Gordon Willard Allport: A Tribute

Journal of Social Issues, Fall, 1999 by Thomas F. Pettigrew

The Nature of Prejudice also presents a host of original hypotheses on specific topics that have stood the test of time. Consider two examples. One currently popular theory of prejudice reduction is the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Anastasio, Bachman, Gaertner, & Dovidio, 1997; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1994). It emphasizes recategorization through identity with larger, more inclusive groups. Four decades ago, Allport (1958, pp. 41-43) advocated precisely the same mechanism. Drawing concentric circles with family in the center and humankind at the periphery, he argued that "concentric loyalties need not clash" and that prejudice is minimized by inclusive group membership. Recent research by Gaertner and his colleagues demonstrates how this process operates.

For another example, the volume devotes an entire chapter to the link between religion and prejudice. It disturbed Allport deeply that research routinely finds nonbelievers far less prejudiced on average than members of organized religions. He proposed a critical distinction between an "institutionalized" religious outlook and an "interiorized" one (Allport, 1958, pp. 420-422). The more numerous institutionally religious, he argued, are the highly prejudiced. Those of the interiorized type, who have deeply internalized their religious beliefs, are far less prejudiced.

In his last empirical publication (Allport & Ross, 1967), Gordon presented additional evidence in support of his hypothesis as well as scales to measure the two types. Recently, while analyzing survey data from seven probability samples of western Europe, I had occasion to retest his idea. And the results provide clear support. As usual, the nonreligious on average are less prejudiced against a wide variety of outgroups. But this result reflected the high prejudice of those who attend religious services only occasionally or about every week. However, low average prejudice scores emerge for those who attend services more than once a week, a crude indicator of interiorized religiosity in these samples (Pettigrew, 1997c).

From a larger perspective, Gordon's influence in structuring the study of prejudice is, perhaps, greater now than ever before. The cognitive emphasis of The Nature of Prejudice came into vogue in social cognition work in this area during the 1960s and 1970s. Without a doubt, the field made major advances in understanding the many facets of group stereotypes. But this single-minded concentration on stereotypes led to a serious neglect of the affective component of prejudice. Indeed, some work came perilously close to ignoring prejudice altogether in its focus on the cognitive components alone. Ironically, it was left to social psychologists in sociology to attend to emotional factors.

Had Gordon lived into the 1970s, I am certain he would have regarded this situation as a serious imbalance. And in his counterpuncher style, he would have given in rebuttal greater emphasis to emotion and motivation in any new edition he might have written. After all, he had insisted on emotion-hate, envy, fear, threat-as central to the prejudice phenomenon.