Modern prejudice research rejects Allport’s assumption that targets internalize stigma

Evidence

Allport believed that prejudice is internalized, at least to some extent, by its targets. In his view, prejudice inevitably, inescapably, and irrevocably alters the personality of its victims. This perspective predicts considerable cross-situational consistency in behavior. In contrast, most contemporary scholars adopt a more social-psychological, or situational, perspective. These scholars propose that stigma exposes its bearers to situational threats, i.e., situations where one’s membership in a particular stigmatized group could influence how one is treated and judged (see Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). No internalization of stigmatizing stereotypes is assumed to be necessary for prejudice to influence the person’s experience and behavior. Thus, quite different responses may be observed within the same individual as the context changes (Steele et al., 2002). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 937

Categorization

• XREF: Constitutes the core Allport-reassessment contrast — Allport’s trait/internalization model versus the situational turn — that this vault thread is organized around.
• ADDENDUM: Directly extends the contact-theory reassessment: situational threats frame prejudice effects as context-dependent, which is the same logic that makes Allport’s contact hypothesis contingency-driven rather than law-like.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 937