Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model

This chapter summarises results from a research programme on the psychological basis of tolerance and discrimination in intergroup relations, with particular consideration of the role of superordinate identities. According to the ingroup projection model, a relevant superordinate group provides dimensions and norms for comparisons between ingroup and outgroup. Groups gain positive value or status when they are considered prototypical for the (positively valued) superordinate group. Group members tend to generalise (project) distinct ingroup characteristics onto the superordinate category, implying the relative prototypicality of their ingroup. To the extent that outgroup difference is regarded as a deviation from the ethnocentrically construed prototype it is evaluated negatively. Our research studied consequences and determinants of ingroup projection, as well as moderators of its implications. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the processes involved in intergroup discrimination and indicate new pathways for the reduction of prejudice, towards mutual intergroup appreciation and tolerance.     

Projective identification and working through of the countertransference: A multiphase model

Referring to Melanie Klein's unpublished views on projective identification, Bion's theory of container/contained and Money‐Kyrle's understanding of countertransference as a process of transformation, the author develops a multiphase model of projective identification. He differentiates five subphases of (1) adhesion, (2) penetration, (3) linking of the projection with an internal object of the analyst, (4) transformation and (5) re‐projection. In the author's view the differentiation of overlapping subphases may be helpful to better localize problems of working through the countertransference. Some technical implications are illustrated by brief clinical vignettes. To conclude, the paper discusses typical impasses and options for interpretation.     

Spinoza and the Feeling of Freedom

We seem to have a direct experience of our freedom when we act. Many philosophers take this feeling of freedom as evidence that we possess libertarian free will. Spinoza denies that we have free will of any sort, although he admits that we nonetheless feel free. Commentators often attribute to him what I call the ‘Negative Account’ of the feeling: it results from the fact that we are conscious of our actions but ignorant of their causes. I argue that the Negative Account is flawed. The feeling of freedom also depends on a vacillation of the mind. When the mind forms too many incompatible associations, it vacillates between them. When we act, the mind vacillates back and forth between the kinds of actions that we associate with our present mental state. We then mistake this subjective vacillation for an objective feature of ourselves—namely, the power to do otherwise.     

Interethnic relations in Malaysia: Group identifications,indispensability and inclusive nationhood

This paper focuses on interethnic relations in Malaysia and examines survey data collected among Malay (n = 405), Chinese (n = 90), and Indian (n = 53) participants. In agreement with the Common In‐group Identity Model, inclusive nationhood was related to more positive out‐group attitudes. Relative in‐group indispensability was related to higher bias as predicted by the In‐group Projection Model. Furthermore, the dominant group of Malay had higher in‐group indispensability, more strongly endorsed an inclusive national representation, had stronger ethnic and national identification, and a stronger association between both identifications.     

Patient-provider care goal concordance: implications for palliative care decisions

Objective: Goal-concordant care is an important feature of high quality medical treatment. Patients’ care goals may focus on curative and/or palliative outcomes. Patients rarely communicate their care goals, and providers’ predictions of patient goals are often inaccurate, corresponding most closely to their own treatment goals. This projection of own goals onto patients introduces the potential for bias, leading to goal-discordant care.

Design and Main Outcomes: We examined goal discordance using data from a U.S. sample of healthcare providers (N?=?492) recruited online in 2017 using GfK Knowledge Panel. Providers reported their perceptions of their patients’ care goals (curative relative to palliative), their own care goals if they were to become ill, and their willingness to deliver palliative care.

Results: For 28% of providers, their own care goals differed from their patients’. Providers were more likely to prioritise palliative care (relative to curative) in their own goals than in their predictions about patients’ goals. Providers were more willing to deliver palliative care when their own goals prioritised more palliative relative to curative care, but their perceptions of patient goals were unassociated with willingness to provide it.

Conclusions: Efforts to improve goal communication and reduce projection biases among providers may facilitate goal-concordant care.     

From regulation to projection: Reliance on regulatory mode in predictions about others

Past research showed that people project their goals onto unknown others. The present research investigates whether they also rely on their motivational orientation in terms of regulatory mode (locomotion vs. assessment). In line with work on self-judgments, a stronger chronic personal focus on locomotion over assessment decreased predictions of others' experiences of nostalgia (Study 1) and increased predictions of others' preference for, motivation by, and evaluation of a transformational over a transactional leader (Study 2). Furthermore, an experimentally induced locomotion mode compared to an assessment mode increased peoples' predictions of others' motivation to reconcile after interpersonal conflict (Study 3). We examined process evidence via the Testing-Process-by-Interaction-Strategy: As predicted, effects only emerged under time pressure (vs. ample deliberation; Study 2) and for ingroup (vs. outgroup) members (Study 3). These findings suggest that people's regulatory mode is a basis for predicting others' reactions and preferences. We discuss implications and future research directions.