An examination of the concept of projective identification indicates that it is incongruent with a definition as a primitive defense mechanism. Its application to countertransference as currently in the literature has been misleading. It is redefined here as a transactional process, where the projection contains a quality of intensity or power leading to induction of aspects of the projection, but viewing the induction as a function of the recipient's vulnerability due to identity fragmentation. Implications for transference/countertransference issues in the analytic milieu are discussed.