Over-strict definitions can define a phenomenon out of existence

Evidence

Holmes’s first criterion was trait possession; in other words, direct projection could only be labeled as such if the projector actually possessed the trait being attributed to someone else. It was not enough for a person to simply fear possessing the trait. Unfortunately, the usefulness of this criterion is dependent on there being a definitive method for deciding that a person “has” a trait, and as has already been noted, that is not the case. Holmes’s other criterion was that direct projection had to take place without awareness. Projection, though, may result from a number of interrelated psychological processes, and a person’s level of awareness of each one might not be identical (Newman, 2001b). Holmes concluded that there was no empirical evidence for defensive projection, but given the definition he promoted, it is easy to see why no studies met his criteria. For example, it was not even clear what the “awareness” criterion referred to: Awareness of having the trait? Awareness of attributing it to someone else? Awareness of the connection between one’s own selfconcept and the impressions one forms of others? — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2351

Categorization

• DEFINE: Illustrates how a definition’s operational criteria (trait possession plus non-awareness) make a phenomenon empirically disappear regardless of whether it exists.
• SEED: Article angle: when rigorous operationalization kills a real phenomenon — the cases where demanding exactly-testable criteria means the research null is an artifact of the definition, not reality.
• XREF: Connects to the general epistemology problem raised elsewhere in this volume about terms defined loosely enough to survive yet too loosely to test. — connects to: Concept indicators differ in whether they define, reveal, or cause a phenomenon — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 45
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2351