378 Part IV Dispositional Theories
to be a mark of a healthy, mature person, he considered religion to be helpful
because it provides a unifying philosophy of life. But religion is not the only
means by which one can have a unifying philosophy of life. Whether having a
unifying philosophy of life that is not based on an organized religion is beneficial
for health in the same way intrinsic religious orientation is remains an area for
future research.Critique of Allport
Allport based his theory of personality more on philosophical speculation and
common sense than on scientific investigations. He never intended his theory to
be completely new or comprehensive, but rather he was eclectic, carefully borrow-
ing from older theories and recognizing that his detractors could have important
things to say. Consistent with this tolerant attitude, Allport (1968) acknowledged
that his adversaries may have been at least partially right.
To Allport, most people are best thought of as conscious, forward-looking,
tension-seeking individuals. To people who believe that deterministic theories have lost
sight of the proactive person, Allport’s view of humanity is philosophically refreshing.
As with any other theory, however, it must be evaluated on a scientific basis.
Allport probably did more than any other psychologist to define personality
and to categorize other definitions of the term. But do his writings constitute a
theory in the sense of stating a set of related assumptions that generate testable
hypotheses? On this criterion, Allport’s exhortations rate a qualified “Yes.” It is a
limited theory, offering explanations for a fairly narrow scope of personality,
namely, certain kinds of motivation. The functionally autonomous motives of psy-
chologically healthy adults are covered quite adequately by Allport’s theory. But
what of the motives of children and of mentally disturbed adults? What moves
them and why? What about ordinarily healthy adults who uncharacteristically
behave in a strange manner? What accounts for these inconsistencies? What expla-
nation did Allport offer for the bizarre dreams, fantasies, and hallucinations of
mature individuals? Unfortunately, his account of personality is not broad enough
to adequately answer these questions.
Despite its limitations as a useful theory, Allport’s approach to personality is
both stimulating and enlightening. Anyone interested in building a theory of personal-
ity should first become familiar with Allport’s writings. Few other psychologists have
made as much effort to place personality theory in perspective; few have been as
careful in defining terms, in categorizing previous definitions, or in questioning what
units should be employed in personality theory. The work of Allport has set a standard
for clear thinking and precision that future theorists would do well to emulate.
Has the theory generated research? On this criterion, Allport’s theory
receives a moderate rating. His Religious Orientation Scale, the Study of Values,
and his interest in prejudice have led to multiple studies on the scientific study of
religion, values, and prejudice.
On the criterion of falsifiability, Allport’s theory must receive a low rating.
The concept of four somewhat independent religious orientations can be verified
or falsified, but most of Allport’s other insights lie beyond the ability of science
to determine whether some other explanation might be equally appropriate.