Although projecting one’s own characteristics onto another person is pervasive, “counter-projection,” or seeing the opposite of oneself in others is also sometimes found, with implications for intergroup conflict. After a focused review of previous studies finding counter-projection (often unexpectedly), we map conditions for counter-projection to an individual out-group member. Counter-projection requires identified antagonistic groups, is moderated by in-group identity, and is moderated by which information is assessed in the target person. Using political groups defined by support for former U.S. President Trump, across our Initial Experiment (N = 725) and Confirmatory Experiment (N = 618), we found counter-projection to individual political out-group targets for moral beliefs, personality traits, and everyday likes (e.g., preference for dogs vs. cats). Counter-projection was increased by in-group identification and overlapped considerably with “oppositional” out-group stereotypes, but we also found counter-projection independent of out-group stereotypes (degree of overlap with stereotyping depended on the information being projected).
AmesD. R. (2004a). Inside the mind reader’s tool kit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.340
2.
AmesD. R. (2004b). Strategies for social inference: A similarity contingency model of projection and stereotyping in attribute prevalence estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 87(5), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.573
3.
BallietD.TyburJ. M.WuJ.AntonellisC.Van LangeP. A. (2018). Political ideology, trust, and cooperation: In-group favoritism among Republicans and Democrats during a US national election. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(4), 797–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002716658694
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
5.
BatsonC. D.SagerK.GarstE.KangM.RubchinskyK.DawsonK. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self–other merging?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.495
6.
CadinuM. R.RothbartM. (1996). Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.661
7.
CastelliL.ArcuriL.CarraroL. (2009). Projection processes in the perception of political leaders. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903058151
8.
ChambersJ.BaronR.InmanM. (2006). Misperceptions in intergroup conflict: Disagreeing about what we disagree about. Psychological Science, 17(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01662.x
ClementR. W.KruegerJ. (2002). Social categorization moderates social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1503
11.
CrispR. J.StathiS.TurnerR. N.HusnuS. (2009). Imagined intergroup contact: Theory, paradigm and practice. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00155.x
12.
DavisM. H. (2017). Social projection to liked and disliked targets: The role of perceived similarity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.012
DenningK. R.HodgesS. D. (2021). Counter-projection varies by political issue [Unpublished data]. Department of Psychology, University of Oregon. https://osf.io/dgqf9/
15.
DiDonatoT. E.UllrichJ.KruegerJ. I. (2011). Social perception as induction and inference: An integrative model of intergroup differentiation, ingroup favoritism, and differential accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021051
16.
DittoP. H.LiuB. S.ClarkC. J.WojcikS. P.ChenE. E.GradyR. H.CelnikerJ. B.ZingerJ. F. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796
17.
ForoniF.PongV.RothbartM.PearceG. (2010). Does the correlation between self and ingroup/outgroup depend on group favorability?Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209353632
GalinskyA. D.MoskowitzG. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.708
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLOS ONE, 7(12), Article e50092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092
GrometD. M.Van BovenL. (2019). Oppositional projection in perceived support for cap and trade [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, University of Colorado.
24.
HodgesS. D.DenningK. R.LieberS. (2018). Perspective taking: Motivation and impediment to shared reality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.007
25.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
26.
KeatingJ.Van BovenL.JuddC. M. (2016). Partisan underestimation of the polarizing influence of group discussion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.002
27.
KennedyR.CliffordS.BurleighT.WaggonerP. D.JewellR.WinterN. J. G. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(4), 614–619. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.6
LakensD. (2014). Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 701–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2023
30.
LeachC. W.van ZomerenM.ZebelS.VliekM. L. W.PennekampS. F.DoosjeB.OuwerkerkJ. W.SpearsR. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
LüdeckeD.PatilI.MakowskiD. (2020). Parameters: Extracting, computing and exploring the parameters of statistical models using R. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(53), 2445–2449. https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02445
33.
MachunskyM.TomaC.YzerbytV.CorneilleO. (2014). Social projection increases for positive targets: Ascertaining the effect and exploring its antecedents. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1373–1388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214545039
34.
MackieD. M.DevosT.SmithE. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602
35.
McAuliffeW. H.CarterE. C.BerhaneJ.SnihurA. C.McCulloughM. E. (2020). Is empathy the default response to suffering? A meta-analytic evaluation of perspective taking’s effect on empathic concern. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319887599
36.
MinearM.ParkD. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 630–633. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206543
37.
MullenB.DovidioJ. F.JohnsonC.CopperC. (1992). In-group-out-group differences in social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(5), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90040-Q
38.
OstromT. M.SedikidesC. (1992). Out-group homogeneity effects in natural and minimal groups. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.536
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
42.
RevelleW. (2021). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R Package Version 2.1.3). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
43.
RikettaM. (2005). Cognitive differentiation between self, ingroup, and outgroup: The roles of identification and perceived intergroup conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.234
44.
RobbinsJ. M.KruegerJ. I. (2005). Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_3
45.
SaucierG. (1994). Separating description and evaluation in the structure of personality attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 141–154.
46.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.LytleB. L. (2009). The limits of legitimacy: Moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015998
47.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004
48.
ThalmayerA. G.SaucierG.EigenhuisA. (2011). Compara-tive validity of brief to medium length Big Five and Big Six personality questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23, 995–1009. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024165
49.
ToddA. R.SimpsonA. J.TamirD. I. (2016). Active perspective taking induces flexible use of self-knowledge during social inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(12), 1583–1588. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000237
50.
WestfallJ.Van BovenL.ChambersJ. R.JuddC. M. (2015). Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569849
51.
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL. D.FrançoisR.GrolemundG.HayesA.HenryL.HesterJ.KuhnM.PedersenT. L.MillerE.BacheS. M.MüllerK.OomsJ.RobinsonD.SeidelD. P.SpinuV.. . . YutaniH. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
