www.all-about-psychology.

com

Presents

A Note on Projection

By: Philip H. Chase

Originally published in Psychological Bulletin

(1960, vol. 57, No, 4, 289-290)

Minnesota Murstein and Fryer's article on the concept of projection (1959)
surely reflects laudable motives, and their review of relevant research contains
a number of astute observations. There appear to be, however, rather glaring
faults in formulation, categorization and definition.

Let us agree that "if 'projection' means everything it means nothing" (Murray,
1951, p. 13). It is then difficult to see, except by Murstein and Fryer's final
definition of projection (1959, p. 370), why they quoted Zilboorg's quote from
the Malleus Maleficarum (Murstein & Fryer, 1959, p. 353). Hallucination, not
projection, is the term usually applied when "devils stir up the inner
perceptions" so "that they appear to be a new impression—from exterior
things." Quotes from Murphy and Sears (Murstein & Fryer, 1959, p. 354) are
interesting but will be seen to bear more relation to "New Look" perception
than to projection. We shall also see that the admonition above had no
apparent effect on their final definition of projection.

One can take issue with the authors' classification system on the following
grounds. Unless we wish to emasculate the term "projection," it would seem
appropriate to use it only when the process referred to involves the attribution
of internal characteristics to some external person or objects. Inaccurate
extension of the term may well have played a major role in the confusion
recognized, but, nevertheless, added to by Murstein and Fryer.

Projection is defined as "the process of unwittingly attributing one's own traits,

attitudes or subjective processes to others" (English & English, 1958). In
relation to this definition the Murstein and Fryer classification of "attributive
projection" is clearly redundant and relatively useless for purposes of
classification. A more useful classification would result from considering the
presumed purposes of the mechanism.

Two major categories are immediately obvious. We might term one type
defensive projection and the other predictive projection. In the case of
defensive projection the mechanism is seen to operate in defense of the ego.
One's own unacceptable or denied characteristics are attributed to another.
Murstein and Fryer's "classical projection" clearly falls into this category, and
we may dispense with the rather loaded term "classical." In the case of
predictive projection a problem in forecasting or describing the behavior or
characteristics of others is the task of the individual. In the face of insufficient
evidence about the objects of his predictions or forecasts, the 5 tends to
attribute some of his own characteristics to the object. The comments cited by
Murstein and Fryer to support their category of "attributive projection" all
involve the predictive or forecasting aspect as the primary purpose of the
mechanism.

One can see that Murstein and Fryer are on tenuous ground when in discussing
their "attributive projection" they attempt to dispense with both the
unconscious and the self-concept. They state that this category is not
concerned with either concept. It can be easily argued that personality
projection of any kind cannot occur without a self-concept to project from, and
that the self-concept and projective process may be characterized by a
considerable range of consciousness although it is likely that defensive
projection, at the time it occurs, is largely unconscious.

It is difficult to understand what prompted Murstein and Pryer to include a

category of "autistic projection." Relying for definition again on the dictionary
(English & English, 1958) we find that "autism" is defined as: "a tendency in
one's thinking or perceiving to be regulated unduly by personal desires or
needs, at the expense of regulation by objective reality—" (p. 59). Is it
unreasonable to classify all personality projection as autistic? In defensive
projection the need which clearly exerts such a strong effect is ego defense. In
predictive projection the need is a function of the lack of data about the object.
If we follow Murstein and Pryer we would have to define all need-determined
perception as projection.

The logic that prompted Murstein and Pryer to categorize the rationalization of
projection as a type of projection is difficult to understand. Rationalization is a
mechanism in its own right. If the S, particularly if he has been using defensive
projection, becomes vaguely aware of the irrationality of his projection and
also in the service of the ego rationalizes his projection, this is not necessarily
a type of projection.

It was a pleasure to have the research review made available to the reader,
and it was hoped that as the end of the article was approached the authors
would resolve some of the earlier semantic confusion criticized above. In their
final definition, however, they were unable to escape the consequences of their
earlier thinking. Their attempt to limit their definition to "perception or
judgments having to do with the personality" (Murstein & Pryer, 1959, p. 370)
was laudable even though earlier they had dealt so cavalierly with the self-
concept. This reader was totally unprepared, however, for the statement that
projection is "the manifestation of behavior by an individual which indicates
some emotional value or need of the individual" (Murstein & Pryer, 1959, p.
370). To accept this definition would mean that, in spite of Murray's warning,
we would have to include as projection at least the following short list: reaction
formation, rationalization, repression, sublimation, suppression, compensation,
displacement, identification, introjection, fixation, obsession, compulsion,
phantasy, dissociation, withdrawal, conversion, substitution, love, hate, eating
and defecating, although items such as the Babinski reflex may be exempt.

Let us still agree with Murstein and Pryer that "projection" is a mechanism
needing considerable research effort. Let us hope with them that more precise
and useful definition and classification can be achieved. Let us not, however, in
our endeavors to achieve scientific status for a concept neglect the principles of
logic and functional definition.
REFERENCES

ENGLISH, H. B., & ENGLISH, AVA C. A comprehensive dictionary of

psychological and psychoanalytical terms. New York: Longmans, Green, 1958.

MURRAY, H. A. Foreword in H. H. Anderson & Gladys C. Anderson (Eds.), An

introduction to protective techniques. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951.

MURSTEIN, B. I., & PRYER, R. S. The concept of projection: A review. Psychol.

Bull. 1959, 56, 5, 353-374.

THE END

You can get hold of more classic psychology journal articles for free via the
following link.

http://www.all-about-psychology.com/psychology-journal-articles.html

Free and Comprehensive Educational Resources

Written and regularly updated by a lecturer in psychology, this website is

designed to help anybody looking for informed and detailed information on
psychology.

Definitions, history, topic areas, theory and practice, careers, debates, course
directories and study skills will all be covered in detail. The website also
highlights and explores the most fascinating and compelling psychology related
news and research.

www.all-about-psychology.com
I will be using Twitter to keep people up-to-date with all the latest
developments on the All About Psychology Website, including when new titles
are added to the psychology journal articles collection.

http://twitter.com/psych101

Interested In Forensic Psychology?

What is forensic psychology? Criminal profiling, the study and practice of

forensic psychology. These are just some of the many topics on offer at this
free and comprehensive website.

www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com

Interested In Forensic Science?

Very popular website that provides a free & comprehensive guide to the world
of forensic science.

www.all-about-forensic-science.com/