Social Projection to Ingroups and Outgroups: A Review and Meta-Analysis

By J. M. Robbins, Joachim I. Krueger. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2005

1,172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/475b2ed9a746b9d5de68a1261e62a2c06ed33a13

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

From social projection to social behaviour (2007, positive): “When the social target is an outgroup, projection breaks down (Robbins & Krueger, 2005).”
The dangers of distrustful complacency: Low concern and low political trust combine to undermine compliance with governmental restrictions in the emerging Covid-19 pandemic (2020, positive): “…who show distrustful complacency should be motivated to bolster their selfconcept indirectly, which could be done by showing evaluative favourability towards others who share their own orientation (see research on the egocentric bias motive; Clement & Krueger, 2002; Robbins & Krueger, 2005).”
Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity (2007, neutral): “…remember more positive information about ingroup members (Howard & Rothbart, 1980), see greater connection between other members of the ingroup and the self (Aron et al., 2004), and expect ingroup members to share one’s attitudes and values more than outgroup members (Robbins & Krueger, 2005).”
Fear, Social Projection, and Financial Decision Making (2011, neutral): “This type of scenario is prone to social projection biases—that is, people’s tendency to believe that others are likely to feel, think, and behave like them (Robbins and Krueger 2005; Ross, Greene, and House 1977).”
Workplace Religious Expression, Religiosity and Job Satisfaction: Clarifying a Relationship (2005, background): “Job satisfaction has been linked to important organizational outcomes such as employee absenteeism (Mobley, Hand, Meglino, and Griffeth, 1979), organizational commitment (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), customeroriented behaviors (Hoffman and Ingram, 1992), customer satisfaction (Testa, Skaruupa and Pietr”
Discrimination in the laboratory: A meta-analysis of economics experiments (2016, positive): “Robbins and Krueger (2005) found social projection, ‘the tendency to expect similarities between oneself and others’, to be stronger towards in-groups than out-groups, and that this effect was amplified with artificial groups relative to natural ones.”
Generational Differences in Work-Related Attitudes: A Meta-analysis (2012, positive): “Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found that the most robust antecedents of organizational commitment were individual differences (e.g., perceived personal competence), job characteristics (e.g., challenge and job scope), and leadership-related variables (e.g., leader communication and participative…”
Debiasing Decisions (2015, neutral): “…(i.e., using the similarity of an outcome to a prototypical outcome to judge its probability; Kahneman & Tversky, 1972), and social projection (i.e., assuming others’ emotions, thoughts, and values are similar to one’s own; Epley, Morewedge, & Keysar, 2004; Robbins & Krueger, 2005).”
Optimal time lags in panel studies. (2015, neutral): “…Atkinson et al., 2000; A. Cohen, 1993; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Holden, Moncher, Schinke, & Barker, 1990; Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992; Hulin, Henry, & Noon, 1990; Riketta, 2008; Steel, Hendrix, & Balogh, 1990; Steel & Ovalle, 1984; see also Cronbach, 1970, p. 137).”
The Impact of Moral Stress Compared to Other Stressors on Employee Fatigue, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover: An Empirical Investigation (2012, background): “1979) hypothesize that employee perceptions of the organizational environment create mental and emotional states that, coupled with the opportunity to act, lead to behavior such as terminating employment (Carr et al. 2003; Mathieu and Zajac 1990).”
The Social Perspective Taking Process: What Motivates Individuals to Take Another's Perspective? (2012, positive): “Other research signals that similarity motivates people to engage in social projection – a particular approach to SPT (Robbins & Krueger, 2005).”