Allport identified seven fatal flaws in scapegoat theories of prejudice

Evidence

Despite his frequent use of scapegoat explanations and willingness to synthesize psychodynamic and frustration–aggression approaches, Allport provided an extensive critique of scapegoat theory (based partly on concerns expressed by Zawadzki, 1948), summarized below: (1) Frustration does not always lead to aggression … (2) Aggression is not always displaced [but rather is more likely to be directed at the true source of frustration] … (3) Displacement does not … actually relieve the feeling of frustration [because it does not address frustration’s underlying causes] … (4) The theory says nothing concerning the choice of scapegoats … (5) It is not true that a defenseless minority is always chosen for displacement purposes [powerful groups are sometimes blamed] … (6) Available evidence does not indicate that the displacement tendency is any more common among people high in prejudice than among those low in prejudice … (7) Finally, the theory itself overlooks the possibility of realistic social conflict. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1571

Categorization

• XREF: Points 1, 4, and 7 prefigure modern critiques and the shift toward realistic conflict theory (Sherif) and social identity approaches later in the volume.
• SEED: The seven critiques read as a template for auditing any monocausal psychological explanation of a social phenomenon — usable as a general checklist piece.