Benefits and potential backlashes of allies engaging in solidarity-based collective action
Final Report Abstract
Our aim was to advance the field’s understanding of the role of allies, that is, members of other social groups acting in solidarity with a disadvantaged group or minority, in collective action. The research project has been highly successful in terms of research output and both theoretical and empirical advances. We investigated four perspectives on allyship and its predictors and consequences. For allies themselves, we found that they are motivated by injustice perceptions just as much as target group members are but that, unlike targets, group efficacy does not appear to be a core predictor of their engagement. We also demonstrated that they can be motivated to join collective actions through intergroup contact with members of the target group but only when that contact is politicized, that is, involves communication about the unjust status quo. Together, these findings suggest that an awareness and understanding of injustice and the emotional reactions to it are particular strong motivators for ally collective action and politicized communication directed at emphasizing injustice should be a successful avenue for social movements to pursue. For both target group and ally protesters, we found that they are more strongly motivated by injustice perceptions when the goal of collective action is farther out of reach whereas the focus shifts from this emotion-focused toward the problem-focused pathway as the goal comes into proximity. We also showed that allies’ communication style and, to a lesser extent, group membership affect how target group members react to them. Dominant allies made targets feel more undermined and can elicit anger compared to those with a neutral communication style whereas advantaged group allies were viewed with more suspicion and as less of a role model than those from other disadvantaged groups. These results emphasize the importance of investigating the nuances of both motivations of and reactions to protesters. For observers, we found a range of effects. Those from advantaged groups reacted positively to the presence of allies both by increasing their identification with movements and viewing protests in a more positive light. In contrast, both target and advantaged group observers viewed members of their own group who confronted discrimination more negatively than members of the other group. This suggests that there may be a fine line between inspiration and threat. Allies can be beneficial in recruiting other members of their social groups to a cause but it would seem that if they can just as easily be dismissed when their fellow group members see them as acting morally superior and feel threatened. From the authority perspective, the involvement of allies appears to be much less significant than expected. Rather than swaying decision makers as a result of their status and shared group membership, we found that advantaged group allies did not increase decision makers’ willingness to concede to the disadvantaged groups’ demands. While going against our expectations, this may be encouraging news for social movements involving targets only. Finally, a theoretical model of the motivations for allyship was developed which argues that the tensions that can develop around the role of allies in collective action are partly due to the widely different motives that can bring allies to join in these actions. We propose that besides concern for the interests of the disadvantaged group or moral imperatives, allies can also be motivated by self-interest with regard to their personal image or the aim to maintain their ingroups image and privileged status. This model encompasses the tensions and conflicts around the involvement of advantaged group allies and its consequences and provides a basis for many lines of further research in the field.
Publications
-
(2020). A hero for the outgroup, a black sheep for the ingroup: Societal perceptions of those who confront discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 88
Kutlaca, M., Becker, J., & Radke, H.
-
(2020). Beyond Allyship: Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291–315
Radke, H. R. M., Kutlaca, M., Siem, B., Wright, S. C., & Becker, J. C
-
(2020). Understanding allies’ participation in social change: A multiple perspectives approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1248–1258
Kutlaca, M., Radke, H. R. M., Iyer, A., & Becker, J. C.
-
(2021). Can cross-group contact turn advantaged group members into allies ? The role of inequality-delegitimizing contact and interpersonal connection. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C.
-
(2021). Disadvantaged group members’ evaluations and support for allies: Investigating the role of communication style and group membership. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations
Radke, H. R. M., Kutlaca, M., & Becker, J. C.
-
(2021). The Impact of Including Advantaged Groups in Collective Action Against Social Inequality on Politicized Identification of Observers From Disadvantaged and Advantaged Groups. Political Psychology 43
Kutlaca, M., Radke, H. R. M., & Becker, J. C.
-
(2022). Applying the Dynamic Dual Pathway Model of Approach Coping to Collective Action Among Advantaged Group Allies and Disadvantaged Group Members. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 (June), 1–8
Radke, H. R. M., Kutlaca, M., & Becker, J. C.
-
(2022). Can cross-group contact predict advantaged group member’s willingness to engage in costly solidarity-based actions? Yes, if the contact is politicized. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 29(1), 123–139
Becker, J. C., Wright, S. C., & Siem, B.
-
(2022). The Injustice – Efficacy Tradeoff : Counteracting Indirect Effects of Goal Proximity on Collective Action. Social Psychological and Personality Science
Hartwich, L., Radke, H. R. M., Kutlaca, M., & Becker, J. C.
