An official website of the United States government
Academic AbstractAdvantaged group allies have multiple motives for supporting equality, raising questions about their sincerity. We draw upon the covariation model of attributions to explain how disadvantaged group members make attributions about whether advantaged group “allies” are sincerely motivated to empower the disadvantaged group. We propose an Attribution-Identity Model of Sincerity (AIMS) which posits that disadvantaged group members view advantaged group members as sincere allies when they support equality in the presence of inhibitory causes and in the absence of facilitative causes, exceed expectations for the advantaged group, and provide support across time and contexts. Furthermore, those who identify strongly with their disadvantaged group and perceive intergroup inequality as illegitimate are most motivated to ascertain the sincerity of advantaged group members’ allyship. AIMS suggests how members of disadvantaged groups seek to maximize benefits and minimize risks of advantaged group members’ allyship. Public AbstractAdvantaged group members (e.g., men, White Americans) can act as allies for disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, Americans belonging to minoritized racial groups), but members of disadvantaged groups sometimes have reason to question whether their motives are sincere. We argue that members of disadvantaged groups view advantaged group allies as more sincere when they support equality when they do not stand to benefit from it and even when they stand to lose. We also argue that members of disadvantaged groups view advantaged group allies as more sincere when their support for equality goes beyond expectations for their advantaged group, consistently over time, and is not limited to particular situations, forms, or contexts. Members of disadvantaged groups like sincere allies, want to work with them, and feel safe around them. Sincere allies also serve as moral exemplars to other members of advantaged groups.
more »
« less
Intergroup Inequality Heightens Reports of Discrimination Along Alternative Identity Dimensions
How do members of societally valued (dominant) groups respond when considering inequality? Prior research suggests that salient inequality may be viewed as a threat to dominant-group members’ self and collective moral character. However, people possess multiple social identities and may be advantaged in one domain (e.g., White) while concurrently disadvantaged in another domain (e.g., sexual minority). The present research tests whether individuals may reduce the moral-image threat of being societally advantaged in one domain by highlighting discrimination they face in other domains. Four experiments with individuals advantaged along different dimensions of inequality (race, social class, sexuality) reveal that making such inequality salient evokes greater perceived discrimination faced by oneself and one’s ingroups along other identity dimensions.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1823840
- PAR ID:
- 10185278
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Volume:
- 46
- Issue:
- 6
- ISSN:
- 0146-1672
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 869 to 884
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Developmental perspectives on prejudice provide a fundamental and important key to the puzzle for determining how to address prejudice. Research with historically disadvantaged and advantaged groups in childhood and adolescence reveals the complexity of social cognitive and moral judgments about prejudice, discrimination, bias, and exclusion. Children are aware of status and hierarchies, and often reject the status quo. Intervention, to be effective, must happen early in development, before prejudice and stereotypes are deeply entrenched.more » « less
-
Otterbring, Tobias (Ed.)Extensive literature probes labor market discrimination through correspondence studies in which researchers send pairs of resumes to employers, which are closely matched except for social signals such as gender or ethnicity. Upon perceiving these signals, individuals quickly activate associated stereotypes. The Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske 2002) categorizes these stereotypes into two dimensions: warmth and competence. Our research integrates findings from correspondence studies with theories of social psychology, asking: Can discrimination between social groups, measured through employer callback disparities, be predicted by warmth and competence perceptions of social signals? We collect callback rates from 21 published correspondence studies, varying for 592 social signals. On those social signals, we collected warmth and competence perceptions from an independent group of online raters. We found that social perception predicts callback disparities for studies varying race and gender, which are indirectly signaled by names on these resumes. Yet, for studies adjusting other categories like sexuality and disability, the influence of social perception on callbacks is inconsistent. For instance, a more favorable perception of signals like parenthood does not consistently lead to increased callbacks, underscoring the necessity for further research. Our research offers pivotal strategies to address labor market discrimination in practice. Leveraging the warmth and competence framework allows for the predictive identification of bias against specific groups without extensive correspondence studies. By distilling hiring discrimination into these two dimensions, we not only facilitate the development of decision support systems for hiring managers but also equip computer scientists with a foundational framework for debiasing Large Language Models and other methods that are increasingly employed in hiring processes.more » « less
-
In social networks, a node’s position is, in and of itself, a form of social capital. Better-positioned members not only benefit from (faster) access to diverse information, but innately have more potential influence on information spread. Structural biases often arise from network formation, and can lead to significant disparities in information access based on position. Further, processes such as link recommendation can exacerbate this inequality by relying on network structure to augment connectivity. In this paper, we argue that one can understand and quantify this social capital through the lens of information flow in the network. In contrast to prior work, we consider the setting where all nodes may be sources of distinct information, and a node’s (dis)advantage takes into account its ability to access all information available on the network, not just that from a single source. We introduce three new measures of advantage (broadcast, influence, and control), which are quantified in terms of position in the network using access signatures – vectors that represent a node’s ability to share information with each other node in the network. We then consider the problem of improving equity by making interventions to increase the access of the least-advantaged nodes. Since all nodes are already sources of information in our model, we argue that edge augmentation is most appropriate for mitigating bias in the network structure, and frame a budgeted intervention problem for maximizing broadcast (minimum pairwise access) over the network. Finally, we propose heuristic strategies for selecting edge augmentations and empirically evaluate their performance on a corpus of real-world social networks. We demonstrate that a small number of interventions can not only significantly increase the broadcast measure of access for the least-advantaged nodes (over 5 times more than random), but also simultaneously improve the minimum influence. Additional analysis shows that edge augmentations targeted at improving minimum pairwise access can also dramatically shrink the gap in advantage between nodes (over ) and reduce disparities between their access signatures.more » « less
-
Highly publicized instances of social injustice have raised awareness of inequities and motivated people with advantaged identities to work to end oppression and advocate for members of marginalized groups — in other words, to act as ‘allies’. When successful, engaging in allyship can promote marginalized individuals’ belonging and well-being. However, actions meant to convey allyship can be ineffective or harmful. Thus, it is important to understand how people might act as effective allies — that is, how they might enact allyship efforts that marginalized group members identify as meaningful and that promote psychological benefits for these groups. In this Review, we outline a framework of effective allyship that posits four key and related components: awareness, authentic motivation, action orientation and all-inclusivity. More specifically, taking part in allyship entails acknowledging systemic bias and privileged identities, being motivated by personal values, engaging in high-effort and consistent ally actions, and supporting all members of a marginalized group, including those with multiply marginalized identities. We discuss research supporting the importance of each element, focusing on work with marginalized individuals, and we describe ally interventions. When carefully considered and tailored to relevant marginalized groups, these four components are crucial to acting as an effective ally and fostering welcoming climates.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219880186
