Allport over-prioritized individual personality, missing later group-level and ideological explanations of prejudice.

Evidence

However, his focus throughout remained on the individual’s phenomenology of being a group member and how individuals think about, react to, and behave toward members of another group. Allport did acknowledge the possibility of the unique quality of group identity relative to personal identity. For example, on page 40 he quoted Sherif and Sherif (1953), who said, “Ordinarily the factors leading individuals to form attitudes of prejudice are not piecemeal. Rather, their formation is functionally related to becoming a group member – to adopting the group and its values (norms) as the main anchorage in regulating experience and behavior” (p. 218). But Allport was critical of this perspective, commenting that “there is something unnecessarily ‘collectivistic’ about the theory” (p. 40). He acknowledged that prejudice could be, in part, a “mass phenomenon,” but he preferred to emphasize the “individual play of attitudes.” Within the next two decades, the work of Tajfel and his colleagues (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979) on Social Identity Theory transformed the field with its emphasis on group-level processes as qualitatively distinct from individual-level processes. Allport did not see it coming. … A more politically sophisticated psychology now emphasizes individual differences in adherence to group-based ideologies as accounting for individuals’ proneness to prejudice. In an often-cited example, Allport (p. 13) provided a hypothetical conversation illustrating how the prejudiced Mr. X’s stereotypical beliefs about Jews conveniently shift in response to factual counterevidence offered by the tolerant Mr. Y, but always in ways that maintain and justify his antipathy toward Jewish people. For Allport, such slipperiness was evidence of irrational motivational and emotional needs. Contemporary perspectives on prejudice (e.g., Jackman; Jost & Hamilton) interpret such rationalizations in a different light, as well-rehearsed, internally consistent, and socially validated justifications for group inequality. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 151

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Social Identity Theory and system-justification (Jost) accounts the vault likely holds; also the Mr. X Jewish stereotype example echoes content relevant to the antisemitism cluster.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 151