Overly strict criteria defined defensive projection out of empirical existence

Evidence

Unfortunately, the result was that direct projection was essentially defined out of existence. 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. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2351