Sunteți pe pagina 1din 16

Running head: ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Allport and Psychology of the Individual


Jenna Talbott
Liberty University

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL


Abstract

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Gordon Allport and his theory the Psychology of the Individual are discussed. First, a short
biography of Gordon Allport is given, and events that influenced the development of his theory
are mentioned. Next, an overview of the Psychology of the Individual theory is laid out. Allports
approach to personality theory is examined first, as the foundation for the other elements of his
theory. The method of study Allport preferred, specifically morphogenic studies, is then
reviewed, with special reference to the Letters from Jenny. The structure of personality as
described by Allports theory is also explained, and the concepts of personal dispositions and
proprium are included. A description of Allports views on motivation, including his theory of
functional autonomy, completes the discussion of Allports theory of the Psychology of the
Individual. Finally, examples of the ability of the ideas presented by Allport to generate research
are offered. The studies mentioned were inspired by Allports concepts of the Study of Values,
his optimal contact hypothesis, and his Religious Orientation Scale.

Gordon Allport is one

of the foremost psychologists of the early 20th century. His theory of the Psychology of the
Individual had contributed indispensible explanations to the body of personality theory.
According to Pettigrew (1999), who knew the theorist personally, Allports strengths could be
summed up in three qualities: his work offered a broadly eclectic balance of the many sides of
psychology, he repeatedly demonstrated the ability to formulate the disciplines central
problemsand to propose innovative approaches to them, and [his] entire scholarly work
presents a consistent, seamless and forceful perspective (p. 415). Discussed first is Gordon
Allports life, which is a testament to the virtues of his theory. The intricacies of his theory of the
Psychology of the Individual are then described in depth. Finally, some examples of the research
inspired by Allports theory are presented.
Brief Biography of Gordon Allport

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Gordon Allport was born in Montezuma, Indiana on November 11th, 1887 (Bruner, 1968).
The fourth son born to a physician, John E. Allport, and a former schoolteacher, Nellie Wise
Allport, Gordon Allport spent most of his youth in Cleveland, Ohio (Bruner; Feist & Feist, 2009;
Winter, 1997). Allports older brother Floyd, who had recently graduated from Harvard and
begun graduate work there, influenced Allports decision to arrive at Cambridge a few weeks
before classes began in 1915, to take the rigorous entrance examinations (Bruner; Pettigrew,
1999). Fortunately, he squeaked by, and began a lifelong association with the college (Bruner;
Feist & Feist; Parsons, 1968; Pettigrew; Smith, F. V., Vernon, P. E., & Tajfel, H., 1968).
Allport was absent from Harvard for three brief stints: to teach in Istanbul following his
graduation in 1919, to study in Germany and England with a traveling fellowship after he
received his Harvard doctorate in 1922, and to teach at Dartmouth for a few years (Bruner, 1968;
Feist & Feist, 2009; Parsons, 1968; Pettigrew, 1999; Smith et al., 1968). With these exceptions,
Allport was almost constantly employed at Harvard, with various posts including professor, first
lecturer of the first American course in the psychology of personality, chairman of the
psychology department, and vehement supporter of the social ethics and sociology departments
(Bruner; Feist & Feist; Parsons; Pettigrew; Smith et al.). Gordon Allport died of lung cancer in
1967 in the Stillman Infirmary at Harvard, a final symbol of his commitment to the school
(Bruner; Feist & Feist; Parsons; Smith et al.) He was survived by his wife of more than 40 years,
Ada Lufkin Gould Allport, and their son Robert Allport, a pediatrician (Bruner; Feist & Feist).
One epiphany that occurred early in Allports education should be noted to better
understand Allports basic presuppositions about personality. Allports first psychology class at
Harvard sparked a lifelong interest in the field, but the most lasting impression he retained from
the course was that his textbook was strictly divided between clinical psychology and applied

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

psychology (Bruner, 1968). Allport wondered why the two could not be reconciled, and it could
be argued that he spent the rest of his life attempting to do just that (Bruner). This theme can be
traced throughout Allports life: in all things he sought balance. Whether it was between the
commonality of personality traits and the uniqueness of the individual, between sociology or
social ethics and psychology, between mathematical analysis and case study, between the
influence of the past and the influence of the future, Allport believed that both sides of each
dichotomy was important (Bruner; Parsons, 1968; Pettigrew, 1999; Smith et al., 1968).
Sometimes Allport found himself compelled to advocate for one method or emphasis above the
other, but he made it clear that in those instances he did so only because he felt something
important was being neglected. Allports eclectic approach, and conviction to fight for the
underdog side of a theory, influenced his life-long interest in such areas as the uniqueness of
the individual, the role of conscious motivation, and morphogenic studies (Bruner; Feist & Feist,
2009; Pettigrew).
Before Allports theory of the Psychology of the Individual is discussed, it is important to
note that although his contributions to psychology are innumerable, his contributions to the lives
of those he knew is far greater still (Bruner, 1968; Parsons, 1968; Pettigrew, 1999; Smith et al.,
1968). Perhaps because of his commitment to combining the causes of psychology and
sociology, Allport was quick to volunteer for many social causes (Parsons). During World War II
he also helped find jobs for many German professors escaping Nazi reign (Bruner; Parsons;
Pettigrew; Smith et al.). Finally, he is remembered with fondness by many of his colleagues and
students, who found him unrelentingly kind, thoughtful, appreciative, and considerate to the end
(Bruner; Parsons; Pettigrew; Smith et al.).
Overview of Psychology of the Individual

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Allport believed that no theory could possibly explain all of human complexity and
variation (Feist & Feist, 2009). Allport, more than almost any other theorist, believed that
humans were so unique that an eclectic approach to understanding personality was the only way
to get close to understanding human nature (Feist & Feist). Allport borrowed concepts from
various theorists, constantly balancing descriptions against one another to explain how every
possible personality trait presents differently in each individual (Feist & Feist). It is relevant to
illustrate his unique approach to the study of personality, his preference for the morphogenic
method of investigation, his theory of the structure of personality, and his emphasis on conscious
motivation.
Approach to Personality
One of the strengths of Allports theory is that Allport was meticulous in establishing a
foundation on which to build the Psychology of the Individual. His approach to personality was
carefully thought out, and resulted from the investigation of three questions: (a) What is
personality? (b) What is the role of conscious motivation? And (c) What are the characteristics of
a healthy person? (Feist & Feist, 2009).
Allports quest for a complete description of personality resulted in his definition:
[Personality is] the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems
that determine his characteristic behavior and thought (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 378). This
definition was built on meticulous research of the many previous definitions of personality, and
reflected the beginnings of Allports own theory (Feist & Feist). It reflected Allports emphasis
on balance, asserting that personality is both stable and growing, physical and mental, conscious
and unconscious, product and process (Feist & Feist).

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Allport believed that most of the extant personality theories had neglected the role of
conscious motivation in personality (Feist & Feist, 2009). He believed that most theorists had
interjected unconscious reasons for behavior, when conscious reasons were adequate and should
be taken at face value (Feist & Feist). Allport recognized that some behaviors were driven by
childhood experiences and sublimated drives, but he posited that other actions were motivated
simply by a persons decision that they wanted to do it, or because they were working toward
some future goal (Feist & Feist).
Another factor that influenced Allports approach to personality theory was his careful
study of the characteristics of healthy individuals (Feist & Feist, 2009). He found that in general
healthy individuals are more likely to be proactive instead of reactive, and to be motivated by
conscious thoughts rather than unconscious processes (Feist & Feist). Allport developed a list of
six criteria that signal a mature personality: extension of themselves outward expressing
unselfish concern for others and for causes, a warm relating of self to others, an emotional
security and self-acceptance, a realistic perception of their environment, insight and humor, and a
unifying philosophy of life (Feist & Feist).
Method: The Study of the Individual
Along with his complaints that personality theorists had neglected the uniqueness of the
individual for too long, Allport suggested a reformation in the approach to the science of
psychology (Feist & Feist, 2009). Allport contended that while most psychology research to date
had been nomothetic, investigating general laws, not enough research had been morphogenic (or
idiographic), studying individual people (Feist & Feist). A morphogenic study refers to
patterned properties of the whole organism and allows for intrapersonal comparison (Feist &
Feist, p. 389). Because Allport felt that the psychology of each individual was too unique to be

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

completely accounted for by studies of general personality characteristic, he advocated an


approach that viewed each person holistically, and studied them individually (Feist & Feist).
Several of Allports most extensive morphogenic studies heavily influenced his theory
(Feist & Feist, 2009; Winters, 1997). Two are of note; the first is the unpublished collection of
Marion Taylors diaries (Feist & Feist). The second, more famous of Allports morphogenic
studies is a series of letters from Allports college roommates mother, Jenny (Feist & Feist;
Winters). Allports Letters from Jenny was eventually published, and the collection proved to be
a source of confirmation for Allports theory of personality (Feist & Feist). Allport used the
letters as a testing ground for the objectivity of morphogenic studies, allowing others to analyze
the letters independently and comparing his results to theirs (Feist & Feist). The similarities in
their conclusions the near agreement in number and description of traits observed in Jenny
indicate the feasibility of morphogenic studies (Feist & Feist).
Structure of Personality
The traits Allport and others observed in Jenny are examples of what Allport would have
called personal dispositions (Feist & Feist, 2009). Allport believed that the basic units or building
blocks of personality were an individuals personal dispositions (Feist & Feist). However, Allport
made it very clear that personal dispositions are not common traits (Feist & Feist). Common
traits, he explained, were characteristics that many people could exhibit, and which allow for a
comparison between individuals (Feist & Feist). Personal dispositions on the other hand are
found only in one specific individual, and could be understood as the unique expression of a
common trait in an individuals personality (Feist & Feist). In order to identify a complete list of
possible personal dispositions, Allport counted and recorded nearly 18,000 English words that
could be used to describe an individual (Feist & Feist).

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Allport proposed that there were various levels of personal disposition, ranging from
dispositions that are central to an individuals character to mere peripheral dispositions (Feist &
Feist, 2009). Allport explained that only some individuals possess a cardinal disposition, a single
personal disposition which describes their entire being, and which dominates their life (Feist &
Feist). On the other hand, according to Allport, everyone possesses 5 to 10 central dispositions
(Feist & Feist). These central dispositions are the few traits that those who are close to a person
(and perhaps anyone who knows the person) would agree describe the person accurately (Feist &
Feist). Finally, secondary dispositions are the many characteristics of a person that do not define
that persons personality, but are sometimes responsible for an individuals specific behaviors
(Feist & Feist). Allport also proposed that personal dispositions could be either motivational or
stylistic; that is, they could either cause action or guide the manner of action (Feist & Feist).
The theory of Psychology of the Individual includes the concept of proprium as well
(Feist & Feist, 2009). According to Allport these are the characteristics that a person recognizes
as unique to himself or herself, and peculiarly his or hers (Feist & Feist). This could be
considered Allports version of self-concept. The personal dispositions that make up an
individuals proprium are generally warm, central, and important to their lives (Feist & Feist, p
383). However, proprium is not the same as personality because there are personal dispositions
that remain on the periphery and are never brought to consciousness, or are denied and
sublimated, so that a person is never completely aware of all of their personal dispositions (Feist
& Feist).
Motivation
The final concept important to Allports Psychology of the Individual is his perception of
motivation. One of the most salient points of his theory, Allport emphasized that it was important

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

10

to understand that people are motivated by both past events, and future goals (Feist & Feist,
2009). Allport believed that motivation could be divided into two basic types of action:
peripheral strivings, which are reactive, satisfy needs, and reduce tension, and propriate strivings,
which are proactive, are not driven by a need, and increase tensions (Feist & Feist). Allport
believed theories that ignore the capacity of humans to shape their environment, and instead
study only reactive behavior, are incomplete and limited (Feist & Feist).
One of Allports most controversial propositions was the concept of functional autonomy
(Feist & Feist, 2009). Allport asserted that it was possible for an action to continue, for no reason
at all, when motivation for that action ceases (Feist & Feist). Where learning theorists of
Allports day would suggest motivation has simply been altered to originate from a different
cause, Allport postulated that the action has actually become functionally independent of any
motive whatsoever (Feist & Feist). This concept is based in Allports emphasis on conscious
behaviors. Allport, contrary to most theorists, believed that some behaviors have no deeper cause
than that that person desired to act in that manner (Feist & Feist).
Research Inspired by Allport and Psychology of the Individual
Allport contributed much to the science of personality psychology when he developed his
theory of the Psychology of the Individual. His ideas remain influential in the continued search
for the indefinable qualities that constitute personality, and the field of psychology will forever
be indebted to his priceless brilliance. Although research inspired by Allports theory has been
limited (Feist & Feist, 2009), certain aspects of the Psychology of the Individual have induced
further studies. The most fruitful of these areas of study have proved to be the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values, Allports optimal contact hypothesis for the reduction of prejudice, and
the Religious Orientation Scale as developed by Allport and Ross.

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

11

The Study of Values


One of Allports most nomothetic measurements of personality was the Study of Values,
which he developed with Vernon and Lindzey (Pettigrew, 1999). Although it may be considered
semimorphogenic because of the nature of its self-report scale, most consider it nomothetic
because it measures traits individuals have in common, specifically their values (Feist & Feist,
2009; Pettigrew). The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values scale measures what areas of life
participants view as most important across six subscales: Theoretical, Political, Aesthetic,
Economic, Religious and Social (Fishburn & King, 1964).
Although many research studies have been conducted investigating Allports Study of
Values, two examples are briefly mentioned here. The first is A 20-year stability analysis of the
study of values for intellectually gifted individuals from adolescence to adulthood, a 1996 study
by Lubinski, Schmidt, and Benbow describing a longitudinal measurement of the Values.
Lubinski et al. measured the consistency of Allports Values in gifted adolescents over time, and
they found that the dominant Value preferred by 13-year-olds was likely to persist 20 years later.
Another example of research on Allports Study of Values is The relationship between values
and perceived problems, a 1964 study by Fishburn and King that hypothesized a correlation
between scores on the Values scale and the perceived salience of problems. Fishburn and King
assert that following their study there was some evidence to support their hypothesis that the type
of problems one perceives as most bothersome will generally be related to what one values most.
Optimal Contact Hypothesis
In his later years, Allport became more concerned with practical applications of his
theories, and wrote The Nature of Prejudice in hopes of influencing social ethics (Pettigrew,
1968). Allports optimal contact hypothesis is a perfect example of the marriage of his interests

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

12

in psychology and sociology. Allports contact hypothesis asserts that prejudice is reduced by
optimal contact between the prejudiced person and the stigmatized group (Feist & Feist, 2009).
Allport proposed that there are four criteria for optimal contact, including cooperation,
common goals, equal status, and the sanction of an authority figure (Feist & Feist). However,
research indicates that any non-negative contact between an ingroup member and an outgroup
member will reduce the overall prejudice of the ingroup member toward all members of that
outgroup (Turner, Crisp & Lambert, 2007).
Over the years several studies have been conducted to explore various avenues of
research concerning Allports contact hypothesis. One example of a study of contact hypothesis
is Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes a 2007 study by Turner, Crisp
and Lambert, employing a new technique to test Allports beliefs about prejudice reduction.
Turner et al. performed experiments to determine if merely imagining contact (as opposed to
actual contact) with an outgroup member would be sufficient to reduce prejudice. Imagined
contact was concluded to be a viable and helpful way of reducing intergroup bias. Another
example of research sparked by optimal contact hypothesis is Contact with the mentally ill and
perceptions of how dangerous they are, a 1986 study by Link and Cullen investigating the
influence of exposure in perception of the mentally ill. Link and Cullen found that their research
supported Allports contact hypothesis, which would predict that contact with a stigmatized
group (mentally ill individuals) reduces prejudice, in this case perception of dangerousness.
Religious Orientation
Another concept of Allports that has inspired a great deal of research is his description of
the difference between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Orientations. Allport had theorized that
rather than general religiosity having a measurable effect in personality, the reason for religiosity

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

13

was the more important factor in personality. A personal adoption and internalization of religious
beliefs, and a corresponding externalization of actions consistent with religious convictions and
principals, indicates an Intrinsic Religious Orientation (Feist & Feist, 2009; Kahoe, 1974). On
the other hand an Extrinsic Religious Orientation is characterized by the use of religion for
personal satisfaction, gain, or vindication, and a lack of true adoption of the sanctioned beliefs
and actions espoused by the religion (Feist & Feist; Kahoe).
Personality and achievement correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations,
a 1974 study by Kahoe exploring correlations of Allports Religious Orientation Scale to various
personality traits, is one example of research inspired by this faction of Allports theory. The
study resulted in several notable correlations, including that between Extrinsic Religious
Orientation and prejudice. Another study which explored the implications of the Religious
Orientation Scale is Bidirectional relations of religious orientation and depressive symptoms in
adolescents: A short-term longitudinal study, a 2011 report by Pssel et al. exploring the
relationship between scores on the Religious Orientation Scale and depression in adolescents
over time. Pssel et al. conclude that even when controlling for various pertinent factors, an
intrinsic religious orientation is highly correlated with low levels of depression, even four
months later.
Conclusion
The death of Gordon Allport in 1967 was indeed a tragedy. The loss of the mind that
developed the theory of the Psychology of the Individual has certainly left psychology bereft.
However, Allports theories will live on, immortalized by their ability to explain human
personality, and by their influence in far-reaching areas of study. Following the discussion of his
life, theory, and the research he inspired, it is undeniable that Pettigrews words are indeed true:

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

14

Gordons contributions to psychology proved important and lasting for at least three
reasons: (1) a broad balance of emphases that helped to establish a solid middle ground in
an exceptionally diverse discipline, (2) the foresight and ability to formulate the fields
central problems and advance initial solutions, and (3) a consistent and seamless
perspective, rendered in elegant prose, that is distinctively Allport. (1999, p. 420)

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

15

References
Bruner, J. S. (1968). Gordon Willard Allport: 1897-1967. The American Journal of Psychology,
81(2), 279-284.
Feist, J. & Feist, G. J. (2009). Allport: Psychology of the individual. In Theories of personality
(7th ed., pp. 374-399). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Fishburn, W. R., & King, P. T. (1964). The relationship between values and perceived problems.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 11(3), 288-290. doi: 10.1037/h0039122
Kahoe, R. D. (1974). Personality and achievement correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic religious
orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(6), 812-818.
doi: 10.1037/h0036222
Link, B. G., & Cullen, F. T. (1986). Contact with the mentally ill and perceptions of how
dangerous they are. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27(4), 289-302.
Lubinski, D., Schmidt, D. B., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). A 20-year stability analysis of the study of
values for intellectually gifted individuals from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(4), 443-451. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.443
Parsons, T. (1968). Gordon W. Allport 1897-1967. The American Sociologist, 3(1), 61-62.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1999). Gordon Willard Allport: A tribute. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 415
428. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00125
Pssel, P., Martin, N. C., Garber, J., Banister, A. W., Pickering, N. K., & Hautzinger, M. (2011).
Bidirectional relations of religious orientation and depressive symptoms in adolescents: A
short-term longitudinal study. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3(1), 24-38. doi:
10.1037/a0019125

ALLPORT AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

16

Smith, F. V., Vernon, P. E., & Tajfel, H. (1968). Gordon Willard Allport (1897-1967). British
Journal of Psychology, 59(2), 99-104.
Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve
intergroup attitudes. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 427-441. doi:
10.1177/1368430207081533
Winter, D. G. (1997). Allport's life and Allport's psychology. Journal Of Personality, 65(3), 723731. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep9710314573

S-ar putea să vă placă și