Allport defined prejudice as antipathy rooted in faulty inflexible generalization

Evidence

However, we suspect he would encourage us to look beyond the relatively automatic processes of categorization and stereotyping to the more controlled and motivated processes of resistance to new information, defensiveness, rationalization, and biased decisions that he believed lay at the core of prejudice (Allport, 1954/1979, pp. 505–6). For him, prejudice was not simply a conditioned prejudgment about an individual or group, it was a felt or expressed “antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization” (1954/1979, p. 9; see also Eagly & Diekman’s ch. 2 this volume). It was not simply a misperception or an expectation; it was a dislike or hatred. The basis for this aversion was factually wrong and impervious to correction because the aversion served important psychological functions for the prejudiced individual. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2565

In his chapter, “Rejection of Out-Groups” (chapter 4), Allport addressed the problem of intergroup discrimination and violence. His treatment was framed by his seminal definition of prejudice as “an antipathy based on a faulty and inflexible generalization” that “may be felt or expressed… . toward a group … or toward an individual … member of that group” (Allport, 1954/1979, p. 9). In that view, discrimination and violence are the spontaneous expressions of prejudice, and the engine that drives prejudice is a person-based, irrational hostility. Fueled by categorical beliefs about social groups that are ignorant, parochial, and rigid, that hostility is discharged without restraint in verbal invectives, discriminatory behaviors, and physical violence. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 639

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies Allport’s distinction between prejudice as motivated antipathy versus stereotyping as automatic categorization.
• DEEPTHINKING: The idea that faulty beliefs are ‘impervious to correction’ precisely because they serve psychological functions for the holder is dense — it reframes the rationality of prejudice and why information campaigns fail.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2565; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 639