Broadening our sights: Expanding the consequences of allyship for allies

Scholars are increasingly recognizing that allyship affects allies themselves. Although existing scholarship covers a multitude of constructs, most of the literature focuses on social evaluations and their effects on allyship persistence. We posit that the dual focus on social evaluations and allyship persistence has limited the theoretical insights and applied relevance of scholarship on the consequences of allyship for allies. Our review highlights emerging and understudied proximal and distal consequences and possible connections among them to guide future research efforts. We urge scholars to elucidate the distal consequences of social evaluations of allies, further explore understudied proximal and distal consequences, and offer theory as to the nuanced relationships between proximal and distal consequences of allyship for allies.

Solidarity with whom? Minority perspectives on allyship in Danish queer spaces

Social psychological research has witnessed a burgeoning interest in advantaged group allies acting in solidarity with disadvantaged groups to challenge systems of inequality. While solidarity from advantaged group members is often deemed critical for social change, the perceptions of disadvantaged group members regarding ally participation are seldom addressed. This research delved into how LGBTQIA+ individuals in Denmark conceptualize allyship. Through 26 semi-structured interviews with participants and organizers of queer pride events, a thematic analysis identified three themes addressing how allyship materializes, what risks it bears and who it involves. Specifically, we present a three-levelled framework of allyship, which captures practices of allyship on a personal, relational and structural level. Our analysis also reveals the risk of allyship when it is not perceived as genuine and complexities of group boundaries when discussing allyship, shedding light on intersectional challenges within minority communities. These findings illustrate the nuances involved in providing and receiving allyship within and across various social (sub)groups.

Following Prejudiced Behavior, Confrontation Restores Local Anti-Bias Social Norms

Does confronting, or calling out prejudiced statements or behaviors, signal anti-bias norms? The current studies (N = 1,308) examined this question by assessing observers' perceptions of descriptive and injunctive anti-bias local norms after a prejudiced comment was confronted. Studies 1 and 2 revealed a restorative function of confrontation: Confrontation of bias expressed toward Mexican people strengthened non-Mexican participants' perceptions of descriptive anti-bias local norms compared to leaving bias unconfronted and restored the perception of injunctive anti-bias local norms to baseline level (i.e., when no bias had occurred). Study 3 demonstrated that the norm-signaling function of confrontation is applicable to anti-Black bias among both Black and White participants. Moreover, observing confrontation of anti-Black bias boosted participants' sense that their identity would be safe in the environment, mediated by their perceptions of anti-bias descriptive and injunctive norms. Together, these findings indicate that confrontation effectively transforms norms in the face of bias.

What are they in it for? Marginalised group members' perceptions of allies differ depending on the costs and rewards associated with their allyship

Advantaged group allies can incur costs or rewards as a result of their allyship. The present work investigates whether such costs and rewards affect how marginalised group members perceive these allies. Across four experiments that collectively examine marginalised group members' perceptions of individual and corporate allies in the context of allyship for women's rights, Black Lives Matter and the LGBTQI+ community, we find that allies are perceived differently as a function of the costs and rewards associated with their allyship. Allies who face costs are perceived more positively in terms of tenacity and genuine motivations, and are generally evaluated more favourably compared to allies who do not face costs and those who, instead, garner rewards for their allyship. These findings demonstrate that marginalised group members are cognisant of the costs and rewards allies may reap, and that this information can shape their judgements of allies' investment in the cause.

Multiculturalism and Colorblindness as Threats to the Self: A Framework for Understanding Dominant and Non-Dominant Group Members' Responses to Interethnic Ideologies

Both multiculturalism (which involves recognizing and appreciating differences) and racial/ethnic colorblindness (which can involve emphasizing similarities or individual characteristics) are intended to promote intergroup harmony. Nevertheless, these ideologies can backfire when salient. Although this work has sometimes been interpreted to suggest that dominant group members may perceive salient multiculturalism, and non-dominant group members may perceive salient colorblindness, as threatening, it is unclear what about these interethnic ideologies poses a threat and why. The present article draws upon theories of the self-concept to introduce a framework of Multiculturalism and Colorblindness as Threats to the Self. Specifically, it is proposed that multiculturalism (colorblindness) is potentially threatening to dominant (non-dominant) group members' collective, relational, and personal selves. Dispositional and contextual variables that may moderate perceptions of threat among members of dominant and non-dominant groups, alternative interethnic ideologies to multiculturalism and colorblindness, and potential future research directions are discussed.