An official website of the United States government
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
This content will become publicly available on August 1, 2026
“My Aim Is True”: An Attribution-Identity Model of Ally Sincerity
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
- Award ID(s):
- 2313797
- PAR ID:
- 10650108
- Publisher / Repository:
- Sage
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Personality and Social Psychology Review
- Volume:
- 29
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1088-8683
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 293 to 313
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Members of advantaged groups are more likely than members of disadvantaged groups to think, feel, and behave in ways that reinforce their group's position within the hierarchy. This study examined how children's status within a group‐based hierarchy shapes their beliefs about the hierarchy and the groups that comprise it in ways that reinforce the hierarchy. To do this, we randomly assigned children (4–8 years;N = 123; 75 female, 48 male; 21 Asian, 9 Black, 21 Latino/a, 1 Middle‐Eastern/North‐African, 14 multiracial, 41 White, 16 not‐specified) to novel groups that differed in social status (advantaged, disadvantaged, neutral third‐party) and assessed their beliefs about the hierarchy. Across five separate assessments, advantaged‐group children were more likely to judge the hierarchy to be fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and were more likely to hold biased intergroup attitudes and exclude disadvantaged group members. In addition, with age, children in both the advantaged‐ and disadvantaged‐groups became more likely to see membership in their own group as inherited, while at the same time expecting group‐relevant behaviors to be determined more by the environment. With age, children also judged the hierarchy to be more unfair and expected the hierarchy to generalize across contexts. These findings provide novel insights into how children's position within hierarchies can contribute to the formation of hierarchy‐reinforcing beliefs. Research HighlightsA total of 123 4–8‐year‐olds were assigned to advantaged, disadvantaged, and third‐party groups within a hierarchy and were assessed on seven hierarchy‐reinforcing beliefs about the hierarchy.Advantaged children were more likely to say the hierarchy was fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and to hold intergroup biases favoring advantaged group members.With age, advantaged‐ and disadvantaged‐group children held more essentialist beliefs about membership in their own group, but not the behaviors associated with their group.Results suggest that advantaged group status can shape how children perceive and respond to the hierarchies they are embedded within.more » « less
-
PurposeIn this JOCM Viewpoint article, the author reflects on the expectations of some minoritized group members that power holders and otherwise privileged group members should exhibit authentic allyship. Specifically, it is suggested that these expectations are unrealistic given both the challenges of being an ally and the absence in many power holders of the type of consciousness that enables effective allyship. Design/methodology/approachAn analysis of the challenges inherent in allyship as well as the criticism that performative rather than authentic allyship frequently occurs is followed by a review of research on consciousness and the implications of the level of consciousness for generating effective ally behavior. FindingsDifferent stages of consciousness generate different types of responses to the challenges of allyship, some being more effective than others. Reaching a certain stage of consciousness development may increase the likelihood that the ally will be able to hold space for the emotional well-being of the marginalized and the need for instrumental change, which are both necessary for effective allyship to occur. Without these, an individual’s allyship is likely to be absent or at the most performative. Allyship groups can be helpful in supporting this level of consciousness through their group norms. Originality/valueThis viewpoint challenges conventional assumptions that privileged members of society should engage in allyship and suggests only a subset will be able to make the commitment and exhibit the behaviors required of authentic allies.more » « less
-
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
-
Abstract Within the growing literature about allyship in the workplace, few studies have specifically addressed faculty allyship for faculty colleagues. Previous studies on faculty allyship for inclusive academic environments address only men's contributions as allies. Using an expansive definition of faculty allyship and including any faculty members with membership in at least one dominant social group, we sought to better understand how faculty members perceive allyship, their concerns about allyship, and how those perceptions vary by gender, race, and rank. We examined the responses of faculty who participated in an allyship training program that was offered at a university in Ohio, USA as part of a National Science Foundation ADVANCE grant intended to reduce gender inequity among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty. We framed this study by employing Hardiman et al.'s (2007) three‐dimensional matrix of oppression and used a mixed‐method research design. Participants' primary concerns about engaging in allyship related to their academic rank. We offer several implications for policies, practices, and future research on faculty allyship for faculty colleagues by considering positional power and rank as well as race and gender.more » « less
