reality. On the individual level, Allport provides the characteristics of a non-prejudiced personality, which can be used to develop goals for individual therapy plans for prejudiced people. A non-prejudiced personality deemphasizes individualism, develops self-insight, is intropunitive rather than extropunitive, has tolerance for ambiguity, and has a trusting approach.31 Allport emphasizes that no one strategy is the answer and that a multimethod approach, on the structural and individual level, should be taken.
By the Numbers
Seventy-two percent of Whites, 71% of Blacks, and 58% of Hispanics say that it is never acceptable for a White person to use the N-word.
Forty-five percent of Whites say that people assume they are racist or prejudiced, compared to 25% of Blacks, 24% of Asians, and 21% of Hispanics.
Sixty-two percent of Asian-White multiracials feel very accepted by Whites, compared to 47% of Asian-White multiracials who feel very accepted by Asians. Twenty-five percent of Black-White multiracials feel very accepted by Whites, compared to 58% who feel very accepted by Blacks.
Sources: Horowitz, Brown, and Cox (2019); Ibid.; Parker et al. (2015).
Evaluation
Methodological Benefits
This theoretical examination of prejudice relies on an exhaustive methodological review of earlier studies from a range of disciplines. Allport regularly pulls on interdisciplinary sources, such as Journal of Personality, Fortune (the magazine), American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Educational Sociology, and Public Opinion Quarterly. He moves through masses of research by providing specifics of studies, by using multiple examples to illuminate a particular facet of prejudice, and by summarizing the contributions of several researchers. For example, in Chapter 16 of The Nature of Prejudice, on the effect of contact among groups, he provides several tables from other studies, such as “Opinion of U.S. Soldiers Regarding Germans as Related to the Frequency of Their Contact with German Civilians,” from the book The American Soldier (1949); “Percentage of Respondents Giving Indicated Reasons for Wanting to Exclude Negroes from Their Neighborhood,” from the unpublished work Residential Contact as a Determinant of Attitudes Toward Negroes (1950); and “Are They (the Negro People in the Project) Pretty Much the Same as the White People Who Live Here or Are They Different?” from Interracial Housing: A Psychological Evaluation of a Social Experiment (1951). Allport also relies on interviews or excerpts from first-person historical accounts. This use of supportive data from a range of studies and disciplines is typical of the methods employed by Allport throughout the book. Although Allport’s theory does not rely on primary research, the range and rigor of sources used to illuminate the multiple facets of prejudice are impressive and invaluable for attaining a broad framework of prejudice.
Methodological Limitations
Limitations to Allport’s methodology include the lack of research or testing of any specific approach to explaining prejudice. The methodology used is a collection of studies and commentary, rather than a scientific evaluation of any one proposed explanation, and the numerous sources cited in the book make it virtually impossible to evaluate the rigor of each study that Allport cites. Thus, the methodology is difficult to assess as a factor independent of the sources Allport uses. Allport’s theory, then, relies on his synthesis of previous research rather than any type of primary data collection or analysis.
Theoretical Benefits
The interdisciplinary review of such a wide range of studies and theoretical approaches leads to a nuanced perspective on prejudice. As Allport notes in the beginning of his book, his aim is to provide a framework for future scholars—a theoretical foundation based on a holistic synthesis of the work on prejudice. The table of contents of the book provides a theoretical outline of how to approach the study of prejudice with 31 chapters, ranging from the introduction, “What Is the Problem?” to specific facets, such as “Stereotypes in Our Culture” and “Choice of Scapegoats,” to a chapter toward the end on “Evaluation of Programs.” Throughout the book, there is a carefully balanced view of explaining prejudice as a problem belonging to society and a problem belonging to individuals. Likely, the greatest theoretical benefit is that Allport successfully meets his goal of setting the stage for a theory of prejudice that successive scholars have relied on. As noted social psychologist Thomas Pettigrew remarks, “the book continues to be the definitive theoretical statement of the field.”32
Theoretical Limitations
The limitation of a focus on prejudice is that the analysis does not clearly indicate why some groups are chosen as targets of prejudice and others are not. It also does not explain how some groups are able to progress through a period of targeted prejudice to eventually become accepted, while others are not. The Nature of Prejudice tends to focus on Black communities and Jewish communities (which makes sense, given that the book was published in the 1950s, when anti-Black and anti-Jewish sentiment was high), but there’s no rigorous theoretical explanation as to why these two groups are persistently the targets of prejudice. Likewise, there’s no reason given as to why Irish communities, who had previously been seen as different and had experienced severe discrimination, then came to be accepted by Whites. Prejudice, as a theoretical concept, tends to lack a sophisticated analysis of power that could help explain the structure of hierarchies. Overall, the strength of prejudice as an explanatory perspective is more on the individual, psychological level, while its theoretical limitation is in addressing power differentials, hierarchies, evolution in racial group dynamics, and similar processes.
Additional Contribution: Merton’s Typology
Robert Merton’s typology, which was published around the same time as Allport’s book, is widely referenced for situating the complex relationship between prejudice and discrimination. Merton contends that there is not a direct causal relationship between prejudice and discrimination, in that prejudice always directly results in discrimination. Instead, he offers a typology to explain the multiple ways in which prejudice and discrimination can be related—and therefore the likelihood of when discrimination will occur. Merton proposes four types of prejudice–discrimination linkages: (1) unprejudiced nondiscriminators, (2) unprejudiced discriminators, (3) prejudiced nondiscriminators, and (4) prejudiced discriminators. Unprejudiced nondiscriminators, or all-weather liberals, believe in freedom and equality and seek out likeminded people; they are not ambivalent about social problems but often lack an awareness of them. Unprejudiced discriminators, or fair-weather liberals, tend to discriminate only if they feel it is necessary, particularly if it is in their self-interest. Fair-weather liberals often obey policies against discrimination because they prefer that their actions meet their unprejudiced views. Prejudiced nondiscriminators, or timid bigots, look upon many groups unfavorably and follow stereotypes, but they won’t discriminate if there is law or social pressure against doing so. The fourth type is prejudiced discriminators, or active bigots, who believe in the inferiority of others and their right to act on that prejudice.33 Because this is a typology, many people don’t fall neatly into one of the four groups; nevertheless, the typology provides a useful guide to understand the varied relationship between prejudice and discrimination.
Conclusion
A theory of prejudice is useful for examining how individuals and societies develop and foster negative bias based on race and/or other identities, such as gender, religion, and class. Arguably, at the root of racism are an irrational perception of and a lack of empathy for people of color, both of which the
