Ally confrontations as identity‐safety cues for marginalized individuals

Abstract

Hildebrand and Jusuf contributed equally and are listed alphabetically.

Male Allies at Work: Gender-Equality Supportive Men Reduce Negative Underrepresentation Effects Among Women

“…We chose measures related to common negative effects of underrepresentation that had not been previously included within identity-safety measures (Hildebrand et al, 2020).…”

“…Women who experienced unfair hiring decisions experienced higher self-esteem and performed better on a stereotypically male task when the hiring decision was labeled as sexist by a man compared to when it was not addressed (Cihangir et al, 2014). Similarly, identity threat was decreased for women when a sexist comment was addressed by a male confronter and affirmed by a bystander (Hildebrand et al, 2020) compared to when the comment was not confronted. Much of the previous research has examined allyship behaviors within the context of an explicitly sexist event.…”

“…Allies are individuals who champion egalitarian ideals and strive to promote inclusivity (Ashburn-Nardo, 2018). Allyship can manifest in different ways, including collective action (Radke et al, 2020), confrontation (Hildebrand et al, 2020), and dedication to marginalized individuals’ success (Johnson et al, 2019).…”

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

“…Importantly, this approach highlights that disadvantaged groups play an active role in allyship. Previous work has mostly focused on actions and motivations of allies (and then mostly on advantaged group allies, see , and has devoted little attention to studying what motivates disadvantaged groups to engage in actions with allies, as well as to the effects allies' actions have on disadvantaged groups (but see Hasan-Aslih et al, 2020 andHildebrand et al, 2020 included in this issue that tackle some of these questions).…”

“…In line with our understanding of allyship, we use a multiple perspectives approach as an organizing principle to identify themes that emerge in the papers included in this special issue. We start with four empirical papers investigating the advantaged groups' perspective (Adra et al, 2020;Kosakowska-Berezecka et al, 2020;Roblain et al, 2020;Stefaniak et al, 2020), followed by two papers examining the disadvantaged groups' perspective (Hasan-Aslih et al, 2020;Hildebrand et al, 2020). Lastly, we introduce two theoretical papers that use a multiple perspectives approach (Burson, & Godfrey, 2020;Selvanathan et al, 2020).…”