Allport’s direct-versus-mote-beam projection distinction cannot be empirically sustained.

Evidence

Why, then, did projection not prove to be a “fascinating subject” for social psychologists in the years following publication The Nature of Prejudice? As we discuss below, the marginalization of the topic had much to do with the status of psychodynamic theorizing in the field more generally. However, it also is necessary to point out some problematic aspects of Allport’s treatment of projection. Some of his distinctions and definitions have either not withstood the test of time or were too fuzzy to begin with. For example, Allport insisted on differentiating between “direct projection” and “mote-beam projection.” Direct projection was said to occur when the trait attributed to another person or group is actually “not at all” (1954/1979, p. 387) characteristic of the target. Mote-beam projection, on the other hand, was said to involve an exaggeration of traits that the target of projection does in fact possess to some extent. Although Allport argued that “it is worthwhile to observe the distinction” (p. 390), it is not clear why. First of all, personality psychologists would be hardpressed to come up with criteria that could be used to determine whether a trait existed “not at all” versus “just a little bit” in some person or group. In addition, it strikes us as more feasible to view the two “types” as simply falling on a continuum defined by the applicability of the trait to the target in question. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2346

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains and then problematizes Allport’s direct versus mote-beam projection distinction.