Allport resisted group-level explanations that later transformed the field

Evidence

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. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 151 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Allport’s individualist account of prejudice overlooked the coming group-level turn; Allport’s tradition neglected group-level political constraints — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 684; Allport rejected group-level theorizing and missed the social identity revolution — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 151

Broader Connections

• Allport rejected group-level theorizing and missed the social identity revolution #expands (0.95) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 151