Psychological projection at work is not limited to interpersonal relationships; it also manifests in scientific contexts, shaping how research is conceived, conducted, and evaluated. This article explores how unconscious projections influence study design, hypothesis formation, and data interpretation, thereby subtly shaping research outcomes. Drawing on evidence from cognitive and social psychology, it highlights projection bias among scientists and its implications for the validity and ethics of scientific practice.
Building on Jung’s shadow concept, the paper argues that unacknowledged aspects of the personal and collective unconscious can influence researchers’ judgments, decisions, and interactions within academic environments. Integrating projections into conscious self-reflection can foster better decision-making, more transparent study designs, and a heightened awareness of implicit biases.
Practical strategies are also discussed for minimizing projection in research ethics, such as fostering diverse review panels and incorporating reflexivity into methodological training. Finally, the paper considers how these approaches may reduce peer review flaws and improve the overall integrity of scientific knowledge production.
Projection as a Psychological Mechanism
Projection is a complex psychological mechanism that plays a central role both in modern psychology and in historical theories. It shapes our thinking, feeling, and behavior and is a fundamental component of the human psyche.
1. Projection as a Cognitive Bias in Modern Psychology
In modern psychology, projection refers to a cognitive bias in which individuals attribute their own thoughts, feelings, or traits to other people. This often happens unconsciously and can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings.
A classic example is the false consensus effect, where people assume that others share their opinions or behaviors. Another example is projection bias, in which individuals project their current emotions or needs onto future situations and thus make decisions that may no longer hold later.
It is important to emphasize that projection does not only occur in therapeutic settings but is an everyday psychological mechanism that affects everyone. It is not pathological but a normal part of human perception and interaction.
2. Projection as an Unconscious Process
Although the term “unconscious” is often replaced by “implicit” in modern psychology, the meaning remains similar: projections occur subtly and often without our conscious participation. Even people who are highly aware of their own thoughts and feelings may project in certain situations. This is illustrated by so-called Freudian slips, where unintended utterances reveal unconscious thoughts or wishes.
Becoming aware of projections can help avoid misunderstandings and deepen our understanding of ourselves and others. We will explore projection and its “integration” in more detail below.
3. Historical Roots of Projection
Sigmund Freud
Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, introduced the term projection. He saw it as a defense mechanism through which individuals transfer unwanted or threatening thoughts and feelings onto others in order to protect their self-image.
Heinz Kohut
Heinz Kohut expanded Freud’s concept and emphasized the role of projection in the development of the self. He viewed projections as a means by which individuals externalize and manage their inner conflicts.
Carl Gustav Jung
Carl Gustav Jung introduced the concept of the “shadow,” which comprises the unconscious, repressed aspects of the personality. He argued that people tend to project these shadow aspects onto others. We will go into more detail about Jung’s theory below.
Projection of the Personal Unconscious According to Carl Gustav Jung
1. The Personal Unconscious: Content and Function
Carl Gustav Jung distinguished between the personal and the collective unconscious. The latter was discussed in a separate blog episode. In this article, the focus is on the “personal unconscious.” It encompasses all experiences, memories, and feelings that we have consciously experienced but forgotten or repressed. It also contains unconscious content we have not been able to accept or integrate—often due to “inner” conflicts with our conscious self-image. These contents manifest as so-called complexes: emotionally charged clusters of thought that can influence our mood or behavior without our awareness.
2. Projection as a Psychological Mechanism
Projection is the process by which we transfer unconscious content—especially that which we do not accept—onto other people or situations. This often happens unconsciously and helps us distance ourselves from unpleasant or threatening aspects of our self. Jung regarded projection as a natural mechanism enabling individuals to cope with inner conflicts. As well as Freud, Jung emphasized that projection becomes problematic if it is not recognized and integrated, as it can lead to misunderstandings and conflict with others.
3. The Concept of the Shadow
Jung introduced the concept of the shadow to describe the unconscious, repressed, or unacknowledged aspects of the personality. The shadow includes both negative and positive traits that we have not integrated into our conscious self-image. These aspects can surface as projections onto other people or situations. For example, if someone constantly perceives arrogance in others, it may be a sign that this person harbors arrogant tendencies they are unwilling to acknowledge.
4. Projection in Everyday Life
Projection is thus an everyday psychological mechanism, not one limited to therapy. We can observe it in various situations:
-
Interpersonal relationships: We may criticize or reject in others the traits we dislike in ourselves.
-
Professional interactions: In conflicts with colleagues or supervisors, we may unconsciously project our own insecurities or even anger onto others.
-
Social perception: We tend to judge social groups or individuals according to our own unconscious wishes, fears, or biases.
5. Projection as a Normal Mechanism
Again, because it is so important: projection is a normal part of the human psyche. It helps us deal with inner conflicts and protect our identity. Only when projections go unrecognized and unintegrated can they become problematic. Jung considered dealing with projection a central part of the individuation process—the path toward an integrated and authentic self.
Empirical Evidence for Projection in the Research Context
While Carl Gustav Jung identified the personal unconscious and the shadow as key mechanisms of mental life, the question remains to what extent these unconscious tendencies are measurable or relevant to everyday life—especially research. Modern psychology and social science provide initial clues: projections affect not only patients or therapeutic settings but subtly influence researchers themselves.
Traditionally, scientific attention has focused on the unconscious influences of participants on outcomes—through expectancy effects or implicit preferences, for example. The development of instruments such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) shows that researchers have long tried to make hidden mechanisms in participants visible. These methods are partly controversial but clearly demonstrate that the unconscious has measurable effects on behavior and judgments.
Yet the same logic applies to researchers. As early as the 1960s, Rosenthal showed that teacher expectations can influence student performance—a phenomenon that extends to any situation where someone evaluates others or interprets data. Similarly, researchers developing hypotheses, selecting study designs, or analyzing data can be swayed by their own unconscious tendencies. Kahneman and colleagues demonstrated that cognitive biases systematically steer decision-making even among experienced experts. Both lines of research suggest that subjective expectations and unconscious patterns are not limited to participants but also act on the scientists conducting the studies.
Modern social-psychological studies add further valid evidence. Loewenstein et al. (2003), for example, demonstrated the so-called projection bias in decision research, in which current preferences distort perceptions of future situations. Although these studies do not directly examine scientists, they are theoretically transferable: when current expectations, preferences, or affect influence data interpretation, this is a form of projection that can subtly but powerfully shape research practice. Likewise, the work of Mummendey and Wenzel shows that social projections at the group level systematically distort perceptions—a mechanism that could be relevant in peer review, team research, or the evaluation of study results.
These empirical findings support the idea that unconscious processes are not merely psychological curiosities but have practical relevance for scientific work. They provide a bridge between Jung’s theoretical framework and concrete research practice: projection is not a phenomenon confined to therapy but a universal psychological mechanism. For research, this means that hypothesis formulation, design decisions, data collection, and data interpretation may all be influenced by the personal unconscious—whether we are aware of it or not. Thus, theoretical concepts such as the shadow or unconscious polarities are not only psychological models but also have direct implications for scientific practice.
Projections of the Personal Unconscious in Everyday Research
The personal unconscious is constantly at work—even in researchers. It influences every stage of the research process, from formulating questions to interpreting results. These projections are not pathological but expressions of everyday tendencies—subtle but powerful.
-
Formulating questions and hypotheses: Unconscious tendencies can shape the research agenda. A performance-oriented researcher might formulate hypotheses that foreground “successful” participants, while a risk-averse researcher might choose hypotheses that frame cautious behavior as normative. These early decisions unconsciously set the stage for what later counts as “relevant.”
-
Research design and operationalization: Personal preferences show up in the choice of variables or measures. A sociologist who values efficiency might measure productivity, while underestimating team climate or social support. Even experimental conditions may be subtly biased: tasks or instructions may be set up to make expected reactions more likely. This is not deliberate manipulation but unconscious influence—decisions believed to be objective are colored by personality, upbringing, and social conditioning. Groupthink also plays a role. Peer review is meant to catch such biases, but when a discipline shares a dominant paradigm, peers may not catch every blind spot.
-
Data collection: This stage shows the widest range of unconscious projections. In interviews, researchers may unconsciously pursue answers that confirm their expectations, while paying less attention to dissenting views. Nonverbal signals such as tone of voice or facial expression can influence participant responses. Even standardized experiments are not free of projections: researchers interpret behaviors and reactions through their emotional lens, and extremes like performance orientation or conflict avoidance distort perception. Selective exclusion of variables—part of so-called p-hacking—can follow.
-
Data analysis: The influence of the unconscious is especially evident here—and it affects not only qualitative research. In quantitative studies, projection can show up in multiple ways: expectation-congruent interpretation of results, selective data cleaning, subjective treatment of scales or outliers, formation of subgroups according to personal preferences, excessive focus on borderline-significant findings, or p-hacking. A researcher might treat a marginally significant result as clear confirmation while ignoring variables that do not fit. Even with statistically rigorous analysis, personal tendencies color the reading of numbers—whether performance orientation, risk aversion, or conflict avoidance. In qualitative analysis, coding and interpretation may unconsciously reflect the researcher’s own perspective, and contradictions may be underestimated to preserve a harmonious narrative.
-
Peer review and reflection: Projections also surface here. Critical comments may unconsciously be interpreted as attacks, while neutral remarks may be overlooked or misread. Conflict-averse researchers may see criticism as threatening; highly critical researchers may overinterpret neutral comments. Conscious self-reflection, collegial discussion, and supervision can help detect and mitigate these distortions—though problems like groupthink and gatekeeping are particularly visible here. (More on that in another episode.)
In sum, the personal unconscious permeates the entire research process. From question formulation and design to data collection, analysis, peer review, and reflection, subtle projections operate—often unnoticed but always effective. Even strictly standardized quantitative studies are not immune; the researcher’s unconscious tendencies color how data are interpreted, weighted, and evaluated.
Initial Ideas for Minimizing Unconscious Projections
More “global” or “diverse” peer review could help. The ongoing shift toward anonymous online peer reviews by external researchers is already a step in this direction, though not directly developed for this purpose. Each peer reviewer should evaluate not only the unconscious tendencies of the work under review but also their own possible projections throughout the process. The same applies to experimenters themselves.
We welcome feedback and comments on how to address the problem of unconscious projection. Please use the comment section below or the contact options provided.
References
Freud, S. (1915). Repression. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 141–158). Hogarth Press.
Jung, C. G. (1967). Zwei Abhandlungen zur analytischen Psychologie. In: Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 7. Zürich: Rascher Verlag.
Jung, C. G. (1953). Psychologische Typen. In: Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 6. Zürich: Rascher Verlag.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. International Universities Press.
Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Projection bias in predicting future utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1209–1248. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355303322552784
McLeod, S. (2019). Carl Jung’s Theory of Personality. Simply Psychology. Abgerufen von https://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-jung.htmlMummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4
Stevens, A. (1990). On Jung. London: Routledge.