Does he mean it? The role of sincerity in ally motivations and behaviors

Abstract

Allyship is a two-step process that involves both acknowledgement of inequality with sincere motivations, and behaviors to enact social change (Ashburn-Nardo, 2018; Drury & Kaiser, 2014). Yet, the majority of previous allyship research has only examined allyship as either acknowledgement of inequality with sincere motivations to act as an ally (Moser & Branscombe, 2021) or behaviors that demonstrate allyship (Cihangir et al., 2014; Hildebrand et al., 2020). Three studies (total N = 1,079) bridge both aspects of this definition of allyship and demonstrate the critical role of ally sincerity at both steps of allyship: the motivational and behavioral levels. Study 1 (n = 306) found that behaviors that align or do not align with stated allyship intentions impact perceptions of the self-identified ally and inform women’s expectations of treatment at an organization. Women shown an ally who subsequently confronted a sexist comment indicated significantly higher anticipation of identity-safety and positive treatment at the organization, relative to women shown an ally who ignored or agreed with the sexist comment. Additionally, Study 1 found that perceived ally sincerity mediates these downstream consequences. Study 2 (n = 297) manipulated ally sincerity by varying the motivations given by men to act as an ally. Findings of Study 2 indicated that women shown a sincerely motivated ally were significantly more likely to view the organization positively and expect positive treatment, compared to women shown either type of insincere motivation. Study 3 (n = 476) replicated and extended Studies 1 and 2 by contrasting motivations to self-identify as an ally and the behaviors of the self-identified ally following a sexist event to examine the interactive effects of sincerity in motivation and consistency of ally behavior on women’s perceptions of male-dominated environments. Study 3 demonstrates that both sincere motivations and behaviors to disrupt the status quo are necessary for effective allyship. Studies 1 – 3 examine the iterative process of updating impressions of allies with the introduction of information that either aligns or misaligns with stated intentions. The results of these studies complicate previous optimistic findings regarding identity-safety cues by demonstrating that aspects of an environment that signal identity-safety at one time point can be reinterpreted to signal identity-threat with the introduction of new conflicting information. These studies offer a novel contribution for understanding allyship processes and the role of sincerity in allyship.