Projection results from failed thought suppression rather than actual possession of traits

Evidence

More recently, though, projection has been reconceptualized in socialcognitive terms, and perhaps not coincidentally, is enjoying a revival of interest. Newman, Duff, and Baumeister (1997) formulated and tested a model of defensive projection in which the tendency to overperceive one’s own undesired traits in others is a byproduct of another defense: thought suppression. When individuals confront evidence indicating they may not be the type of people they want to be, they might attempt to suppress thoughts of that evidence. But research by Wegner and colleagues (e.g., Wegner, 1992) indicates that actively trying to keep a thought out of awareness can backfire; suppression of a thought can ironically increase the accessibility of that thought. The frequency with which unwanted thoughts are activated causes them to become chronically accessible (Higgins, 1989) and to therefore dominate people’s perceptions of others, resulting in projection. Individuals with repressive coping styles, by virtue of their tendency to avoid thinking about threats to their self-esteem by suppressing such thoughts, are even more prone to projection. It should be noted that an undesired trait does not even have to be “possessed” in any way by the person projecting it; it is enough to simply fear the trait and/or be motivated not to be characterized by it. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2355

Categorization

• XREF: Directly updates the classic Allport line on projection as a prejudice mechanism — useful empirical grounding for the vault’s mechanism claims. — connects to: Illusory pattern perception signals control motivation rather than control restoration. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 50
• QUESTION: What are the downstream implications of projection not requiring actual possession of the trait for prejudice interventions?