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

Stopping wolves in the wild and legitimizing meat consumption: Effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance on animal-related behaviors

In the present research, we applied the dual process model of ideology and prejudice to beliefs and behavioral intentions toward animals. In Study 1 (N = 126), we demonstrate in a community sample that right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) predicts support for restricting the distribution of wolves and bears in the wild mediated by perceived threat elicited from the animal outgroups. In contrast, social dominance orientation (SDO) had an indirect effect on the legitimization of meat consumption via endorsement of human supremacy beliefs. In Study 2 (N = 223), we examined the causal direction of the dual process model using an experimental approach. Results show that RWA predicts support for restricting the free movement of a new animal species in the wild only when it is perceived to be threatening for humans. However, SDO predicted perceived legitimacy of meat consumption, regardless of whether the new animal species was characterized as lower or higher in status compared to other animals. Implications of these findings are discussed

Disadvantaged group members’ evaluations and support for allies: Investigating the role of communication style and group membership

Limited research has examined disadvantaged group members’ evaluations and support for allies who engage in collective action on their behalf. Across two studies (Study 1 N = 264 women; Study 2 N = 347 Black Americans) we manipulated an ally’s communication style and group membership to investigate whether these factors play a role in how allies are perceived and received. We found that participants evaluated allies less positively and were less willing to support them when they communicated their support in a dominant compared to a neutral way. Heightened perceptions that the ally was trying to take over the movement and make themselves the center of attention explained these results. However, we found no effect of whether the ally belonged to another disadvantaged group or not. Our findings contribute to the growing literature which seeks to understand the complexities associated with involving allies in collective action

Applying the Dynamic Dual Pathway Model of Approach Coping to Collective Action Among Advantaged Group Allies and Disadvantaged Group Members

We apply the dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping to understanding the predictors of future collective action among a sample of advantaged group allies and disadvantaged group members who were attending a protest. We propose that problem-focused approach coping (i.e., group efficacy beliefs) would be a stronger predictor of future collective action among disadvantaged compared to advantaged group members, and emotion-focused approach coping (i.e., group-based anger) would be a stronger predictor of future collective action among advantaged compared to disadvantaged group members. Data was collected from LGBTIQ+ and heterosexual people (N = 189) protesting as part of the 2019 Christopher Street Day Parade in Cologne, Germany. We found that increased group efficacy predicted intentions to engage in future collective action for the rights of sexual minorities among LGBTIQ+ but not heterosexual participants. Increased group-based anger was a predictor of future collective action intentions regardless of which group the participants belonged to. Our findings extend the dynamic dual pathway model by applying it to a sample of advantaged group allies and disadvantaged group members attending a protest using a multiple perspectives approach

The Impact of Including Advantaged Groups in Collective Action Against Social Inequality on Politicized Identification of Observers From Disadvantaged and Advantaged Groups

Mobilizing public support is key to a movement's success. Little is known, however, about how movements can achieve this goal and whether involving advantaged group members is beneficial for a movement's cause. In a set of five experiments with convenience samples collected in the United States and Germany (total N = 1,625), we examined whether protests (e.g., against racism and sexism) with and without advantaged group members affect politicized identification among observers. We expected that the presence (vs. absence) of advantaged group members at a protest will increase politicized identification among advantaged group observers, which was confirmed in Studies 1A–1C. In contrast, we expected that the disadvantaged group observers will increase or decrease their politicized identification depending on the role advantaged group members have at a protest (i.e., supportive vs. leadership role). Studies 2A–2B revealed that when advantaged group members had a supportive role, disadvantaged and advantaged group observers increased their politicized identification, but this effect was absent when they had a leadership role. Moreover, including advantaged group members in a protest increased the belief that solidarity is a normative behavior and the expectations that a protest will be peaceful among observers. Implications for research on allyship are discussed

The Injustice–Efficacy Tradeoff: Counteracting Indirect Effects of Goal Proximity on Collective Action

Based on dual-pathway models of collective action, this research examines how social movements’ proximity to their stated goal affects potential supporters’ willingness and motivations to engage. Across three experimental studies in two different contexts, and for members of both the disadvantaged ingroups and advantaged outgroups (total N = 1,102), we find consistent support for two counteracting indirect effects of goal distance on collective action. When movements are closer to their goals, potential supporters perceive less injustice, which reduces their willingness to engage in collective action for the movements’ cause via the emotion-focused pathway. At the same time, perceptions of political efficacy increase, bolstering engagement via the problem-focused pathway. We conclude that while goal proximity does not seem to affect overall intentions to engage in collective action, it does affect the motivational paths to it, which makes it a relevant factor to consider in both research and social justice contexts

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

The introduction to the EJSP special issue brings together recent literature on allyship. We present and discuss different definitions of allyship and highlight a multiple perspectives approach to understanding the predictors and consequences of allyship. This approach suggests that engagement in allyship can be driven by egalitarian and non‐egalitarian motivations and that the behaviours identified as allyship can have different meanings, causes and consequences depending on whether researchers take into account the allies’ perspective or the disadvantaged groups’ perspective. We use this approach as an organizing principle to identify themes that emerge in the papers included in this special issue. We start with four papers that consider the perspective of the advantaged group, followed by two papers that consider the perspective of the disadvantaged group. Finally, we introduce two theoretical papers that examine the relations between disadvantaged groups and allies, and we set out directions for future research

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

The introduction to the EJSP special issue brings together recent literature on allyship. We present and discuss different definitions of allyship and highlight a multiple perspectives approach to understanding the predictors and consequences of allyship. This approach suggests that engagement in allyship can be driven by egalitarian and non-egalitarian motivations and that the behaviours identified as allyship can have different meanings, causes and consequences depending on whether researchers take into account the allies’ perspective or the disadvantaged groups’ perspective. We use this approach as an organizing principle to identify themes that emerge in the papers included in this special issue. We start with four papers that consider the perspective of the advantaged group, followed by two papers that consider the perspective of the disadvantaged group. Finally, we introduce two theoretical papers that examine the relations between disadvantaged groups and allies, and we set out directions for future research