Are allies who we think they are?: A comparative analysis

Abstract

Although dominant group allies have been increasingly studied by social psychologists interested in positive intergroup relations and the promotion of social justice, most of the existing research focuses on self-identified allies or dominant group individuals who are engaging in social justice activities. Little comparative work has examined white allies who were specifically identified as such by people of color. Two studies assessed qualities associated with affirming attitudes (low prejudice, high internal motivation to respond without prejudice, allophilia, and awareness of privilege) and informed action (activism) expected to be distinctively characteristic of allies. Nominated white allies in Study 1 had lower prejudice and higher levels of internal motivation to respond without prejudice than nonnominated white participants; this was replicated in Study 2, which compared nominated "allies" and "friends." In Study 2, nominated white allies rated themselves as lower on prejudice than nominated white friends. They also scored higher on internal motivation to respond without prejudice, understanding of white privilege, and activism than nominated white friends. There were no differences on self-reported allophilia between the two groups. Allies were rated by the people of color who nominated them as higher on qualities of outgroup affirmation and informed action than were nominated friends. Limitations of and implications for these findings are discussed.

Beyond Allyship: Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged Groups

“…Examples of this motivation include men who are willing to take a pay cut to raise the salaries of women so that women are paid the same as men for the same work; Europeans assisting refugees to safely cross the Mediterranean because they want them to have a safer life; and wealthy people endorsing tax reforms to improve the lives of those living in poverty by increasing taxes for the rich and middle class. This is consistent with the common definition for allies found in the psychological literature (e.g., Ashburn-Nardo, 2018; Broido, 2000; K. T. Brown, 2015; K. T. Brown & Ostrove, 2013;Ostrove & Brown, 2018), which include the genuine motivation to improve the status of the disadvantaged group. We describe the antecedents of this motivation using the predictors delineated by the extended SIMCA (identification, emotions, beliefs, and attitudes; Van Zomeren et al, 2018).…”

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

“…A component of the definition of allyship is the distinction between identity and behavior. Although advantaged group allies are typically defined as those who engage in actions with the goal of improving the status of the disadvantaged group (see Brown & Ostrove, 2013;Ostrove & Brown, 2018), those who call themselves allies may use this self-definition without necessarily committing to taking action.…”

“…History is rife with stories of advantaged group allies-people belonging to groups that hold power and privilege in society who work to end oppression against disadvantaged groups. From the perspective of disadvantaged groups, allies are those who provide support for the disadvantaged group and engage in informed actions to challenge inequality (Brown & Ostrove, 2013;Ostrove & Brown, 2018).…”

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

“…Nevertheless, in our view equating allyship with ingroup serving motivations may create additional confusion. Instead, we propose that allyship should be studied and understood through a multiple perspectives approach, which takes into account the allies' perspective as pointed out by & Brown, 2018). We discuss these motivations and the multiple perspectives approach in more detail below.…”