Allport’s antipathy definition excluded positive sentiments from prejudice

Evidence

Even though Allport acknowledged that dictionary definitions recognize positive as well as negative prejudice (p. 6), he disallowed positive sentiments as relevant to his understanding of prejudice and confined his analysis to prejudice as antipathy. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 184 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Although Allport primarily focused on prejudice as antipathy (the low– low cluster), he also emphasized love prejudice for the ingroup (the high– high cluster). And (despite his equation of prejudice with antipathy) he was aware of the ambivalence toward certain outgroups on competence and warmth dimensions (see his chapter 12): Jews were viewed as intelligent and hard-working, but not socially acceptable, whereas blacks were characterized as lazy and impulsive, but fun-loving and sexual. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 325 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Allport deliberately excluded positive prejudice from his definition.; Allport rooted prejudice in irrational person-based antipathy, not political motives — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 639; Allport defined prejudice as motivated antipathy, not mere misperception — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2565 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Allport arbitrarily excluded positive sentiments from his definition of prejudice #corroborates (0.97) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 184
• Allport described ambivalent competence-warmth outgroup stereotypes despite defining prejudice as antipathy #complicates (0.85) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 325