Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionIV. Dispositional Theories 13. Allport: Psychology of
the Individual(^402) © The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2009
396 Part IV Dispositional Theories
Critique of Allport
Allport based his theory of personality more on philosophical speculation and com-
mon sense than on scientific investigations. He never intended his theory to be com-
pletely new or comprehensive, but rather he was eclectic, carefully borrowing from
older theories and recognizing that his detractors could have important things to say.
Consistent with this tolerant attitude, Allport (1968) acknowledged that his advi-
sories 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 refresh-
ing. 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 the-
oryin the sense of stating a set of related assumptions that generate testable hy-
potheses? On this criterion, Allport’s exhortations rate a qualified “Yes.” It is a lim-
ited theory, offering explanations for a fairly narrow scope of personality, namely,
certain kinds of motivation. The functionally autonomous motives of psychologi-
cally 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 explanation did Allport
offer for the bizarre dreams, fantasies, and hallucinations of mature individuals? Un-
fortunately, 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 person-
ality 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 in-
terest in prejudice have led to multiple studies on the scientific study of religion, val-
ues, 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 fal-
sified, but most of Allport’s other insights lie beyond the ability of science to deter-
mine whether some other explanation might be equally appropriate.
A useful theory provides an organization for observations.Does Allport’s the-
ory meet this criterion? Again, only for a narrow range of adult motives does the the-
ory offer a meaningful organization for observations. Much of what is known about
human personality cannot be easily integrated into Allport’s theory. Specifically, be-
haviors motivated by unconscious forces as well as those that are stimulated by