Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Lawrence, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Empirical Studies of Projection: A Critical Review

J. Rees Lewis

School of Cultural and Community Studies, Arts Building, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QN.

B. C. Bates

School of Cultural and Community Studies, Arts Building, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QN.

S. Lawrence

School of Cultural and Community Studies, Arts Building, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QN.

Empirical work to date on the Freudian concept of projection is assessed. Previous reviews are considered and recent work integrated as well as material from several disciplines. This is an area with a substantial but convoluted research literature from which elements are distilled which seem essential for progress in the clarification of Projection, particularly with reference to its defensive qualities and its targeting. Of the many forms of projection that have been included in previous literature, two, Classical and Attributive (Holmes, 1868), are isolated as relevant to this paper. A "checklist" of pertinent factors for future designs is drawn up which integrates the strongest strands from work done under the rubric Social Psychology. It is concluded that despite the tenacity of the projection concept, work so far has provided a series of methodological caveats and much suggestive, but little conclusive data.

Key Words: psychodynamic defence • projection • research review

Human Relations, Vol. 47, No. 11, 1295-1319 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/001872679404701101
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceHome page
J. L. Godwin and C. P. Neck
Researcher "Projection" Revisited: A Response to Kahn
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, September 1, 1996; 32(3): 323 - 331.
[Abstract] [PDF]