Understanding allies’ participation in social change: A multiple perspectives approach

The introduction to the EJSP special issue brings together recent literature on allyship. We present and discuss different definitions of allyship and highlight a multiple perspectives approach to understanding the predictors and consequences of allyship. This approach suggests that engagement in allyship can be driven by egalitarian and non-egalitarian motivations and that the behaviours identified as allyship can have different meanings, causes and consequences depending on whether researchers take into account the allies’ perspective or the disadvantaged groups’ perspective. We use this approach as an organizing principle to identify themes that emerge in the papers included in this special issue. We start with four papers that consider the perspective of the advantaged group, followed by two papers that consider the perspective of the disadvantaged group. Finally, we introduce two theoretical papers that examine the relations between disadvantaged groups and allies, and we set out directions for future research.     

An integrative framework on the impact of allies: How identity-based needs influence intergroup solidarity and social movements

What impact do advantaged group allies have within social movements? Although solidarity between advantaged and disadvantaged group members is often encouraged to achieve long-term social change, allies run the risk of being ineffective or counterproductive, therefore making it important to shift our focus towards understanding the impact of allies. We propose an integrative theoretical framework describing the positive and negative impact of allies based on their distinct identity-based needs: advantaged group members’ need for moral acceptance and disadvantaged group members’ need for empowerment and respect. By consolidating extant literature and identifying gaps in prior research, we propose a set of hypotheses concerning (a) tensions that arise within intergroup solidarity efforts for social change between advantaged group allies and disadvantaged group members, and (b) the role of allies in influencing broader public opinion to advance the psychology of social change.     

Zero-sum beliefs shape advantaged allies’ support for collective action

Three studies (N₁ = 1,019; N₂ = 312; N₃ = 494) tested whether seeing intergroup relations as inherently antagonistic shaped advantaged social groups’ allyship intentions. More specifically, we tested whether endorsing zero-sum beliefs related to their willingness to support system-challenging and system-supporting collective action. Zero-sum beliefs were negatively correlated with system-challenging and positively correlated with system-supporting collective action intentions. Zero-sum beliefs were more common among advantaged than disadvantaged groups and translated into lower allyship intentions. Advantaged group members with higher levels of zero-sum beliefs were also more likely to experience anger and fear when considering the demographic racial shift in the United States. Increased fear was associated with greater support for system-supporting and lower support for system-challenging collective action. We find consistent evidence that advantaged group members see intergroup relations as a zero-sum game and that these beliefs are negatively related to their intentions to become allies.     

The Irony of Harmony: Intergroup Contact Can Produce False Expectations for Equality

ABSTRACT— Positive intergroup contact has been a guiding framework for research on reducing intergroup tension and for interventions aimed at that goal. We propose that beyond improving attitudes toward the out-group, positive contact affects disadvantaged-group members' perceptions of intergroup inequality in ways that can undermine their support for social change toward equality. In Study 1, participants were assigned to either high- or low-power experimental groups and then brought together to discuss either commonalities between the groups or intergroup differences. Commonality-focused contact, relative to difference-focused contact, produced heightened expectations for fair (i.e.,  egalitarian) out-group behavior among members of disadvantaged groups. These expectations, however, proved unrealistic when compared against the actions of members of the advantaged groups. Participants in Study 2 were Israeli Arabs (a disadvantaged minority) who reported the amount of positive contact they experienced with Jews. More positive intergroup contact was associated with increased perceptions of Jews as fair, which in turn predicted decreased support for social change. Implications for social change are considered.     

The unanticipated interpersonal and societal consequences of choice: victim blaming and reduced support for the public good

Choice makes North Americans feel more in control, free, and independent, and thus has many positive consequences for individuals' motivation and well-being. We report five studies that uncovered novel consequences of choice for public policy and interpersonal judgments. Studies 1 through 3 found that activating the concept of choice decreases support for policies promoting intergroup equality (e.g., affirmative action) and societal benefits (e.g., reducing environmental pollution), but increases support for policies promoting individual rights (e.g., legalizing drugs). Studies 4 and 5 found that activating the concept of choice increases victim blaming and decreases empathy for disadvantaged people. Study 5 found that choice does not decrease Indians' empathy for disadvantaged individuals, indicating that the social and interpersonal consequences of choice are likely culture-specific. This research suggests that the well-known positive effects of choice for individuals can be accompanied by an array of previously unexamined and potentially negative outcomes for other people and for society.     

Racial allyship: Novel measurement and new insights

Allies are members of an ingroup who work toward fairness for people in an outgroup. Ally behaviors include calling out discrimination and fighting for inclusion of outgroup members, and it includes public and private behaviors. As such, White allies can be an important means of reducing racism against people of color. There are few means of assessing and quantifying allyship in ingroup members, and as such, there is a need for methods for assessing allyship that can be used to better understand characteristics of allies and determine if interventions designed to reduce prejudice can improve allyship. To that end we describe an innovative scenario-based measurement technique to quantify interpersonal allyship, with White students as ingroup members (N = 987) and Black students as outgroup members (N = 61). Measurement of allyship is conducted based on participant responses to hypothetical racially-sensitive scenarios where microaggressions are occurring or likely to occur. Items were developed based focus group input, and rated by diversity experts for relevance. The factor structure of allyship items was examined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The final 10-item Interpersonal Racial Allyship Scale (IRAS) was negatively correlated to 3 measures of racist attitudes and 1 measure of microaggressive behaviors, and it was positively correlated to 2 measures of outgroup liking. It also predicted making racially supportive statements in a laboratory task. We report on characteristics of allies, noting that allied behaviors are correlated with less prejudice, stronger positive feelings toward outgroup members, and a greater likelihood of having other marginalized identities. Implications of findings and applications of the scale are discussed.     

刍议社会性弱势群体健康需要与供给

弱势群体包括生理性弱势群体和社会性弱势群体。社会结构转型使我国社会性弱势群体的问题日益凸显。特别是健康问题和它的弱势地位形成了“弱势——不健康——更弱势”的恶性循环中。从生理、心理、道德、社会四个层次探讨社会性弱势群体的健康需要以及健康服务的供给状况,以期找出社会性弱势群体健康需要与供给的矛盾,打破社会性弱势群体弱势的循环链,解决民生问题。     

Selves in contact: how integrating perspectives on sociocultural selves and intergroup contact can inform theory and application on reducing inequality

Research within cultural psychology and intergroup relations represent two, often separate and distinct, approaches to examining social groups—including outcomes and experiences that define and distinguish group membership and its consequences. Often, social group membership (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, and social class) is tied to persistent and pervasive divides—separations that mark the difference in who attends college, stays in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, and even views personal and societal events (e.g., microaggressions, police‐involved shootings) as involving bias. Addressing such complex and often divisive issues, psychological science has contributed theoretical and applied insights to mitigate social differences and inequalities experienced by historically disadvantaged social groups. The present paper integrates research on cultural psychology and intergroup relations by (a) reviewing empirical findings on sociocultural selves and intergroup contact and (b) considering how merging approaches from these literatures, using a selves in contact framework, can inform and elaborate theoretical perspectives and applications aimed at reducing inequality.     

How do cynical employees serve their customers? A multi-method study

In this multi-method study, we investigate how social job demands (i.e., social interruptions) and resources (i.e., colleague support) in the service context influence employee (negative) (re)actions to customers through cynicism towards the job. In addition, we investigate why customers are less satisfied with the provided service when employees endorse a cynical attitude. To test the hypothesized process, we used observer ratings of the employee–customer interactions regarding the number of interruptions and employee negative (re)actions during service encounters, employee self-reports of overall colleague support and daily cynicism, and customer-ratings of service quality. Participants were 48 service employees and 141 customers. Results of multi-level structural equation modelling analyses showed that whereas the number of observed social interruptions during service encounters related positively to cynicism, social support related negatively. Cynical employees exhibited more negative (re)actions towards their customers (e.g., expressed tension, were unfriendly). Consequently, the more negative (re)actions employees showed towards their customers, the less satisfied customers were with the service quality. The study contributes to the literature by explaining what makes service employees cynical about their work, and why cynical employees provide low-quality services.     

Understanding advantaged groups' opposition to diversity,equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: The role of perceived threat

To combat social inequality, organizations develop and implement initiatives that seek to improve the status of disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, racial/ethnic minority groups). Such diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies are controversial, because people disagree about whether they are necessary and what their (positive and negative) consequences may be. Opposition can be particularly fierce from people who belong to advantaged groups that benefit from the status quo (e.g., men, racial/ethnic majority groups). Given the power wielded by advantaged groups, their opposition can undermine the successful implementation of DEI policies, thus resulting in continued inequality, wasted resources, and potential for tension in the organization. In this paper, I draw on theory and research to consider three types of threat that can explain advantaged groups' opposition to DEI policies: (1) resource threat, or concern about losing access to outcomes and opportunities; (2) symbolic threat, or concern about the introduction of new values, culture, and expectations; and (3) ingroup morality threat, or concern about their group's role in perpetuating inequality. I review strategies identified by the literature to mitigate these threats, and discuss their potential negative consequences. The final section takes stock of the literature and considers directions for future research.     

The effects of social (dis)engagement on status conferral: A context dependent account

The functionalist perspective of status suggests that, to attain status, individuals need to be socially engaging and contribute to a group. In contrast, the signaling perspective of status indicates that people often perceive a lack of social engagement as a status cue and thus confer status on someone who is socially disengaging. Integrating these two important perspectives in the status literature, we propose a context dependent account of social (dis)engagement and status conferral in groups and organizations. Whereas social engagement (e.g., contributing to a group and connecting with its members) results in status attainment in task contexts, social disengagement (e.g., withholding benefits from a group and distancing oneself from its members) leads to status attainment in social contexts. A laboratory study and an online experiment provide partial empirical support for our predictions. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

So you think you are an ally? Effects of (in)congruence between men's self-perceptions and women's perceptions of men's values and allyship on women's inclusion and vitality

As public consciousness of sexism is increasing in the workplace (e.g., #MeToo movement), labelling oneself as an ally (e.g., UN HeforShe campaign) is becoming more socially desirable for men. However, do women agree with such men in their assessments of being allies? Importantly, how does women's agreement (or not) with men's self-assessments of allyship affect women's inclusion-relevant outcomes? Using a multi-informant design and data from 101 men–women colleague pairs, this study considered men's self-perceptions and women's other-reports of men's key allyship-relevant characteristics—justice, moral courage, civility and allyship. Polynomial regression and response surface analyses revealed differential impacts of (in)congruence between men's and women's perceptions on women's sense of inclusion and vitality. Simply, when women perceived men as higher (or the same) in justice, moral courage and civility than men reported themselves, it positively predicted women's outcomes. This suggests that humble self-presentation by men on characteristics that are parallel to allyship (but not allyship) may be ideal. Yet, both under- and overestimation by men on allyship itself predicted poorer outcomes for women, suggesting that the ideal is for men to have an accurate assessment of their own strengths and weaknesses as an ally.     

Performative Force,Convention, and Discursive Injustice

I explore how gender can shape the pragmatics of speech. In some circumstances, when a woman deploys standard discursive conventions in order to produce a speech act with a specific performative force, her utterance can turn out, in virtue of its uptake, to have a quite different force—a less empowering force—than it would have if performed by a man. When members of a disadvantaged group face a systematic inability to produce a specific kind of speech act that they are entitled to perform—and in particular when their attempts result in their actually producing a different kind of speech act that further compromises their social position and agency—then they are victims of what I call discursive injustice. I examine three examples of discursive injustice. I contrast my account with Langton and Hornsby's account of illocutionary silencing. I argue that lack of complete control over the performative force of our speech acts is universal, and not a special marker of social disadvantage. However, women and other relatively disempowered speakers are sometimes subject to a distinctive distortion of the path from speaking to uptake, which undercuts their social agency in ways that track and enhance existing social disadvantages.     

The “contact hypothesis”: Critical reflections and future directions

Research on intergroup contact has grown exponentially over the past decade. Such research has typically extolled the benefits of positive interaction between members of historically divided communities, particularly on outcomes related to prejudice reduction. Emerging work in the field, however, has qualified this optimistic picture by identifying three gaps in the existing literature. First, in everyday life, contact may be construed as a negative experience that increases rather than decreases responses such as prejudice, anxiety, and avoidance. Second, in real‐life settings, contact is often circumscribed by informal practices of (re)segregation that are easily overlooked if researchers rely primarily on examining structured contact and explicit processes using primarily laboratory and questionnaire methods. Third, positive contact may have “ironic” effects on the political attitudes and behaviors of the historically disadvantaged, undermining their recognition of social injustice and decreasing their willingness to engage in collective action to challenge the status quo. Although it is now a truism that intergroup contact can reduce intergroup prejudice, these developments emphasize the importance of maintaining a critical perspective on the “contact hypothesis” as a model for promoting social change in historically divided and unequal societies. They also lay the foundations for future developments in the field.     

Consensus collaboration enhances group and individual recall accuracy

We often remember in groups, yet research on collaborative recall finds “collaborative inhibition”: Recalling with others has costs compared to recalling alone. In related paradigms, remembering with others introduces errors into recall. We compared costs and benefits of two collaboration procedures—turn taking and consensus. First, 135 individuals learned a word list and recalled it alone (Recall 1). Then, 45 participants in three-member groups took turns to recall, 45 participants in three-member groups reached a consensus, and 45 participants recalled alone but were analysed as three-member nominal groups (Recall 2). Finally, all participants recalled alone (Recall 3). Both turn-taking and consensus groups demonstrated the usual pattern of costs during collaboration and benefits after collaboration in terms of recall completeness. However, consensus groups, and not turn-taking groups, demonstrated clear benefits in terms of recall accuracy, both during and after collaboration. Consensus groups engaged in beneficial group source-monitoring processes. Our findings challenge assumptions about the negative consequences of social remembering.     

Consensus collaboration enhances group and individual recall accuracy

We often remember in groups, yet research on collaborative recall finds "collaborative inhibition": Recalling with others has costs compared to recalling alone. In related paradigms, remembering with others introduces errors into recall. We compared costs and benefits of two collaboration procedures--turn taking and consensus. First, 135 individuals learned a word list and recalled it alone (Recall 1). Then, 45 participants in three-member groups took turns to recall, 45 participants in three-member groups reached a consensus, and 45 participants recalled alone but were analysed as three-member nominal groups (Recall 2). Finally, all participants recalled alone (Recall 3). Both turn-taking and consensus groups demonstrated the usual pattern of costs during collaboration and benefits after collaboration in terms of recall completeness. However, consensus groups, and not turn-taking groups, demonstrated clear benefits in terms of recall accuracy, both during and after collaboration. Consensus groups engaged in beneficial group source-monitoring processes. Our findings challenge assumptions about the negative consequences of social remembering.     

The Relationship Between Social Support and Family Relationships Among Low-Income Couples Attending Relationship Education

Results are mixed for relationship education (RE) interventions with low-income couples. For couples who experienced positive changes, it is not clear what aspects of program models contributed to change. Many low-income couples attend government-funded RE with limited access to social and community resources. Program models often provide related resources complimentary to RE skill-building. We examined the relationship between income, social support, and family functioning for low-income, ethnically diverse couples (N = 856) who attended RE, as well as the mediating effects of social support on family functioning outcomes. Analyses included three separate dyadic models that examined associations among constructs at baseline and immediately following the RE intervention. Results demonstrated relationships between participants’ reported social support and family functioning such that (a) social support was associated with baseline family functioning for both men and women; (b) men’s baseline social support was influenced by women’s baseline family functioning; and (c) men’s and women’s social support change score had a positive influence on their own family functioning change score. However, social support was not a significant mediator of change in family functioning. Implications for RE practice and research are also discussed.     

Personal autonomy in group‐based interventions

Marginalized individuals are often caught in a vicious cycle of economic or health problems, a lack of social connection and disempowerment. The present research examines interventions that provide opportunities for social inclusion to break this cycle. Specifically, in two longitudinal field studies, we examined the effect of social inclusion on self‐efficacy and hope in two vulnerable groups, namely, 68 residents in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre (Study 1) and 48 marginalized adults taking part in activities organized by a community organization (Study 2). Although somewhat counterintuitive, we hypothesized that social inclusion would affect self‐efficacy by fostering feelings of personal autonomy. The hypothesis was supported by results from both studies revealing an indirect effect from social inclusion via personal autonomy on self‐efficacy and hope. The findings are discussed in relation to how group inclusion may stimulate the development of personal autonomy in disadvantaged adults, an important factor in their recovery and mental health.     

We'll never get past the glass ceiling! Meta‐stereotyping,world‐views and perceived relative group‐worth

This article examines the implications of perceived negativity from members of a dominant outgroup on the world views and perceived relative group worth of members of disadvantaged groups. We hypothesized that concerns about the negative opinions a dominant outgroup is perceived to hold of the ingroup (i.e., meta‐stereotypes) would undermine group members' views about societal fairness. We expected this trend to be mediated by recall of previous personal experiences of discrimination. We further hypothesized that members' views about societal fairness would predict their perception of the ingroup's worth relative to the outgroup – such that undermined views about societal fairness would be associated with lower perceived ingroup worth relative to the outgroup. Taken jointly, results from two studies using two real intergroup contexts support these hypotheses and are discussed in terms of their implications for the social mobility of members of disadvantaged groups.