Scapegoat beliefs reveal the perceiver’s faults or fears more than the target’s traits

Evidence

Both the psychodynamic and frustration–aggression views of scapegoating invoke the notions of displaced aggression (directing aggressive impulses toward an innocent target) and projection (attributing negative characteristics and blame to targets to justify aggressing against them). The Freudian approach, however, emphasized what Allport termed “direct projection,” in which the individual’s own unacceptable impulses are projected onto others, allowing people to deny their own faults. Direct projection requires a complicated set of ego-defense mechanisms, including repression (eliminating conscious awareness that the faults are one’s own) as well as displacement. The frustration–aggression approach concentrated instead on what Allport termed “complementary projection” in which perceivers explain feelings (of which they are consciously aware) by projecting complementary, causal traits onto others (e.g., I am fearful, therefore you must be hostile). Because the source of frustration is external (circumstances that block attainment of goals, rather than “character-conditioned” internal psychodynamic conflict) there is no need for repression. In both views, however, derogatory beliefs about scapegoats reveal more about the perceiver (either their faults or their fears) than they do about the actual traits of the scapegoated group, which merely serves as a projective screen. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1565

Both the psychodynamic and frustration–aggression views of scapegoating invoke the notions of displaced aggression (directing aggressive impulses toward an innocent target) and projection (attributing negative characteristics and blame to targets to justify aggressing against them). The Freudian approach, however, emphasized what Allport termed “direct projection,” in which the individual’s own unacceptable impulses are projected onto others, allowing people to deny their own faults. Direct projection requires a complicated set of ego-defense mechanisms, including repression (eliminating conscious awareness that the faults are one’s own) as well as displacement. The frustration–aggression approach concentrated instead on what Allport termed “complementary projection” in which perceivers explain feelings (of which they are consciously aware) by projecting complementary, causal traits onto others (e.g., I am fearful, therefore you must be hostile). Because the source of frustration is external (circumstances that block attainment of goals, rather than “character-conditioned” internal psychodynamic conflict) there is no need for repression. In both views, however, derogatory beliefs about scapegoats reveal more about the perceiver (either their faults or their fears) than they do about the actual traits of the scapegoated group, which merely serves as a projective screen. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1565

The two approaches to scapegoating Allport described, though overlapping, stem from different psychological approaches, one rooted in Freudian theory (the psychodynamic view) and the other in later drive-reduction models (the frustration–aggression view). … Both the psychodynamic and frustration–aggression views of scapegoating invoke the notions of displaced aggression (directing aggressive impulses toward an innocent target) and projection (attributing negative characteristics and blame to targets to justify aggressing against them). … In both views, however, derogatory beliefs about scapegoats reveal more about the perceiver (either their faults or their fears) than they do about the actual traits of the scapegoated group, which merely serves as a projective screen. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1562

Categorization

• DEFINE: Precisely distinguishes Allport’s ‘direct projection’ (repressing one’s own impulses) from ‘complementary projection’ (projecting causal traits to explain consciously felt emotions).
• XREF: The core claim — scapegoat stereotypes reveal the perceiver, not the target — resonates with the diamond-trade reputation readings and with the soundscape work on how perception shapes felt worlds. — connects to: Projection converts taboo inner impulses into perceived external enemies — Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, 152
• QUESTION: The complementary-projection example (I am fearful, therefore you must be hostile) suggests testable predictions about fear-driven prejudice — worth checking how modern social psychology has operationalized this.
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1565; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1565; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1562