Allport denied rational or economic motives even behind self-serving discrimination

Evidence

Allport made two key arguments about these behaviors. First, they were driven by animosity, and the extremity of the behavior was a direct indicator of the degree of hatred felt by the perpetrator. Second, he was emphatic that there was no rational or economic basis to these behaviors – even discrimination (which does bestow social and economic advantages on one’s own group) was motivated solely by irrationally founded, individually generated hatred for the target group. Although he acknowledged the role of “facilitating” factors in the social environment, their effect was to reinforce individual animosity and/or to release individuals from inhibitions about expressing their hatred. The most egregious examples of intergroup violence represented explosions of hatred too intense to be restrained by normal social inhibitions against aggressive behaviors. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 645 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: Allport claimed discrimination yields group advantage yet lacks rational motive; Allport held that even beneficial discrimination stems solely from irrational individual hatred — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 645; Allport grounded prejudice in genuine material and symbolic clashes — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 119

Broader Connections

• Allport held that even beneficial discrimination stems solely from irrational individual hatred #corroborates (0.92) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 645