Renewed promise for positive cross-group contact: The role of supportive contact in empowering collective action.

Abstract

Positive cross-group contact can undermine disadvantaged group members' collective action engagement. However, we hypothesized that positive cross-group contact in which an advantaged group member explicitly communicates opposition to inequality between groups ("supportive contact") would not undermine collective action and would be empowering for disadvantaged group members. Study 1 focused on cross-group contact between international students and domestic students at an Australian university. Study 2 focused on immigrants to Canada, and provided an opportunity for a cross-group contact with a Canadian-born individual. The results revealed that supportive contact heightened collective action engagement relative to a number of comparison conditions involving other forms of positive cross-group contact. Increased perceptions of injustice emerged as the key mediator of the relationship between supportive contact and increased collective action engagement.

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

“…We empirically demonstrated that dominant group allies exhibit characteristics of both affirmation and informed action (Brown & Ostrove, ) in a way that distinguishes them from nonnominated white people and from nominated white friends. Using a different construct to understand our findings, allies appear to demonstrate “supportive contact”—they are friendly, respectful, and caring toward nondominant group members, and also oppose inequality or support efforts toward social change (Droogendyk et al, ).…”

“…Other recent work on allies (Droogendyk et al, ) highlights the importance of attending to the challenges associated with ally relationships: although advantaged group allies' activism may serve to empower some disadvantaged group members, it can also offer dependency‐oriented help (see Nadler & Halabi, ), co‐opt the identities of disadvantaged group members, or take over the goals and agenda of the disadvantaged group. Droogendyk et al's work underscores the importance of allies attending to their own privileged status and position; we agree that attention to identity, positionality, and privilege among allies is critical, and our work offers empirical evidence that white allies who were nominated by people of color do indeed exhibit higher levels of awareness of privilege than white people who were nominated by people of color as friends.…”

“…In the last decade, consistent with a broader effort in social psychology to focus on positive intergroup relations in general (see Siem, Stürmer, & Pittinsky, , for a recent review of this trend) and on racial tolerance in particular (e.g., Livingston & Drwecki, ), researchers have paid increasing attention to members of dominant groups who are allies to nondominant group members (e.g., Case, ; Droogendyk, Louis, & Wright, ; Fingerhut, ; Ostrove, Cole, & Oliva, ). Allies—members of dominant groups who build relationships with and take stands against the oppression of members of nondominant groups (Wijeyesinghe, Griffin, & Love, )—possess qualities that distinguish them as not only relatively low on prejudice and relatively high on a willingness to understand their own privileged identity but also, as “ally activists” (Curtin, Kende, & Kende, ), to affiliate with and take action on behalf of the liberation of nondominant groups (see, e.g., Broido, ; Goodman, ; Mio, Barker, & Tumambing, ; Reason, Millar, & Scales, ; Washington & Evans, ).…”

“…Consistent with the emphasis on activism, recent work reviews the dangers inherent in positive intergroup relations that are characterized by low bias or outgroup liking in the absence of supportive action : an emphasis on harmonious intergroup relations can undermine disadvantaged group members' efforts at taking collective action (Droogendyk et al, ). Disadvantaged group members were more motivated toward political action on behalf of their own group when dominant group members show “supportive contact”—“friendly cross‐group contact in which the advantaged group member demonstrates personal engagement in opposing inequality and/or supporting social change” (p. 318).…”

Too great to act in solidarity: The negative relationship between collective narcissism and solidarity‐based collective action

“…In comparison to the disadvantaged who speak up for themselves, advantaged group members who oppose unequal power relations are more persuasive to the general audience (e.g., Czopp & Monteith, ) and have greater assets to act upon their attitudes (Iyer & Leach, ). Moreover, as long as they explicitly communicate their opposition to inequality, dominant group allies may inspire engagement of low‐status group members (Droogendyk, Louis, & Wright, ; Droogendyk et al, ; Techakesari, Droogendyk, Wright, Louis, & Barlow, ; but see Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, & Pratto, ). Therefore, it is important to identify the barriers that discourage high‐status group members from acting in solidarity with the disadvantaged (Becker & Tausch, ).…”