2013). "I'm like you and you're like me: Social projection and self-stereotyping both help explain self–other correspondence". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 104 (3): 444–456. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.706.4308 . doi:10.1037/a0031017. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   23276270.
  20. ↑ Clement, Russell W.; Krueger, Joachim (2002). "Social Categorization Moderates Social Projection". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 38 (3): 219–231. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1503. ISSN   0022-1031.
  21. 1 2 3 Otten, Sabine; Epstude, Kai (2006). "Overlapping Mental Representations of Self, Ingroup, and Outgroup: Unraveling Self-Stereotyping and Self-Anchoring". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 32 (7): 957–969. doi:10.1177/0146167206287254. hdl: 11370/ad253546-2b98-4091-bfe1-60aabcc4b921 . ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   16738028. S2CID   11411620.
  22. ↑ Bianchi, Mauro; Mummendey, Amélie; Steffens, Melanie C.; Yzerbyt, Vincent Y. (2010-05-17). "What Do You Mean by "European"? Evidence of Spontaneous Ingroup Projection". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 36 (7): 960–974. doi:10.1177/0146167210367488. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   20479216. S2CID   16066386.
  23. ↑ Kelley, Colleen M.; Jacoby, Larry L. (1996). "Adult Egocentrism: Subjective Experience versus Analytic Bases for Judgment". Journal of Memory and Language. 35 (2): 157–175. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0009. ISSN   0749-596X.
  24. ↑ Van Boven, Leaf; Loewenstein, George (2003). "Social Projection of Transient Drive States". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 29 (9): 1159–1168. doi:10.1177/0146167203254597. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   15189611. S2CID   13252127.
  25. 1 2 Arndt, Jamie; Greenberg, Jeff; Solomon, Sheldon; Pyszczynski, Tom; Schimel, Jeff (1999). "Creativity and terror management: Evidence that creative activity increases guilt and social projection following mortality salience". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (1): 19–32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.19. ISSN   1939-1315.
  26. ↑ Mikulincer, Mario; Horesh, Netta (1999). "Adult attachment style and the perception of others: The role of projective mechanisms". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 76 (6): 1022–1034. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.1022. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   10402684.
  27. ↑ Toma, Claudia; Corneille, Olivier; Yzerbyt, Vincent (2012-06-13). "Holding a Mirror Up to the Self". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 38 (10): 1259–1271. doi:10.1177/0146167212449022. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   22700241. S2CID   7050541.
  28. ↑ Ames, Daniel R.; Weber, Elke U.; Zou, Xi (2012). "Mind-reading in strategic interaction: The impact of perceived similarity on projection and stereotyping". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 117 (1): 96–110. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.007. ISSN   0749-5978. S2CID   15193395.
  29. ↑ Seddig, Daniel (2019-09-16). "Individual Attitudes toward Deviant Behavior and Perceived Attitudes of Friends: Self-stereotyping and Social Projection in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood". Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 49 (3): 664–677. doi:10.1007/s10964-019-01123-x. ISSN   0047-2891. PMID   31529235. S2CID   202672812.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.