This paper provides a comprehensive overview of Gordon W. Allport's personality theory, tracing its foundations from his biographical background and his critique of Freudian and behaviorist approaches. The paper examines Allport's carefully constructed definition of personality, his taxonomy of traits and personal dispositions (cardinal, central, and secondary), and his concept of the proprium as the integrating self. It further explores functional autonomy — both perseverative and propriate — and Allport's seven-stage developmental sequence of the proprium. The paper concludes by situating Allport's contributions within the broader landscape of humanistic psychology and evaluating his lasting influence on personality theory.
The paper demonstrates effective theoretical synthesis: rather than merely summarizing Allport's ideas in isolation, it consistently situates them against opposing frameworks (Freudian psychology, behaviorism) and related constructs (Maslow's self-actualization, idiographic vs. nomothetic approaches). This comparative framing helps the reader understand not just what Allport argued, but why those arguments were theoretically significant.
The paper opens with a biographical introduction that contextualizes Allport's intellectual development. It then moves through his definition of personality, his taxonomy of traits and dispositions, the integrating concept of the proprium, the principle of functional autonomy, and finally a seven-stage developmental model. A brief concluding section addresses legacy and critique. Each section builds on the previous one, making the structure cumulative rather than merely additive.
Gordon Willard Allport, one of the most influential American psychologists of the twentieth century, was the youngest of four brothers. He was born in Montezuma, Indiana in 1897. One of his elder brothers, Floyd Henry Allport, was also an influential psychologist who is said to have inspired him (Hall & Lindzey, 1985). Allport graduated from Harvard with a Ph.D. in 1922 and was a long-time member of the Harvard faculty from 1930 until his death in 1967. Over the course of his career he produced a number of influential books and professional works, including The Nature of Prejudice.
Allport was initially exposed to Freudian notions of behavior as a graduate student, but he rejected both Freudian psychology and later behaviorism. (There is a famous story of his early meeting with Sigmund Freud that is often cited to explain the development of his own theories.) Allport became deeply interested in the study of personality and is frequently regarded as one of the founding figures of personality psychology. He emphasized the uniqueness of the individual and the importance of context in understanding behavior, rather than focusing on past history. His work has exerted a deep influence on modern psychological theories (Hall & Lindzey, 1985). Throughout his career Allport most often studied broad topics such as prejudice, religion, and traits, and he left a lasting impression on many students who went on to have important careers of their own.
In essence, the majority of Allport's concepts regarding personality concern motivational issues — specifically, what drives a person. Allport was also insistent on establishing rational guidelines for studying personality. He diligently studied definitions offered by other experts, including definitions of temperament and character, before arriving at his own. He grouped these definitions into different categories. Temperament referred to biological dispositions, and character referred to a code of behavior evaluated by others (Allport, 1937a).
Allport found that what he termed "mask definitions" of personality focused on the "external stimulus value" of a person as they present themselves to the world (Allport, 1968). Behaviorism's exclusive focus on observable behavior falls into this category. "Essence definitions" focused on an essential inner quality that makes people human — psychoanalytic constructs such as the id, ego, and superego are examples of this approach, purporting that something inside a person determines what their personality is. "Omnibus definitions" approached personality by summing up everything knowable about a person's past, present, and future. These definitions suggest that everyone is so unique that personality science would find it difficult to develop a universally applicable theory (Allport, 1966).
Allport combined what he considered the best elements of these various definitions into his now-famous formulation:
"Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustment to his environment" (Allport, 1937a, p. 48).
Allport chose each word carefully. "Dynamic organization" suggests a central structure that holds the components of personality together while remaining capable of development and change. Personality is also a real entity — not merely an explanatory label applied by an observer — comprised of genuine mental and neural units ("psychophysical systems"). Finally, personality has a function: it does something for people ("determine his unique adjustment to his environment"). This definition has endured for decades and serves as the foundation for understanding the rest of Allport's theoretical work. According to Allport, the basic units of personality are traits, personal dispositions, and the proprium.
One of the major components of Allport's personality theory is the concept of traits and personal dispositions. Allport defined a trait as a "neuropsychic structure having the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent" that operates by initiating and guiding behavior (Allport, 1961, p. 347). Having spent considerable time working through dictionaries to categorize trait descriptions, Allport was emphatic that a trait is not merely a subjective label applied by an outsider, but a real entity. Traits function by predisposing people to perceive various groups of stimuli as having similar meanings and to respond to those stimuli with similar behaviors.
To clarify the concept of trait, Allport compared it to habits and attitudes. A habit can function as a trait, but a trait is not always a habit. Allport offered the example of a young child brushing their teeth: at first this seems like a habit, but as the behavior persists, the child can be said to possess personal cleanliness as a trait (Allport, 1955). He described a trait as a "fusion of habit and endowment rather than a colligation or chain of habits alone" (Allport, 1937a, p. 293). The transformation from habit to trait occurs when the motivation shifts from a conditioned response to pure gratification derived from the activity itself, at which point the trait becomes autonomous (Allport, 1937b, 1968). Habits such as humming along to music or always hanging up one's car keys tell us relatively little about a person; traits, by contrast, are more generalized (Allport, 1961).
A trait can also function like an attitude. Attitudes are more general than habits but less general than traits, and both attitudes and traits can guide behavior. However, Allport argued that despite their similarities the two concepts differ in three important ways. First, an attitude refers to something material or conceptual and is more specific in its focus than a trait. Second, traits are broader dispositions directed toward many similar things or situations, whereas an attitude can remain situational. Third, attitudes typically carry a favorable or unfavorable valence toward their object — a characteristic that traits do not necessarily possess. Although attitudes and traits often function together, Allport stressed the importance of keeping the two concepts analytically distinct (Allport, 1961).
Allport was also careful to distinguish between common traits, which permit comparisons across a wide range of individuals, and personal dispositions (personal traits), which are distinctive to the individual (Allport, 1961). Labeling someone "aggressive," for instance, would yield vastly different portraits for different individuals — portraits that consist of far more than a single word. Personal dispositions are always unique to the individual and require elaborate description. This distinction reflects the broader difference between nomothetic approaches, which examine common traits across large populations, and idiographic approaches, which examine the uniqueness of the individual (Allport & Allport, 1921). Allport's sympathies were firmly with the idiographic tradition.
In his study of individual uniqueness, Allport reasoned that some traits carry more personal significance than others. This led him to describe three types of personal dispositions: cardinal dispositions, central dispositions, and secondary dispositions (Allport, 1968).
A cardinal disposition is so pervasive that the great majority of a person's behaviors and activities can be traced to, or motivated by, this single trait. Only a small number of people possess a cardinal disposition, but for those who do, it may essentially rule their personality.
Central dispositions are easily detected characteristics within a given person, though they are not as all-encompassing as cardinal dispositions. Most people have between five and ten central dispositions, according to Allport (Schultz, 1976). Knowing a person's central dispositions allows for an accurate description of that individual, and Allport considered these the dispositions most worth measuring and comparing; they are emphasized throughout his writings (Allport, 1937a; 1968).
Secondary dispositions are less important, more narrowly focused, and harder to detect. For instance, a normally agreeable person might become aggressive when witnessing animal abuse. These dispositions are "aroused by a narrower range of equivalent stimuli and they issue into a narrower range of equivalent responses" (Allport, 1937a, p. 338). Others may not notice a person's secondary dispositions unless they know that person very well.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.