Towards an understanding of performative allyship: Definition, antecedents and consequences

Adding rainbow filters in support of LGBTQ+ movements or changing profile pictures to black squares to show support for the BlackLivesMatter movement have become common contemporary expressions of solidarity. However, these actions are often criticized as being ‘performative’ and falling short of genuine social change. Despite its popularity, little is known about what performative allyship is and what its pitfalls or potential benefits may be. We review the existing psychological literature on intergroup relations and allyship to provide a definition and framework for studying performative allyship and its consequences for social change. We propose that the term performative allyship refers to easy and costless actions that often do not challenge the status quo and are motivated primarily by the desire to accrue personal benefits. The literature suggests that engaging in performative allyship may have a negative impact on the physical and mental well-being of disadvantaged groups, but also on allies. We discuss negative and some positive consequences of engagement in performative allyship on disadvantaged groups, allies and society at large and provide directions for future research

The experience and emergence of attitudinal consensus in conversations

Reaching consensus is important for human individual, social and societal functioning. The reverse process of polarization has been associated with individual uncertainty, social conflict and societal distrust, tension, or even schisms. In conversations, the experience of consensus is shaped by both content and aspects of the form of conversation, which indicate whether people are on the same wavelength. In two conversation studies (N = 268) we aimed (1) to examine where the conversational experience of consensus originates and (2) to test which conversational behaviours enhance attitude convergence between conversation partners. The results show that, although actual attitudinal differences were only predictive in Study 2, both conversational content (e.g., disagreement) and form (e.g., experience of flow) consistently predicted the experience of consensus. Convergence of attitudes was harder to predict: most conversational factors were unrelated to attitudinal convergence and conversational flow either increased or decreased attitudinal convergence depending on the particular context

Socioeconomic inequalities in mental health and wellbeing among UK students during the COVID-19 pandemic: Clarifying underlying mechanisms

Universities are seeing growing numbers of students with poor mental health and wellbeing. Given that lower socioeconomic status (SES) students typically have poorer mental health and wellbeing than their peers, this may be, in part, caused by an increase in the number of students attending university from lower SES backgrounds. However, less is known about how socioeconomic inequalities in mental health and wellbeing persist within university communities. Research investigating psychosocial factors that contribute to socioeconomic disparities in mental health and wellbeing suggests perceived control, inclusion, and perceived worth to be important underlying mechanisms. However, another strand of research suggests perceived competence may also play a mediating role in this relationship. Consequently, the present research seeks to examine fulfilment of perceived control, inclusion, perceived worth, and competence needs as potential mediators in the relationship between subjective SES and mental health and wellbeing in university students. Below, we report the results of a cross-sectional survey conducted among university students (n = 811) in the UK during a period of COVID-19 restrictions. In line with prior research, we found evidence of socioeconomic inequalities in mental health and wellbeing among students. Further, we found subjective SES predicted perceptions of control, inclusion, and competence. In turn, perceived control and competence predicted both positive and negative mental health and wellbeing, whilst inclusion predicted positive mental health and wellbeing only. Unexpectedly, we found no evidence that perceived worth acts as a mediator in this relationship, independently of perceived control, inclusion, and competence. As academic institutions continue to pursue policies to ‘widen participation’, they also have a responsibility to understand how socioeconomic inequalities in mental health and wellbeing are perpetuated within the university community. Research in this area marks a first step to improve socioeconomic equality within Higher Education

Beyond allyship:Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups

White Americans who participate in the Black Lives Matter movement, men who attended the Women’s March, and people from the Global North who work to reduce poverty in the Global South—advantaged group members (sometimes referred to as allies) often engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Tensions can arise, however, over the inclusion of advantaged group members in these movements, which we argue can partly be explained by their motivations to participate. We propose that advantaged group members can be motivated to participate in these movements (a) to improve the status of the disadvantaged group, (b) on the condition that the status of their own group is maintained, (c) to meet their own personal needs, and (d) because this behavior aligns with their moral beliefs. We identify potential antecedents and behavioral outcomes associated with these motivations before describing the theoretical contribution our article makes to the psychological literature

(Not so) powerful allies? Decision makers’ reactions to advantaged group allies in collective action

Do allies in collective action have a positive impact on political efficacy? Theoretical considerations and common sense might lead us to expect that advantaged group allies will be beneficial to the success of social movements. However, across five experimental studies, with samples from the United States and Germany (three pre-registered, total N = 696, 48% women, Mage = 38), we find that such involvement does not significantly affect authorities’ reactions to the demands of disadvantaged groups. Decision makers were given information about proposals supported either by only disadvantaged group members or by disadvantaged group members and advantaged group allies. Their support, budget allocations, voting intentions and perceptions of movements and proposals did not differ as a function of this information. However, collective actions including allies did reduce perceptions of intergroup conflict. These results were replicated across different contexts with student and local politicians and with participants acting as parliamentarians in fictional scenarios

Recycling alone or protesting together? Values as a basis for pro-environmental social change actions

Social change can be pursued by participating in a public protest, joining a community gardening initiative, or recycling at home. However, little research has investigated how individual differences in values relate to people’s engagement in different types of social change actions in the context of pro-environmental behavior. We hypothesized that values would be differentially related to different types of social change actions, based on different goals that each of these actions may have (e.g., changing one’s own behavior or influencing others). A survey among people engaged in pro-environmental activism during the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference supported our predictions. Specifically, we found that individual behavior and community-based actions were uniquely related to biospheric values (i.e., a key concern for nature and the environment). However, other social change actions (e.g., public protest) were uniquely related to altruistic values (i.e., a key concern for the welfare of all people), and pro-environmental lobbying was positively related to egoistic values (i.e., a key concern for power and achievement). Our findings suggest that different behaviors directed at pro-environmental social change may be based on different values. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings

Correction: Politicization of COVID-19 health-protective behaviors in the United States: Longitudinal and cross-national evidence

There is an error in affiliation 54 for author Adil Samekin. The correct affiliation 54 is: School of Liberal Arts, M. Narikbayev KAZGUU University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan

Cooperation and Trust Across Societies During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust among strangers in the provision of public goods may be key to understanding how societies are managing the COVID-19 pandemic. We report a survey conducted across 41 societies between March and May 2020 (N = 34,526), and test pre-registered hypotheses about how cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust relate to prosocial COVID-19 responses (e.g., social distancing), stringency of policies, and support for behavioral regulations (e.g., mandatory quarantine). We further tested whether cross-societal variation in institutions and ecologies theorized to impact cooperation were associated with prosocial COVID-19 responses, including institutional quality, religiosity, and historical prevalence of pathogens. We found substantial variation across societies in prosocial COVID-19 responses, stringency of policies, and support for behavioral regulations. However, we found no consistent evidence to support the idea that cross-societal variation in cooperation and trust among strangers is associated with these outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. These results were replicated with another independent cross-cultural COVID-19 dataset (N = 112,136), and in both snowball and representative samples. We discuss implications of our results, including challenging the assumption that managing the COVID-19 pandemic across societies is best modeled as a public goods dilemma