Garnering support for social justice: When and why is “yes” likelier for “allies” versus “disadvantaged group advocates”?

Via three studies (two experiment-based and one critical incident-based) we test when and why a social justice appeal garners more support when delivered by a disadvantaged group advocate (DGA) versus by an ally—that is, by someone who does versus does not belong to the marginalized group named in the appeal, respectively. As hypothesized, significantly more support was shown for a social justice appeal by a DGA (rather than an ally) when receivers identified strongly with the disadvantaged group; and this pattern reversed when this identification was weak. Also as predicted, this interaction-effect was mediated by receivers’ perceptions of their similarity with the advocate, the appeal’s credibility, and by their feelings of empathy. Our findings point to the need to broaden theorizing beyond demographic influences on how persuasive a DGA versus an ally will be and the importance of considering appeal-receiver identification when choosing an advocate.