Allport’s evaluation standards were ahead of 1950s practice

Evidence

Allport’s focus on the evaluation of intergroup relations programs and his attention to evaluation design seem completely modern. He stressed the necessity of conducting evaluations of all intergroup relations programs, despite the problems inherent in evaluations, and he was a strong advocate of the use of sophisticated methodologies in conducting this research. For example, Allport noted the importance of control groups, something that was missing from most evaluation research of the 1950s. Increasingly, programs are being evaluated in a manner which Allport would approve. We also think that Allport would be excited to see how the types of programs he identified in 1954 have flourished and become integrated into institutions such as schools and business organizations. In addition, Allport could not possibly have imagined the variety of intergroup relations programs that have been devised. In general, Allport’s approach has stood the test of time, with the one exception noted in the preceding section – he did not anticipate how programs can address structural aspects of discrimination. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2680

Categorization

Category: Factual Claims

• XREF: The point that Allport missed structural discrimination echoes the book’s earlier theme (chapter on structural prejudice) and connects to pre-Allport intergroup contact theory.

Related

• Allport’s contact program framework survived except on structural discrimination (similarity 0.96)
• Today’s intergroup programs match Allport’s designs but their evaluations fall short (similarity 0.87)
• Prejudice-reduction programs can target structural rather than only individual-level change (similarity 0.84)
• Allport focused on immediate situational causes and doubted contact would generally reduce prejudice. (similarity 0.83)
• Anti-prejudice programs can successfully target institutional rather than only individual bias. (similarity 0.82)
• Allport’s contact hypothesis has guided fifty years of intergroup research (similarity 0.82)
• Intergroup programs can address institutional prejudice, contrary to Allport (similarity 0.82)
• Allport’s contact chapter anticipated the three main post-1980 contact models (similarity 0.81)
• Superficial casual contact between groups can worsen rather than reduce prejudice. (similarity 0.80)
• Allport doubted contact would reduce prejudice except under specified positive conditions. (similarity 0.80)
• Allport grounded prejudice in categorization, identification, and intergroup contact (similarity 0.80)
• Allport held that prejudice, not categorization, is the fundamental driver of intergroup harm. (similarity 0.80)
• Allport’s contact conditions boost prejudice reduction more for nonracial than racial intergroup contexts (similarity 0.80)
• Allport held that equal-status contact alone cannot reduce prejudice (similarity 0.80)
• Allport’s tradition neglected group-level political constraints (similarity 0.79)