Perceptions of White Women’s Stigma-Based Solidarity Claims and Disingenuous Allyship

Abstract

Efforts to promote allyship often focus on creating a common ingroup identity between marginalized and privileged groups, including making salient stigma-based solidarity. In addition, research on allyship perceptions highlights that allies are viewed as more genuine when they are not perceived as motivated by self-interests. Integrating research on allyship perceptions and stigma-based solidarity, the present research examined Black Americans’ perceptions of White women’s allyship messages that focus on stigma-based solidarity. In three experiments (N_total = 851), White women claiming stigma-based solidarity highlighting shared perpetrators (Studies 1–3) or shared discrimination (Study 3) were perceived as less genuine allies (i.e., less trustworthy and self-sacrificing) who were motivated to reduce racism for their own self-interests compared to allyship claims that only highlighted racism (Studies 1–3) or no allyship claims (Study 2). These findings add to a growing literature documenting marginalized groups’ suspicion of privileged groups’ motives when claiming allyship.

Keywords

allyship stigma-based solidarity intraminority relations collective action anti-racism

Members of marginalized social groups may perceive similarities among their experiences in society, such as shared forms of discrimination or shared perpetrators. Such perceived commonality that facilitates coalitional attitudes has been termed stigma-based solidarity (i.e., SBS) and reflects that people who encounter prejudice may “sympathize with (or identify with) other stigmatized groups” (Allport & Kramer, 1946; Craig et al., 2012). While highlighting shared experiences of marginalization may aid in facilitating intraminority collective action (e.g., Cortland et al., 2017), less is known about how allyship messages that claim SBS are perceived. The present research examined how expressions of solidarity from one marginalized social group (here, White women) to another marginalized social group (here, Black Americans) is perceived by the receiving marginalized racial group (here, Black Americans). That is, the present research sought to examine how SBS allyship claims were perceived, focusing on perceived allyship motivations and genuineness.

Stigma-Based Solidarity Versus Allyship

Research on SBS has examined how awareness of shared experiences of discrimination can facilitate support for coalitions with other stigmatized groups (Craig & Richeson, 2016; Vollhardt, 2015). For example, making salient parallels in interracial and same-sex marriage equality facilitated positive intraminority attitudes among marginalized groups (Cortland et al., 2017; see also Craig & Richeson, 2012). In addition to shared discrimination experiences, people may perceive shared perpetrators. For example, White women anticipate facing sexism from a White man who endorses anti-Black attitudes and Black men expect racism from individuals who espouse sexist beliefs due to the perceived co-occurrence of racism and sexism in perpetrators (Chaney et al., 2021; Sanchez et al., 2017). Indeed, manipulating a belief that prejudices co-occur increased White women’s self-reported SBS and support for women-Black rights coalitions (Chaney & Forbes, 2023).

Notably, solidarity does not always mean similarity. For example, allyship is not always drawn from shared experiences. Definitions of allyship typically refer to a person with a privileged identity who endorses egalitarianism (Ashburn-Nardo, 2018) and is “working to end the system of oppression that gives them greater privilege and power based on their social group membership” (Broido, 2000). That is, while allies may state “solidarity,” allyship is typically defined in the psychological literature as people with a privileged identity (or identities) who (a) endorse being egalitarian, (b) recognize their privilege, and (c) support marginalized social groups’ by seeking to end systems of oppression (e.g., Doosje et al., 1998; Iyer & Ryan, 2009).

Indeed, some have argued that similarity- or stigma-based solidarity is a separate form of pro-out-group political action from allyship (Louis et al., 2019). Louis and colleagues (2019) have argued that in similarity-based solidarity, the pro-social group is perceiving itself as part of a broader, superordinate common in-group with the marginalized group (Gaertner et al., 1993; Reicher et al., 2006; see also Subašić et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2009). From these perspectives, solidarity, whether similarity- or stigma-based, may lead to better alignment with the marginalized group’s interests and more genuine allyship than non-SBS allyship. While highlighting shared experiences of discrimination (Cortland et al., 2017) and shared perpetrators (Chaney & Forbes, 2023) can increase SBS and coalitional support, less is known about how claims of SBS are perceived by marginalized groups.

Perceived Allyship

Research on perceptions of allies often focuses on perceived authenticity. Marginalized groups report a greater desire for allies who are sincere and have selfless motives (Burns & Granz, 2023) and prefer allies perceived as more trustworthy (Park et al., 2022). Indeed, people consider ideal allies to be those whose behaviors are focused on aiding or serving others, not the self or in-group (Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Burrows et al., 2023). For example, although some allies might be perceived as motivated by altruism (i.e., other focused), other allies may be perceived to have self-serving motives (e.g., moral image boost; Burrows et al., 2023; Radke et al., 2020). Thus, privileged group members who claim allyship may be perceived more negatively by marginalized groups than how they perceive themselves (Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Droogendyk et al., 2016).

Indeed, privileged group members’ egalitarian claims are often viewed with suspicion by minority group members. For example, marginalized groups perceive organizational diversity messages as dishonest if not accompanied by egalitarian behavior (see also Kroeper et al., 2022; Wilton et al., 2020), and suspicion is particularly high when social justice organizations are led by privileged groups (Iyer & Achia, 2021). On an individual level, marginalized racial groups may not trust White Americans’ egalitarian claims (Rosenblum et al., 2022) and are suspicious of White people’s positive feedback or behavior (Kunstman & Fitzpatrick, 2018; Kuntsman et al., 2016; Major et al., 2016). As such, concerns about the genuineness of allyship claims are central when assessing potential allies.

Perceptions of Stigma-Based Solidarity Claims

To our knowledge, no research has previously examined perceptions of SBS allyship claims. Scholars have, however, argued that highlighting commonalities with marginalized groups may conceal real differences between groups (Radke et al., 2020). Focusing on similarities, perhaps particularly similarity in discrimination experiences, may undermine the unique experiences of discrimination and inequality among specific marginalized groups (Banfield & Dovidio, 2013; Droogendyk et al., 2016; Saguy et al., 2009; Spanierman & Smith, 2017), leading to a perceived erasure of those experiences (Cole, 2009; Crenshaw, 1991). Thus, SBS allyship claims, particularly by someone perceived as higher in status than the marginalized outgroup, may be perceived as less genuine than an allyship message that does not evoke the purported ally’s own experiences of discrimination.

Current Research

The present research sought to integrate past research on SBS and perceptions of allies to examine how SBS claims from White women are perceived by Black Americans. We focused specifically on allyship claims by White women because of their historical and current social statuses positioning White women as high-status potential allies to Black Americans due to their racial privilege and proximity to key power holders (White men; Case, 2012; Knowles et al., 2014; McIntosh, 2018). Across studies, we examine perceptions of the purported ally’s awareness of their White privilege and racial bias as these are key components of allyship (Louis et al., 2019). In addition, we assess perceptions of genuine allyship, including the purported ally’s beliefs about the relation between sexism and racism, and perceptions that the purported ally may have selfish motives for espousing allyship (i.e., believe reducing racism reduces sexism). Furthermore, we assess perceptions that the purported ally would engage in genuine allyship with a focus on anticipated behaviors, including being trustworthy, suffering losses personally, and donating to racial over gender equity causes. Study 3 assesses whether SBS allyship claims evoke a sense of similarity or similarity in discrimination to the purported ally to determine if SBS claims facilitate feelings of SBS among participants.

All data and materials are available at https://osf.io/xvstp/. All manipulations, measures, and exclusions are reported in this manuscript. All research was conducted with IRB approval.

Study 1

Study 1 examined Black Americans’ perceptions of a White woman who espoused an allyship message to Black Americans that only condemns racism or an allyship message that claims SBS by highlighting shared perpetrators of sexism and racism. We hypothesized that compared with a non-SBS allyship claim, a White woman claiming SBS would be seen as a less trustworthy and dedicated ally to Black Americans, be perceived as less aware of their racial biases and privilege, and be more likely to perceive the effects of sexism and racism as similar, including a belief that by reducing racism, sexism could be reduced.

Participants

An a priori power analysis for a two-cell between-subjects design indicated a desired sample size of 204 to detect a small to medium effect (d = 0.35) with 80% power. To account for exclusions, a data collection stop point was set at 220. Participants who screened as Black U.S. citizens were recruited via Prolific. Respondents that were not eligible or that failed two or more attention checks were not compensated and their responses were returned, resulting in a final analytic sample of 200 (M_age = 32.76, SD_age = 10.93; 105 women, 93 men, two gender non-conforming participants). All participants identified as Black, African, or Caribbean American, and three participants identified as Black-multiracial.

Procedure

Upon providing consent, participants were informed they would be reading a tweet and asked to form impressions of the person tweeting. Participants were then randomly assigned to see one of two tweets. In the SBS claim condition, participants read a tweet that stated, “I think that people who agree with racial stereotypes often also treat women unfairly. We need to work together to dismantle prejudice! #Solidarity.” In the non-SBS claim condition, participants read a tweet stating, “I think that people who agree with racial stereotypes often also treat people of color unfairly. We need to work together to dismantle prejudice! #Solidarity.” Both tweets indicated a date of May 2, 2020. A profile photo of a White woman was included with the tweet.

After viewing one of the tweets, participants were required to correctly respond to multiple choice manipulation checks confirming their name and the content of the tweet (i.e., prejudice vs. a new movie or sports). If participants failed, they reviewed the tweet again and were presented with the manipulation checks a second time. No participant failed a check twice. After completing a one-item perceived SBS manipulation check, participants completed the measures below in a random order. Finally, participants completed a pseudo-behavioral measure of donation to racial or gender equity groups and were debriefed.

Measures

Perceived SBS Manipulation Check

Participants indicated “How do you think this person would respond to the following statement: When someone holds hateful beliefs against one group of people, they often hold hateful beliefs against other groups of people,” (Sanchez et al., 2017) on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).

Racial Bias Awareness

Participants reported the likelihood that the person was aware of their racial biases with three items (e.g., “This person is likely to recognize their own racial bias”) on a 1(Not at all likely) to 7(Extremely likely) scale (a = .89).

White Privilege Awareness

Participants reported the likelihood that the person acknowledges their White privilege with three items (e.g., “This person is likely to acknowledge historical benefits that White women received because of the color of their skin”) on a 1(Not at all likely) to 7(Extremely likely) scale (a = .91).

Ego-Motives

Participants reported the likelihood that the person would advocate for Black rights for personal gain with four items (e.g., “Advocate for Black rights to promote women’s rights”) assessed on a 1(Not at all likely) to 7(Extremely likely) scale (a = .81).

Equivocating Prejudice

Participants reported the likelihood that the person equivocates racism and sexism to be the same with four items (e.g., “How likely is this person to think that racism and sexism are the same”) on a 1(Not at all likely) to 7(Extremely likely) scale (a = .76).

Trustworthy Ally

Participants reported if they believed that this person would be a trustworthy ally for racial justice with four items (e.g., “I can trust this person to be a true ally in the fight against racial inequality”) on a 1(Strongly disagree) to 7(Strongly agree) scale (a = .95).

Self-Sacrificing Allyship

Participants reported the likelihood that this person would be willing to engage in action against racism if it involved undertaking personal losses (e.g., “How likely is this person to lose a friendship to promote racial equality”) on a four-item, 1 (Not at all likely) to 7 (Extremely likely) scale (a = .76).

Anticipated Donation to Racial Justice Causes

Participants estimated the amount of money (out of US$100) that this person would donate to organizations advocating for either racial or gender equality (adapted from Chaney & Forbes, 2023). Four causes, two gender focus (e.g., National Organization for Women) and two race focus (e.g., Race Matters Institute), were included with a brief description. This measure was included to clearly assess perceptions of the person’s priorities: reducing sexism or racism.

Results

Independent samples t tests were conducted on each outcome.¹ See Table 1 for descriptive statistics and condition effects.

Table 1

Study 1: Descriptive Statistics and Results by Type of Claim

				Non-SBS claim	SBS claim
Outcome	t(198)	p	d	M (SD)	M (SD)
SBS manipulation check	2.12	.035	0.30	3.88 (1.38)	6.26 (1.13)
Bias awareness	2.89	.004	0.41	4.94 (1.43)	4.32 (1.63)
Privilege awareness	3.34	.001	0.47	5.29 (1.35)	4.58 (1.63)
Ego-motivation	1.76	.082	0.25	4.82 (1.26)	5.14 (1.29)
Equivocating prejudices	2.43	.008	0.34	4.96 (1.19)	5.39 (1.27)
Trustworthy ally	3.71	<.001	0.53	5.56 (1.09)	4.89 (1.57)
Self-sacrificing allyship	2.73	.007	0.39	4.31 (1.18)	3.82 (1.34)
Racial equity donation	4.99	<.001	0.71	52.63 (18.85)	38.04 (22.26)

Note. t(197) for perceived SBS manipulation check due to missing response. SBS = stigma-based solidarity.

Participants expected the person claiming SBS to endorse SBS more strongly than the non-SBS claimer, confirming successful manipulation. In addition, participants rated the SBS claimer as significantly less aware of her racial bias and White privilege, a less trustworthy ally, less likely to engage in self-sacrificing allyship, and more likely to equivocate racism and sexism than the non-SBS allyship claimer. Although no condition effect emerged for perceptions of ego-motivation, participants expected the ally claiming SBS to donate significantly less money to racial justice causes than the non-SBS claiming ally.

Discussion

Study 1 demonstrated initial evidence that Black Americans perceived a White woman claiming SBS as a less genuine ally with less awareness of their bias and privilege compared with an ally not claiming SBS. Yet, due to the lack of a neutral control condition, it is unclear if these effects are driven by the claims of SBS or non-SBS allyship, and if a SBS-claimed ally is viewed as a more genuine ally compared with someone who does not claim allyship.

Study 2

Study 2 aimed to replicate Study 1 with a new control condition wherein a White woman did not discuss racial solidarity attitudes. We expected to replicate Study 1 findings, such that the ally claiming SBS would be perceived as lower in ally awareness (bias, privilege) and genuine allyship characteristics (e.g., less trustworthy and self-sacrificing, more ego-motivated, and prone to prejudice equivocation) when compared with the ally not claiming SBS. Novel to Study 2, we hypothesized that both the SBS and the non-SBS claiming ally would be rated as more likely to be a genuine and aware ally than the control (no claim) condition.

Method

Participants

An a priori power analysis using the average effect size from Study 1 (d = 0.43) indicated a desired sample of 213 participants (80% power) for a three-cell one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In case of exclusions, 224 respondents participated in the study. Six participants failed two attention check questions and were removed from analyses. The final sample (N = 218; M_age= 33.99, SD = 11.81) included 109 women, 107 men, and two gender non-conforming participants who were recruited on Prolific. The majority of the sample (n = 207) identified as Black/African/Caribbean American and 11 participants identified as Black biracial or multiracial.

Procedure

Upon consenting, participants saw a Twitter bio presenting the White woman from Study 1, identifying her as a professor. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of three conditions: the non-SBS or SBS claim conditions of Study 1, or a novel control condition in which only the profile (not a tweet) of the White woman was presented. After reviewing the profile (and tweet in non-SBS and SBS claim conditions) participants had to correctly identify the person’s demographics (race, gender), profession, and content of the tweet (in non-SBS and SBS claim conditions only). If participants failed, they reviewed the profile again and completed the questions a second time (no participants failed on a second attempt).

After, participants completed the same measures from Study 1, although one item in the ego-motive scale was reworded to improve clarity, and the prejudice equivocating scale was expanded to five items. The SBS manipulation check was not included. All scales were reliable (αs >.80). Finally, participants completed the Study 1 donation measure.

Results

One-way ANOVAs and Tukey post hoc tests were conducted (see Figure 1).

Awareness

Post hoc comparisons of the condition effect on perceived racial bias awareness, F(2, 215) = 9.83, p < .001, d = 0.61, revealed the non-SBS claimer was perceived as higher in bias awareness than the SBS claimer, p = .002, d = 0.54, and the control, p < .001, d = 0.68. The control and SBS claim conditions did not significantly differ, p = .743, d = 0.13.

Post hoc comparisons of the condition effect on perceived White privilege awareness, F(2, 215) = 7.45, p < .001, d = 0.53, revealed that the non-SBS claimer was perceived as higher on privilege awareness than the SBS claimer, p = .002, d = 0.51, and the control, p<.001, d = 0.59. The control and SBS claim conditions did not significantly differ, p = .800, d = 0.07.

Ego-Motivations

Post hoc comparisons of the condition effect on perceived ego-motives, F(2, 215) = 20.65, p < .001, d = 0.87, revealed the SBS claimer was perceived as more ego motivated than the control, p < .001, d = 1.09, and non-SBS claimer, p = .022, d = 0.47. The non-SBS claimer was also perceived as higher in ego-motives than the control, p < .001, d = 0.58.

Equivocating Prejudice

Post hoc comparisons of the condition effect on perceived prejudice equivocation, F(2, 215) = 13.57, p < .001, d = 0.71, revealed the SBS claimer was perceived as more likely to equivocate racism and sexism than the control, d = 0.79, and non-SBS claimer, d = 0.80, ps < .001. The control and non-SBS claim conditions did not significantly differ, p = .990, d = 0.01.

Allyship

Post hoc comparisons of the condition effect on perceived ally trustworthiness, F(2, 215) = 15.88, p < .001, d = 0.77, revealed that the SBS and non-SBS claimers were perceived as more trustworthy than the control, ps < .001 (d = 0.67, d = 0.87, respectively). The SBS and non-SBS claims did not significantly differ, p = .490, d = 0.20.

Post hoc comparisons of the condition effect on self-sacrificing allyship, F(2, 215) = 24.53, p < .001, d = 0.96, revealed the non-SBS claimer was perceived as more likely to engage in self-sacrificing allyship than the SBS claimer, p < .001, d = 0.70, and the control, p < .001, d = 1.10. The SBS claimer was rated as more likely to engage in self-sacrificing allyship than the control, p = .042, d = 0.43.

Donation

Post hoc comparisons of the condition effect of racial equity donations, F(2, 215) = 19.76, p < .001, d = 0.86, revealed that the non-SBS claimer (M = 46.46, SD = 20.58) was expected to allocate more money to racial justice causes than the SBS claimer (M = 31.66, SD = 19.95), p < .001, d = 0.73, and control (M = 25.69, SD = 22.30), p < .001, d = 0.98. The SBS claimer and control did not significantly differ, p = .212, d = 0.28.

Discussion

Study 2 largely replicated Study 1. The SBS claimer was generally perceived as a less genuine ally compared to the non-SBS claimer. Yet, counter to hypotheses, the SBS claimer was only perceived as somewhat more of a genuine ally (only in trustworthy and self-sacrificing allyship) and did not differ in ally awareness compared with the control condition. While Studies 1 and 2 indicated SBS claims are not viewed as genuine, only one facet of SBS was explored: shared perpetrators.

Study 3

Studies 1 and 2 examined claims of SBS that focused on shared perpetrators of sexism and racism. Yet, past research on cultivating SBS often focuses on highlighting historical or current parallels in discrimination experiences for marginalized groups (e.g., Cortland et al., 2017). While we hypothesized that SBS claims that center either shared perpetrators (as in Studies 1 and 2) or shared discrimination experiences would not significantly differ given the common root in SBS, Study 3 sought to directly compare these SBS facets (preregistered: https://osf.io/r7xtd). Study 3 employed new measures of felt similarity as past research has identified these as components of endorsed SBS (Cortland et al., 2017).

Method

Participants

An a priori power analysis for a small effect (d = 0.30) indicated a desired sample of 432 participants (80% power) for a three-cell one-way ANOVA. In case of exclusions, 440 respondents participated in the study recruited via Prolific. Seven participants either failed two attention check questions or did not identify as Black and were removed. The final sample of N = 433 (M_age = 36.88, SD = 12.63) included 219 women, 213 men, and two gender non-conforming participants. The majority of the sample (n = 415) identified as Black/African/Caribbean American, and 18 participants identified as Black biracial or multiracial.

Procedure

Upon consenting, all participants saw the Study 2 Twitter bio. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three allyship claim conditions: SBS or non-SBS conditions of Study 1, or a novel SBS claim in which the tweet read: “I think women and Black people have historically faced similar forms of discrimination in housing, employment and education,” followed by the same statement as the other conditions: “We need to work together to dismantle prejudice! #Solidarity.” From here on, we refer to the SBS claim in Studies 1 and 2 as the SBS claim-shared perpetrator and the new condition as the SBS claim-shared discrimination.

After reviewing the profile and tweet, and completing content checks, as in Study 2, participants completed a new SBS manipulation check. Next, participants completed the same measures from Study 2 in the same order, except new measures of perceived similarity and similar discrimination were included prior to the donation measure. All scales were reliable (αs > .76).

Materials

SBS Manipulation Check

Participants completed the Study 1 item and two SBS items from prior research (Chaney & Forbes, 2023; e.g., “The discrimination experienced by members of oppressed groups is similar”) as participants believed the person in the Twitter profile would complete the items on a scale from 1(This person would strongly disagree) to 7(This person would strongly agree); (α = .69).

Similarity

Participants completed two items indicating how similar they were to the person who tweeted: “I think I have a lot in common with this person”; “I think I am similar to this person” (Cortland et al., 2017). In addition, participants completed two items assessing perceived similarity in discrimination experiences adapted from the similar items (e.g., “I think my experiences of discrimination have a lot in common with this person’s experiences of discrimination”). Items were completed on a scale from 1(Not at all) to 7(A great deal) and items in both scales were positively correlated, rs(432) > .87, ps < .001.

Results

Analyses were conducted as one-way ANOVAs and significant effects were probed with Tukey post hoc tests (see Table 2). Condition effects emerged for all outcomes except similar discrimination. Post hoc tests are reported below.

Table 2

Study 3: ANOVA Results and Descriptive Statistics by Claim Condition

	Condition effect			Non-SBS claim	SBS-shared perpetrator claim	SBS-shared discrim. claim
Outcome	F(2, 431)	p	d	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
SBS manip. check	6.97	.001	0.36	5.60 (0.97)_a	6.01 (0.96)_b	5.88 (0.95)_b
Bias aware	6.95	.001	0.36	4.71 (1.54)_a	4.47 (1.83)_a	3.97 (1.83)_b
Privilege aware	7.45	<.001	0.37	4.91 (1.51)_a	4.64 (1.76)_a	4.14 (1.88)_b
Ego-motives	4.93	.008	0.30	3.89 (1.05)_a	4.27 (1.07)_b	4.17 (1.09)_ab
Equiv. prejudice	16.92	<.001	0.56	4.51 (1.36)_a	5.28 (1.18)_b	5.29 (1.36)_b
Trustworthy ally	11.32	<.001	0.46	5.26 (1.24)_a	4.81 (1.45)_b	4.42 (1.71)_b
Self-sacr. ally	3.94	.020	0.27	4.19 (1.30)_a	3.78 (1.32)_b	3.74 (1.44)_b
Similarity	4.63	.010	0.30	3.70 (1.73)_a	3.54 (1.93)_ac	3.07 (1.86)_bc
Similar disc.	1.13	.325	0.14	2.95 (1.79)_a	3.17 (1.90)_a	2.86 (1.81)_a
Racial justice donation	15.62	<.001	0.54	48.35 (20.12)_a	35.44 (21.45)_b	36.83 (22.69)_b

Note. SBS = stigma-based solidarity. The condition means that do not share a subscript significantly differ, p < .05.

Manipulation Check

Participants perceived the non-SBS claimer as endorsing SBS less than both the SBS-shared perpetrator, p < .001, d = 0.43, and SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p = .036, d = 0.29, which did not significantly differ, p = .451, d = 0.14.

Awareness

Regarding perceived bias awareness, the non-SBS claimer was perceived as more bias aware than the SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p < .001, d = 0.44, but not the SBS-shared perpetrator claimer, p = .460, d = 0.14. The SBS-shared perpetrator claimer was also perceived as more bias aware than the SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p = .037, d = 0.27.

Similarly, the non-SBS claimer was perceived as more privilege aware than the SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p < .001, d = 0.45, but not the SBS-shared perpetrator claimer, p = .403, d = 0.17. The SBS-shared perpetrator claimer was also perceived as more privilege aware than the SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p = .033, d = 0.28.

Ego-Motivations

The non-SBS claimer was perceived as lower in ego-motives than the SBS-shared perpetrator claimer, p = .007, d = 0.36, but not the SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p = .062, d = 0.26. The SBS claims did not significantly differ, p = .717, d = 0.09.

Equivocating Prejudice

The non-SBS claimer was perceived as less likely to equivocate prejudices than the SBS-shared perpetrator claimer, p < .001, d = 0.61, and the SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p < .001, d = 0.57. The SBS claims did not significantly differ, p = .990, d = 0.01.

Allyship

Regarding ally trustworthiness, the non-SBS claim ally was perceived as a more trustworthy ally than the SBS-shared perpetrator, p = .029, d = 0.33, and the SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p < .001, d = 0.56. The SBS claims did not significantly differ, p = .067, d = 0.25.

Similarly, the non-SBS claimer was expected to sacrifice more than the SBS-shared perpetrator, p = .027, d = 0.31, and the SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p = .013, d = 0.33. The SBS claims did not significantly differ, p = .964, d = 0.03.

Similarity

The non-SBS claimer was perceived as more similar to participants than the SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p = .010, d = 0.35, but not the SBS-shared perpetrator claimer, p = .723, d = 0.09. The SBS claims did not significantly differ, p = .076, d = 0.25.

Donation

The non-SBS claimer was expected to donate more to racial justice causes than the SBS-shared perpetrator, p < .001, d = 0.62, and the SBS-shared discrimination claimer, p < .001, d = 0.54. The SBS claims did not significantly differ, p = .850, d = 0.06.

Discussion

Results for the SBS shared-perpetrator claimer largely replicated Studies 1 and 2: they were seen as a less genuine ally compared with the non-SBS claimer but did not differ in bias and privilege awareness. Generally supporting hypotheses, the two SBS claims did not significantly differ, except the SBS shared-discrimination claimer was perceived as the least aware of their bias and privilege. Despite successfully signaling SBS endorsement, SBS claims did not elicit perceived similarity in discrimination experiences among Black Americans and resulted in less perceived similarity than the non-SBS claimed ally.

General Discussion

The present research demonstrates that White women claiming SBS with Black Americans are viewed as less genuine allies who are less aware of their racial bias and privilege compared with White women who simply claim allyship with Black Americans and do not mention sexism (Studies 1–3).² These effects were greatest when SBS claims focused on shared historical discrimination rather than shared perpetrators (Study 3). These findings build on growing evidence that marginalized groups prefer allies who are aware of their racial bias and privilege and who are perceived as genuine: have selfless (not ego-based) motives, are trustworthy, and do not expect a “quid-pro-quo” form of allyship (Burns & Granz, 2023; Droogendyk et al., 2016; Park et al., 2022). Yet, behavioral allyship models argue that SBS is more effective at eliciting collective action than allyship in which privileged groups maintain an outgroup identity (Craig & Richeson, 2016; Louis et al., 2019; Subašić et al., 2008). The present findings present a paradox: SBS may be more effective at facilitating allyship and SBS allyship may be genuine but claims of SBS are perceived as disingenuous, demonstrating the complexities of facilitating effective collective action across social groups.

The present findings also build on growing literature regarding suspicion of egalitarian claims (LaCosse et al., 2015; Rosenblum et al., 2022; Wilton et al., 2020). Such suspicion is at times related to accuracy in assessing the bias or motives of the purported ally (e.g., Rosenblum et al., 2022). Suspicion of SBS allyship claims in the present work, demonstrated by less perceived genuineness and awareness of racial bias and privilege, may be accurate given past research has found that SBS motivates ingroup-benefiting coalitions more than coalitions for outgroups (Chaney & Forbes, 2023). Yet, behavioral displays of allyship may curb suspicion (Wilton et al., 2020).³ As such, SBS claims may effectively cue genuine allyship if such claims are paired with behavior.

The present findings are limited to SBS claims by White women to Black Americans. SBS may be harder to cultivate among marginalized groups that are stigmatized across differing identity dimensions (here, gender for White women and race for Black Americans) than among marginalized groups stigmatized along the same identity dimension (e.g., Black and Latinx Americans; Craig & Richeson, 2016). Furthermore, White women generally hold higher societal power than Black Americans due to racial privilege (Case, 2012; Knowles et al., 2014; McIntosh, 2018) and have historically excluded Black Americans from efforts toward gender equality (Roth, 2004). Thus, SBS claims among marginalized group members stigmatized along the same identity dimension as Black Americans (e.g., Latinx Americans) may produce greater expectations of genuine allyship. Moreover, as people with multiple marginalized identities are more likely to endorse SBS (Pham et al., 2023), future research should explore how SBS claims from multiply marginalized people are perceived. Finally, past research has suggested that suspicion of ally messages may vary by perceivers (e.g., Burns & Granz, 2023), and thus we encourage future research to examine such suspicion as a critical individual difference variable.

While the present studies employed SBS claims highlighting shared perpetrators⁴ and shared historical discrimination (Study 3), other SBS claims could focus on shared current experiences of inequality and discrimination. Future research may also explore if SBS claims that highlight personal experiences with discrimination may signal more genuine allyship. Yet, any allyship statement that appears to equate or center the purported ally’s ingroup to the marginalized outgroup is likely to be perceived as disingenuous, relative to messages of allyship that do not invoke one’s ingroup (e.g., Burns & Granz, 2023). Moreover, more enriched claims of SBS (e.g., claims that recognize overlap and uniqueness of discrimination experiences among marginalized groups) than presently utilized may elicit more genuine perceived allyship. More research is thus needed to examine the multitude of ways SBS claims are perceived with implications for intraminority coalition building.

Conclusion

Across studies, the present findings examined Black Americans’ perceptions of SBS claims by White women. SBS claimed allies were viewed as less genuine allies who had selfish motives compared to non-SBS allyship claims. Overall, while SBS may be effective at cultivating allyship behavior, claims of SBS may be viewed as disingenuous.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506231188757 – Supplemental material for Perceptions of White Women’s Stigma-Based Solidarity Claims and Disingenuous Allyship

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506231188757 for Perceptions of White Women’s Stigma-Based Solidarity Claims and Disingenuous Allyship by Kimberly E. Chaney, Rebecca Cipollina and Diana T. Sanchez in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Handling Editor: Monteith Margo.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

All research was conducted with IRB approval and following APA ethical standards in the treatment of human participants.

ORCID iD

Kimberly E. Chaney

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Kimberly E. Chaney, PhD, is an assistant professor of psychological sciences at the University of Connecticut examining the effects of lay theories of prejudice and allyship on experiences of stigma and bias reduction.

Rebecca Cipollina, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS—Yale University examining the effects of stigma on health and interpersonal relationships.

Diana T. Sanchez, PhD, is a professor of psychology at Rutgers University–New Brunswick examining the role of stigma on close relationships, health, and allyship.

References

Allport

G. W.

Kramer

B. M.

(1946). Some roots of prejudice. Journal of Psychology, 22, 9–39.

Ashburn-Nardo

(2018). What can allies do?. In Colella

King

(Eds.), The handbook of workplace discrimination (pp. 373–386). Oxford University Press.

Banfield

J. C.

Dovidio

J. F.

(2013). Whites’ perceptions of discrimination against Blacks: The influence of common identity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 833–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.008

Broido

E. M.

(2000). The development of social justice allies during college: A phenomenological investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 3–18.

Brown

K. T.

Ostrove

J. M.

(2013). What does it mean to be an ally?: The perception of allies from the perspective of people of color. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2211–2222. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12172

Burns

M. D.

Granz

E. L.

(2023). “Sincere White people, work in conjunction with us”: Racial minorities’ perceptions of White ally sincerity and perceptions of ally efforts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(2), 453–475.

Burrows

Selvanathan

H. P.

Lickel

(2023). My fight or yours: Stereotypes of activists from advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(1), 110–124.

Case

K. A.

(2012). Discovering the privilege of whiteness: White women’s reflections on anti-racist identity and ally behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 78–96.

Chaney

K. E.

Forbes

M. B.

(2023). We stand in solidarity with you (if it helps our ingroup). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(2), 304–320.

10.

Chaney

K. E.

Sanchez

D. T.

Himmelstein

M. S.

Manuel

S. K.

(2021). Lay theory of generalized prejudice moderates cardiovascular stress responses to racism for White women. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(6), 998–1015.

11.

Cole

E. R.

(2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564

12.

Cortland

C. I.

Craig

M. A.

Shapiro

J. R.

Richeson

J. A.

Neel

Goldstein

N. J.

(2017). Solidarity through shared disadvantage: Highlighting shared experiences of discrimination improves relations between stigmatized groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 547–567.

13.

Craig

M. A.

Richeson

J. A.

(2012). Coalition or derogation? How perceived discrimination influences intraminority intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 759–777.

14.

Craig

M. A.

DeHart

Richeson

J. A.

Fiedorowicz

(2012). Do unto others as others have done unto you? Perceiving sexism influences women's evaluations of stigmatized racial groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1107–1119.

15.

Craig

M. A.

Richeson

J. A.

(2016). Stigma-based solidarity: Understanding the psychological foundations of conflict and coalition among members of different stigmatized groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 21–27.

16.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.

17.

Doosje

Branscombe

N. R.

Spears

Manstead

A. S. R.

(1998). Guilty by association: When one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology, 75(4), 872–886.

18.

Droogendyk

Wright

S. C.

Lubensky

Louis

W. R.

(2016). Acting in solidarity: Cross-group contact between disadvantaged group members and advantaged group allies. Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 315–334.

19.

Gaertner

S. L.

Dovidio

J. F.

Anastasio

P. A.

Bachman

B. A.

Rust

M. C.

(1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26.

20.

Iyer

Achia

(2021). Mobilized or marginalized? Understanding low-status groups’ responses to social justice efforts led by high-status groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(5), 1287–1316.

21.

Iyer

Ryan

M. K.

(2009). Why do men and women challenge gender discrimination in the workplace? The role of group status and in-group identification in predicting pathways to collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 791–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01625.x

22.

Knowles

E. D.

Lowery

B. S.

Chow

R. M.

Unzueta

M. M.

(2014). Deny, distance, or dismantle? How White Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 594–609.

23.

Kroeper

K. M.

Williams

H. E.

Murphy

M. C.

(2022). Counterfeit diversity: How strategically misrepresenting gender diversity dampens organizations’ perceived sincerity and elevates women’s identity threat concerns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(3), 399–426.

24.

Kunstman

J. W.

Fitzpatrick

C. B.

(2018). Why are they being so nice to us? Social identity threat and the suspicion of Whites’ motives. Self and Identity, 17(4), 432–442.

25.

Kunstman

J. W.

Tuscherer

Trawalter

Lloyd

E. P.

(2016). What lies beneath? Minority group members’ suspicion of Whites’ egalitarian motivation predicts responses to Whites’ smiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1193–1205.

26.

LaCosse

Tuscherer

Kunstman

J. W.

Plant

E. A.

Trawalter

Major

(2015). Suspicion of White people’s motives relates to relative accuracy in detecting external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 1–4.

27.

Louis

W. R.

Thomas

Chapman

C. M.

Achia

Wibisono

Mirnajafi

Droogendyk

(2019). Emerging research on intergroup prosociality: Group members’ charitable giving, positive contact, allyship, and solidarity with others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(3), e12436.

28.

Major

Kunstman

J. W.

Malta

B. D.

Sawyer

P. J.

Townsend

S. S.

Mendes

W. B.

(2016). Suspicion of motives predicts minorities’ responses to positive feedback in interracial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 75–88.

29.

McIntosh

(2018). White privilege and male privilege. In Privilege (pp. 28–40). Routledge.

30.

Park

J. W.

Vani

Saint-Hilaire

Kraus

M. W.

(2022). Disadvantaged group activists’ attitudes toward advantaged group allies in social movements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98, 104226.

31.

Pham

M. D.

Chaney

K. E.

Sanchez

D. T.

(2023). “I am (oppressed), therefore I see”: Multiple stigmatized identities predict belief in generalized prejudice and coalition. Manuscript invited for revision & resubmission. Self & Identity. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.uconn.edu/10.1080/15298868.2023.2216941

32.

Radke

H. R.

Kutlaca

Siem

Wright

S. C.

Becker

J. C.

(2020). Beyond allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291–315.

33.

Reicher

Cassidy

Wolpert

Hopkins

Levine

(2006). Saving Bulgaria’s Jews: An analysis of social identity and the mobilisation of social solidarity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.291

34.

Rosenblum

Jacoby-Senghor

D. S.

Brown

N. D.

(2022). Detecting prejudice from egalitarianism: Why Black Americans don’t trust White egalitarians’ claims. Psychological Science, 33(6), 889–905.

35.

Roth

(2004). Separate roads to feminism: Black, Chicana, and White feminist movements in America’s second wave. Cambridge University Press.

36.

Saguy

Tausch

Dovidio

J. F.

Pratto

(2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x

37.

Sanchez

D. T.

Chaney

K. E.

Manuel

S. K.

Wilton

L. S.

Remedios

J. D.

(2017). Stigma by prejudice transfer: Racism threatens White women and sexism threatens men of color. Psychological Science, 28(4), 445–461.

38.

Spanierman

L. B.

Smith

(2017). Confronting white hegemony: A moral imperative for the helping professions. The Counseling Psychologist, 45(5), 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000017719550

39.

Subašić

Reynolds

K. J.

Turner

J. C.

(2008). The political solidarity model of social change: Dynamics of self categorization in intergroup power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(4), 330–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308323223

40.

Thomas

E. F.

McGarty

Mavor

K. I.

(2009). Aligning identities, emotions, and beliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and political action. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341563

41.

Vollhardt

J. R.

(2015). Inclusive victim consciousness in advocacy, social movements, and intergroup relations: Promises and pitfalls. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 89–120.

42.

Wilton

L. S.

Bell

A. N.

Vahradyan

Kaiser

C. R.

(2020). Show don’t tell: Diversity dishonesty harms racial/ethnic minorities at work. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(8), 1171–1185.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.61 MB