{"title":"When People Do Allyship: A Typology of Allyship Action.","authors":"Lucy De Souza, Toni Schmader","doi":"10.1177/10888683241232732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>Despite increased popular and academic interest, there is conceptual ambiguity about what allyship is and the forms it takes. Viewing allyship as a practice, we introduce the <i>typology of allyship action</i> which organizes the diversity of ways that advantaged individuals seek to support those who are disadvantaged. We characterize <i>allyship actions</i> as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and proactive (fostering positive outcomes such as feelings of inclusion, respect, and capacity), both of which can vary in level of analysis (i.e., targeting oneself, one or a few other individuals, or institutions). We use this framework to profile six productive yet largely independent bodies of social psychological literature on social action and directly compare relative benefits and constraints of different actions. We suggest several future directions for empirical research, using the typology of allyship to understand when, where, and how different forms of allyship might succeed.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>Despite increased popular and academic interest in the word, people differ in what they believe allyship is and the forms it takes. Viewing allyship as a practice, we introduce a new way (the <i>typology of allyship action</i>) to describe how advantaged individuals seek to support those who are disadvantaged. We characterize <i>allyship actions</i> as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and proactive (increasing positive outcomes such as feelings of inclusion, respect, and capacity), both of which can vary in level (i.e., targeting oneself, one or a few other individuals, or institutions). We use this framework to profile six large yet mostly separate areas of social psychological research on social action and directly compare the relative benefits and limitations of different actions. We suggest several future directions for how the typology of allyship action can help us understand when, where, and how different forms of allyship might succeed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"3-31"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241232732","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Academic abstract: Despite increased popular and academic interest, there is conceptual ambiguity about what allyship is and the forms it takes. Viewing allyship as a practice, we introduce the typology of allyship action which organizes the diversity of ways that advantaged individuals seek to support those who are disadvantaged. We characterize allyship actions as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and proactive (fostering positive outcomes such as feelings of inclusion, respect, and capacity), both of which can vary in level of analysis (i.e., targeting oneself, one or a few other individuals, or institutions). We use this framework to profile six productive yet largely independent bodies of social psychological literature on social action and directly compare relative benefits and constraints of different actions. We suggest several future directions for empirical research, using the typology of allyship to understand when, where, and how different forms of allyship might succeed.
Public abstract: Despite increased popular and academic interest in the word, people differ in what they believe allyship is and the forms it takes. Viewing allyship as a practice, we introduce a new way (the typology of allyship action) to describe how advantaged individuals seek to support those who are disadvantaged. We characterize allyship actions as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and proactive (increasing positive outcomes such as feelings of inclusion, respect, and capacity), both of which can vary in level (i.e., targeting oneself, one or a few other individuals, or institutions). We use this framework to profile six large yet mostly separate areas of social psychological research on social action and directly compare the relative benefits and limitations of different actions. We suggest several future directions for how the typology of allyship action can help us understand when, where, and how different forms of allyship might succeed.
期刊介绍:
Title: Personality and Social Psychology Review (PSPR)
Journal Overview:
Official journal of SPSP, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
Premiere outlet for original theoretical papers and conceptual review articles in all areas of personality and social psychology
Features stimulating conceptual pieces identifying new research directions and comprehensive review papers providing integrative frameworks for existing theory and research programs
Topics Covered:
Attitudes and Social Cognition: Examines the inner workings of the human mind in understanding, evaluating, and responding to the social environment
Interpersonal and Group Processes: Explores patterns of interaction and interdependence characterizing everyday human functioning
Intergroup Relations: Investigates determinants of prejudice, conflict, cooperation, and harmonious relationships between social groups
Personality and Individual Differences: Focuses on causes, assessment, structures, and processes giving rise to human variation
Biological and Cultural Influences: Studies the biological and cultural mediation of social psychological and personality processes