Most prejudice coexists with egalitarian values in a conflicted state, not pure hostility.

Evidence

Allport recognized that high-minded national and Christian egalitarian precepts often conflict with the realities of life on the ground; that is, with the self-interests, jealousies, and conformity to conventional prejudices that drive discrimination in practice. As a result, the influence of the school may conflict with parental influence, and religious teachings may contradict established social hierarchies. Sometimes bias predominates, but, in Allport’s view, prejudice with compunction, in which positive attitudes alternate with negative attitudes, is far more common. This inconsistency is awkward to live with, because, as Allport (1954/1979) noted, even if it is “defeated intellectually, prejudice lingers emotionally” (p. 328). Allport further observed, “The average [White] American, therefore, experiences moral uneasiness and ‘a feeling of individual and collective guilt.’ He lives in a state of conflict” (p. 330). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2160

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces and defines Allport’s core concept of ‘prejudice with compunction’ — positive attitudes alternating with negative ones, producing moral uneasiness.
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that prejudice typically coexists with genuine egalitarian conviction — that the ‘average’ American is internally conflicted rather than simply bigoted — reframes how we should measure and intervene on prejudice.
• XREF: Connects to Myrdal’s ‘American Creed’ thesis and anticipates modern measures distinguishing explicit from implicit bias.
• SEED: Angle: ‘prejudice with compunction’ as a framework for understanding why self-aware, well-meaning people still discriminate — the conflict model reframes intervention from punishment to conscience-making.