“Sincere White people,work in conjunction with us”: Racial minorities’ perceptions of White ally sincerity and perceptions of ally efforts

Abstract

Social justice movements often consist of both targets of bias (e.g., Black people) and nontarget allies (e.g., White people). However, little is known about what factors shape minorities’ perceptions of allies and their ally behaviors. Across four studies, we investigated Black participants’ perceptions of Whites’ motives to engage in ally behaviors. In Study 1, we found that Black participants perceived nontarget allies as both highly internally and externally motivated, suggesting ally motives may be ambiguous to Black perceivers. Studies 2–4 examined the effect of Black participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motives on perceptions of White allies’ sincerity and support for their ally efforts. As predicted, suspicious Black participants perceived White ally protestors, confronters, and political candidates as less sincere than similar Black targets and, in turn, were less supportive of White allies’ efforts. Discussion focuses on how perceived motives of White allies impact perceptions of allies and their ally efforts.

Keywords

allies intergroup relations prejudice racism suspicion

I tell sincere white people, “Work in conjunction with us . . .” Let sincere whites go and teach non-violence to white people!

(Haley & X, 1965, p. 377)

During the 1960s, civil rights leader Malcolm X highlighted the need for “sincere” Whites in antiracist movements (Haley & X, 1965, p. 377). His emphasis on Whites’ sincerity illustrated that the underlying motives of Whites’ ally participation were important. He continued, “Only such real, meaningful actions as those which are sincerely motivated . . . can get at the basic causes that produce the racial explosions in America today” (Haley & X, 1965, p. 377). Black Americans’ concern over Whites’ sincerity has not abated since the 1960s (Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Winslow et al., 2011). However, little research has investigated how minorities perceive Whites’ ally motivations and their sincerity.

In interpersonal interaction contexts, prior research has found that the ambiguity surrounding Whites’ positive overtures results in some minorities developing chronic suspicion of Whites’ intergroup positivity (Kunstman & Fitzpatrick, 2018; Major et al., 2013). For instance, whereas some Whites may engage in positive behaviors toward minorities because they are egalitarian and friendly, others may engage in the same behaviors simply to cloak underlying biases and/or to be liked (Bergsieker et al., 2010). We reasoned that Whites’ ally behaviors may be similarly ambiguous to minorities.

Across four studies, we expanded upon prior research and investigated whether Black participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motives to avoid appearing biased in interpersonal contexts similarly predicted perceptions of Whites’ motives to engage in ally behaviors. We therefore contribute to the literature investigating the motives underlying ally behaviors (Radke et al., 2020) by investigating how minorities perceive ally motives, and how these perceptions shape support for allies and their contributions to social justice coalitions. Additionally, we highlight the importance of considering how minorities’ individual differences shape perceptions of allies (Iyer & Achia, 2020).

Perceptions of Allies

Increasingly, research has focused on the role of allies against bias in antiprejudice movements (Droogendyk et al., 2016; Radke et al., 2020). Allies, or advantaged/dominant group members who take action to benefit disadvantaged groups, are effective social justice advocates (Kutlaca et al., 2020; Ostrove & Brown, 2017; Radke et al., 2020). For instance, allies make more persuasive and effective confronters of bias than target group members (Gulker et al., 2013; Rasinski & Czopp, 2010). Furthermore, allies can benefit minority beneficiaries by providing them with safety and/or belonging cues (Hildebrand et al., 2020; Johnson & Pietri, 2020). Given allies’ usefulness, research has begun to investigate how to identify allies (Jones et al., 2014; Ostrove & Brown, 2017) and increase ally participation (Subašić et al., 2018).

With some exceptions (Iyer & Achia, 2020; Rattan & Ambady, 2014), research on nontarget allies has relied on advantaged group member participants and, oftentimes, uncritically discusses allies as necessary in social justice coalitions. However, some research suggests allies may be perceived negatively by target group members to whom allies purport to support. For instance, Marshburn et al. (2021) discuss how White allies may be met with suspicion from target group members because White allies can be motivated by self-interest reasons (i.e., to look good), dilute or “Whitewash” social justice movements, and may downplay the urgency of social justice efforts. Similarly, Iyer and Achia (2020) found that minority participants reported less hope and less collective action intentions when considering ally-led versus minority-led antiprejudice coalitions.

We reasoned that these negative perceptions of nontarget allies depend on individual differences among minority perceivers. Consistent with this reasoning, Chu (2017) had Black participants varying in discriminatory expectations—an individual difference related to perceptions of Whites as hiding their true racist beliefs—rate a White or Black person confronting a racist comment. Like Iyer and Achia (2020), Black participants perceived the White confronter more negatively than the Black confronter at mean levels of discriminatory expectations. However, preference for Black versus White confronters was strongest among participants high in discriminatory expectations (Chu, 2017).

Similarly, we expected Black participants’ perceptions of White allies to depend on individual differences. Specifically, we investigated how Black participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motives to avoid appearing biased affected their perceptions of White allies.

Suspicion of Whites’ Motives

Social norms stigmatizing Whites’ racial bias result in many Whites—high and low in bias alike—being motivated to avoid appearing biased (Crandall et al., 2002; Plant & Devine, 1998). Similarly, Whites are aware that they may be perceived as racist and attempt to appear egalitarian in order to be liked (Bergsieker et al., 2010). Consequently, Whites’ displays of kindness (e.g., smiling) toward minorities are ambiguous, with some Whites’ positivity stemming from sincere, internal motivations to be nonprejudiced, while other Whites’ positivity stemming from insincere, external motivations to avoid appearing biased. This ambiguity, in turn, affects how minorities perceive Whites and their positive interpersonal behaviors.

Although uncertainty about Whites’ positivity can be detrimental to minorities overall (Crocker et al., 1991; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2010), some minority group members are more suspicious of Whites’ motives than others (Major et al., 2013, 2016). Based on research investigating Whites’ self-reported motivations to respond without prejudice (Plant & Devine, 1998), the Suspicion of Motives Index (SOMI; Major et al., 2013) was developed to assess minorities’ perceptions of Whites’ internal and external motivations to avoid bias. Minority respondents are considered suspicious to the extent that they prefer external (i.e., wanting to appear unbiased) versus internal (i.e., egalitarianism) explanations of Whites’ interpersonal positivity.

To date, research on minorities’ suspicion of Whites’ motives has focused on Whites’ motives to avoid appearing biased through interpersonal kindness and praise. For instance, suspicious versus unsuspicious minorities perceive Whites’ positive feedback as inauthentic (Major et al., 2013, 2016) and Whites’ smiles as insincere (Kunstman et al., 2016; Lloyd et al., 2017). Whereas this prior research has focused on suspicion of Whites’ motives to avoid appearing prejudiced, the present research investigated minorities’ suspicion of Whites’ motives to approach antiprejudice opportunities (i.e., confront biased remarks), and whether suspicion of Whites’ egalitarian motives explains minorities’ relative preference for ingroup activists over nontarget allies (Chu, 2017; Iyer & Achia, 2020).

Initially, we considered two possibilities. On the one hand, while antiprejudice norms may render the motives underlying Whites’ interpersonal kindness ambiguous, these antiprejudice norms do not compel Whites to identify as allies and behave accordingly. Thus, Whites’ interpersonal kindness in interracial interaction contexts may be more ambiguous than Whites’ ally behaviors. On the other hand, many ally behaviors are public (e.g., attending protests), affording possible public recognition/adulation. White’s participation in such ally behaviors may be perceived as self-interested and motivated by their desires to look good and be liked (Bergsieker et al., 2010; Droogendyk et al., 2016; Radke et al., 2020). Furthermore, research demonstrates that allies do differ on their motivations (Radke et al., 2020), likely making the underlying motives of Whites’ ally behaviors ambiguous. Whereas some White allies are internally motivated (Ostrove & Brown, 2017), others are motivated to improve their ingroup’s image to others (Hopkins et al., 2007; Radke et al., 2020), because they stereotype minorities as dependent on allies’ aid (Wakefield et al., 2012a, 2012b) or by being benevolently biased toward minorities (Estevan-Reina et al., 2020; Good et al., 2018). Similarly, Whites may behave as allies to garner more tangible rewards as well (e.g., White politicians courting minority voters; Brockman, 2013).

Taken together, racial minorities have good reason to be suspicious of Whites’ motives to engage in ally behaviors, given that Whites’ ally behaviors are similarly attributionally ambiguous to minorities as Whites’ interpersonal kindness. Thus, we investigated the effect of Black participants’ chronic suspicion of Whites’ motives on perceptions of allies and their ally efforts.

The Present Research

Across four studies, we investigated the possibility that, despite being valuable, individual White ally behaviors are attributionally ambiguous and will be perceived negatively by Black participants high in suspicion of Whites’ motives to avoid prejudice. In Study 1, we investigated Black participants’ perceptions of Whites’ internal and external motivations to be allies. We expected Black participants to perceive White allies as both highly internally and externally motivated to behave as allies, indicating that participants perceive allies as motivated by a mix of sincere egalitarianism and the desire to look good to others. Additionally, we investigated Black participants’ desire for ally participation across various ally domains, and expected participants to report valuing/desiring ally participation. We expected Black participants to value ally behaviors overall, and that suspicion would predict more negative attitudes toward ally behaviors.

Studies 2–4 investigated the downstream effects of Black participants’ perceptions of Whites’ ally motivations on perceptions of allies and their ally efforts. In Study 2, Black participants varying in suspicion of Whites’ motives formed attributions and rated the sincerity of a White or Black protestor who participated in an antiracism protest. In Study 3, Black participants varying in suspicion of Whites’ motives considered a White or Black confronter of a racist remark and formed attributions of the confrontation, rated the confronter’s sincerity, and indicated their support for the confrontation. Finally, in Study 4, Black participants considered a fictional White or Black political candidate’s proposed policies described as benefiting Black constituents and reported their attributions of the candidate’s proposals, rated the candidate’s sincerity, and indicated their likelihood of supporting the candidate.

Across Studies 2–4, we expected participants to form more internal and fewer external attributions of the Black target’s efforts than the White target’s efforts. Similarly, White allies were expected to be perceived as less sincere and their efforts supported less relative to Black targets. Furthermore, we expected participants’ preference for Black versus White targets to be strongest among participants highly suspicious of Whites’ motives.

Study 1

Method

Participants

We recruited 60 Black participants from a Cloud Research panel (Chandler et al., 2019). Unexpectedly, two non-Black participants were recruited and excluded. Simultaneously, we recruited 82 additional White participants from a separate Cloud Research study. However, only the 61 White participants were retained. The combined sample consisted of 119 participants (50.40% male; M_age = 35.40, SD_age = 11.73). Sensitivity analyses conducted using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) indicated this sample was sufficient to detect mean differences of d = 0.52 or larger, and correlations of r = ±.36 or larger, with 80% power.

Procedure

See Table 1 for descriptive statistics of focal measures.¹ Participation was online. Participants read that “nontarget allies” were people “who support the goals of civil rights organizations, but aren’t directly impacted by the results” and that “White people that are against racism” were an example of nontarget allies. Procedures were identical for all participants with two exceptions; whereas Black participants indicated how much they wanted nontarget ally participation across ally behaviors, White participants indicated their willingness to engage in the ally behaviors. Similarly, whereas Black participants indicated their perceptions of Whites’ egalitarian motivations, White participants self-reported their motivations to avoid prejudice.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and interrelations among measures: Study 1.

Measure	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Collective action (four items)	4.39	1.40	.78	-	.84***	.69***	.42**	.16	.05	.50***	-
2. Interpersonal (14 items)	5.68	1.55	.93	.63***	-	.76***	.55***	.09	.25	.39***	-
3. Political (two items)	5.24	1.32	.65	.58***	.73***	-	.84***	.14	.11	.47***	-
4. Privilege (one item)	5.26	1.60	-	.29*	.46***	.22	-	.10	.16	.31*	-
5. Avoid (three items)	4.14	1.38	.63	.37**	.11	.20	.16	-	−.06	.49***	-
6. Internal motivations	6.93	1.55	.80	.23	.51***	.32*	.23	−.11	-	−.26*	-
7. External motivations	5.45	2.15	.89	.11	.02	.12	.22	.41**	−.21	-	-
8. Suspicion of Whites’ motives	−0.57	2.33	-	−.05	−.26*	−.08	.04	.36**	−.70***	.85***	-

Note. Correlation coefficients above the diagonal are from White respondents (n = 61); correlation coefficients below the diagonal are from Black respondents (n = 58). Descriptive statistics are from the combined sample.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Measures

Ally behaviors

For Black participants, behaviors were preceded by the prompt, “I would like nontarget allies to . . .” For White participants, behaviors were preceded by the prompt, “I would . . .” Participants were presented with 21 potential ally behaviors and three avoidance behaviors (e.g., “Avoid topics of race in conversation”). Ally behaviors were organized into four factors informed by a pilot study (see the supplemental material for details): collective action (e.g., “Attend a protest or march”), interpersonal behaviors (e.g., “Confront someone by calling them a racist”), political behaviors (e.g., “Vote for political candidates that support a target group’s goals”), and privilege (e.g., “Acknowledge their privilege”). Responses were recorded on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Motivations

Next, White participants completed the 10-item Internal and External Motivations to Respond Without Prejudice Scales (Plant & Devine, 1998), and indicated their internal (e.g., “Being nonprejudiced toward Black people is important to my self-concept”) and external (e.g., “I attempt to appear nonprejudiced toward Black people in order to avoid disapproval from others”) egalitarian motives. Black participants completed adapted versions of these measures assessing their perceptions of allies’ internal (e.g., “Nontarget allies attempt to act in nonprejudiced ways toward Black people because it is personally important to them”) and external (e.g., “Nontarget allies try to act nonprejudiced toward Black people because of pressure from others”) motives. Responses were recorded on 9-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree).

As per prior research (Kunstman et al., 2016; Lloyd et al., 2017; Major et al., 2016), Black participants’ suspicion was computed by subtracting allies’ perceived internal motivations from allies’ perceived external motivations. Higher scores indicate greater suspicion. With one exception (Major et al., 2013), all of the research investigating minorities’ suspicion of Whites’ motives has used a similar difference score. Nevertheless, we provide results treating perceived internal and external motives separately in the supplemental material.²

Results and Discussion

Interrelations

Table 1 shows interrelations. Of primary importance were correlations between Black participants’ suspicion of allies’ motives and their desire for ally participation across behaviors. As suspicion increased, Black participants desired less interpersonal ally behaviors. Additionally, more suspicious Black participants desired allies to avoid ally behaviors. Surprisingly, suspicion did not predict desire for other ally behaviors (ps > .119). We speculate that suspicion failed to predict these other ally behaviors because these behaviors can be done without needing to consult with, or involve, minority beneficiaries. Thus, suspicion may only predict less desire for behaviors Black participants consider likely to directly affect them.

Motivations

Next, we investigated the nature of Black participants’ perceptions of Whites’ ally motives with a 2 (participant race: Black vs. White) x 2 (motivation: internal vs. external) mixed model ANOVA. The Participant Race x Motivation Type interaction was significant, Wilks’s Λ = .91, F(1, 117) = 11.48, p = .001, η_p² = .09 (see Figure 1). As expected, White participants indicated being more internally than externally motivated, t(117) = 6.39, p < .001, Hedges’s g = 1.12. However, Black participants perceived Whites as similarly internally and externally motivated (p = .133). Furthermore, whereas Black participants perceived Whites as similarly internally motivated as Whites self-reported, Black participants rated Whites as more externally motivated than White participants self-reported (see Table 2 for comparison statistics).

Figure 1.

Perceived and self-reported internal and external motivations among Black and White participants, respectively: Study 1.

Table 2.

Pairwise comparison results comparing White and Black participants’ responses across behavior and motivation types: Study 1.

Measure	Participant race				t	p	d
	Black(n = 58)		White(n = 61)
	M	SD	M	SD
Ally behaviors
Collective action	4.84	1.00	3.95	1.58	3.65	< .001	0.67
Interpersonal	6.75	0.90	4.66	1.33	10.38	< .001	1.83
Political	5.68	0.94	4.82	1.49	3.76	< .001	0.69
Privilege	5.26	1.60	5.26	1.62	0.01	.990	0.00
Colorblind	5.22	1.12	5.10	1.02	0.62	.536	0.11
Avoidance	3.89	1.40	4.38	1.32	1.97	.051	0.36
Motivations
Internal	6.70	1.26	7.14	1.76	1.56	.120	0.29
External	6.13	1.71	4.81	2.33	3.53	.001	0.65

Note. Whereas White participants indicated their willingness to participate in each behavior type, Black participants indicated their desire for greater ally participation across behavior types. Similarly, White participants self-reported their internal/external motivations, whereas Black participants indicated their perceptions of Whites’ internal/external motivations.

Means and standard deviations are raw.

Ally behaviors

Finally, we investigated White and Black participants’ responses across the five behavior types with a 2 (participant race) x 5 (behavior type) mixed model ANOVA. The multivariate effect of participant race was significant, Wilks’s Λ = .36, F(5, 112) = 32.99, p < .001, η_p² = .64 (see Table 2 for comparison statistics). Black participants desired more ally participation in collective action, interpersonal behaviors, and political behaviors than Whites reported being willing to provide. No other comparisons were significant, although we note that White participants reported wanting to avoid ally behaviors marginally (p = .051) more than Black participants desired from allies.

In sum, Black participants perceived nontarget allies as being similarly internally and externally motivated, suggesting Black participants perceive allies as having mixed motivations, making ally behaviors attributionally ambiguous. Furthermore, Black participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motives predicted wanting allies to avoid talking about race altogether. However, we note that although White participants indicated their own personal willingness to engage in these behaviors, Black participants responded in the abstract, without specific nontarget allies in mind. Nevertheless, our results demonstrated that despite the ambiguity surrounding nontarget allies’ motivations, Black participants still valued ally participation and desired more participation than Whites self-reported being willing to provide.

Study 2

Study 1 provided initial evidence that the motivations underlying ally behaviors are ambiguous to Black perceivers, and that suspicion of allies’ motives predicts wanting allies to avoid ally behaviors altogether. In Studies 2–4, we investigated the effect of suspicion of Whites’ motives on perceptions of allies and ally behaviors. In Study 2, participants considered a Black or White protestor who participated in an antiracist protest. We selected a public protest as our first ally behavior domain in part because research suggests that the motivations underlying Whites’ participation in public collective action can stem from internal motivations, external motivations, or both (Radke et al., 2020). Thus, Whites’ participation in public protests is likely ambiguous. Accordingly, we anticipated suspicion would predict fewer internal attributions to, greater external attributions to, and less perceived sincerity of the White protestor, and for these effects to be reversed for the Black protestor.

Method

Participants

We recruited 152 MTurk workers using a Cloud Research panel requiring Black participants (Chandler et al., 2019). Power analysis details can be found in the supplemental material. Nine non-Black participants were inadvertently recruited and excluded. Six participants failed attention checks and were excluded. Finally, we planned to exclude participants who indicated having lived in the United States for fewer than 5 years across studies, to ensure familiarity with contemporary American social justice efforts. However, this criterion did not lead to exclusions in Study 1. Exclusions resulted in 137 retained participants (63.50% female; M_age = 22.40, SD_age = 12.74).

Procedure

Participation was online. Participants read about James, a college student who had attended an antiprejudice protest. James was randomly presented as Black or White via an accompanying picture matched in terms of dress, age, facial expression, etc. (see the supplemental material for stimuli).³ Afterward, participants completed the following measures and an attention check item asking them to indicate the protestor’s race.

Measures

See Table 3 for descriptive statistics of focal measures.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics and interrelations between primary measures: Study 2.

Measure	M	SD	α	1	2	3
1. Internal attributions (three items)	5.86	0.90	.69	-
2. External attributions (two items)	2.98	1.45	.69	−24**	-
3. Sincerity (three items)	5.63	1.04	.89	.71***	−.32***	-
4. Suspicion	−0.34	2.63	-	−.18*	.14	−.22**

Note. A sensitivity analysis specifying two-tailed bivariate correlations, α = .05, and n = 137 indicated this sample could detect correlations of r = ±.24 with 80% power.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Sincerity

Participants rated James across 30 trait terms on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Embedded among fillers were three traits that formed our sincerity index (Hahl & Zuckerman, 2014): authentic, genuine, and sincere.⁴

Attributions

Participants then reported their attributions to James’s protest participation across six items on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Items were entered into a maximum likelihood factor analysis with a direct oblimin rotation (delta = 0). Two factors emerged: internal attributions (three items; e.g., “He was personally interested in it”) and external attributions (three items; e.g., “He thought it would look bad if he didn’t participate”). Reliability analyses suggested the external index’s reliability would be improved by omitting an item, which we did.

Suspicion

Participants then completed the 10-item SOMI measure on 9-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree). Perceived internal motivation responses were subtracted from perceived external motivation responses to form the suspicion index.

Although similar, we highlight important distinctions between our suspicion and attribution measures. First, while suspicion assessed perceptions of Whites’ motives to avoid behaving in biased ways generally, our attribution measures assessed perceptions of a specific person’s motives for engaging in a specific act. Second, our measures’ items assessed perceptions of a protestor’s motivations to approach an antiprejudice opportunity rather than avoid appearing biased. Finally, we note that this approach is consistent with similar prior research (Major et al., 2013, 2016).

Results and Discussion

See Table 3 for interrelations between measures.

Preliminary analyses

Suspicion

An independent-samples t test comparing suspicion scores across conditions was not significant (p = .666), indicating suspicion was unaffected by the manipulation and suitable as a predictor.

Primary analyses

The analytic plan entailed that hierarchical linear regressions were conducted with condition and suspicion entered onto Step 1, and their interaction onto Step 2.

Sincerity

Consistent with expectations and prior research (Chu, 2017; Iyer & Achia, 2020), the main effect of condition was significant, and participants perceived the White protestor as less sincere than the Black protestor (see Table 4 for descriptive statistics split by condition). Main effects of condition and suspicion, however, were qualified by the hypothesized Condition x Suspicion interaction, t(133) = 3.38, B = −0.21, p = .001 (see Figure 2A).

Table 4.

Main effects for target race on attributions, sincerity, and target support: Studies 2–4 and summary analyses.

Measure	Target race				t	B	p
	Black		White
	M	SD	M	SD
Study 2 (n = 137)
Sincerity*	5.88	0.80	5.34	1.20	3.25	−0.55	.001
Internal attributions*	6.08	0.72	5.63	1.02	3.17	−0.47	.002
External attributions	2.94	1.62	3.02	1.27	0.41	0.10	.682
Study 3 (n = 235)
Sincerity*	6.17	0.87	5.44	1.20	5.23	−0.73	< .001
Internal attributions*	6.05	0.83	5.15	1.07	7.14	−0.90	< .001
External attributions*	2.02	1.29	3.14	1.52	6.05	1.13	< .001
Confronter support*	5.92	1.16	5.53	1.15	2.62	−0.40	.009
Study 4 (n = 173)
Sincerity*	5.60	1.09	4.72	1.22	4.86	−0.86	< .001
Internal attributions*	5.87	0.90	4.80	1.16	6.71	−1.07	< .001
External attributions	4.50	1.05	5.00	1.12	2.84	0.46	.005
Candidate support*	0.84	0.10	0.77	0.09	1.04	−0.41	.298

Note. The candidate support values for Study 4 reflect predicted probabilities of indicating support for the politician (0 = no, 1 = yes). Inferential statistics were computed with participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motives included as a covariate. Conclusions are unchanged with the omission of participants’ suspicion. Outcomes marked with an asterisk (*) were predicted by a significant Condition x Suspicion interaction. Simple effects for significant interactions are discussed in the main text.

Figure 2.

Effect of protestor race on perceived protestor sincerity (A) and internal attributions to protestor (B) moderated by participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motivations: Study 2.

Largely consistent with hypotheses, suspicion did not predict perceptions of the Black protestor’s sincerity (p = .898), but as suspicion increased, the White protestor’s perceived sincerity decreased, t(133) = 4.54, B = −0.20, p < .001. Furthermore, unsuspicious participants (−1 SD) perceived both protestors similarly sincere (p = .996), but suspicious participants (+1 SD) perceived the White protestor as less sincere than the Black protestor, t(133) = 4.77, B = −1.10, p < .001.

Attributions

Internal

As expected, participants made fewer internal attributions of the White versus the Black protestor’s participation (see Table 4). However, this effect was qualified by the hypothesized Condition x Suspicion interaction, t(133) = 2.42, B = −0.13, p = .017 (see Figure 2B).

The pattern of results mirrored those of perceived sincerity. Specifically, suspicion did not predict internal attributions to the Black protestor (p = .946), but as suspicion increased, internal attributions to the White protestor decreased, t(133) = 3.41, B = −0.14, p = .001. Furthermore, whereas unsuspicious participants’ internal attributions did not differ across protestor race (p = .573), suspicious participants made fewer internal attributions of the White versus the Black protestor’s participation, t(133) = 3.99, B = −0.82, p < .001.

External

Unexpectedly, no effects were significant when predicting external attributions (ps > .090). Taken together, Black participants preferred the Black protestor to the White protestor, perceived the Black protestor as more sincere, and formed more internal attributions of the Black protestor’s participation than of the White protestor’s participation. Furthermore, preference for the Black protestor was strongest among highly suspicious participants. Although we initially expected suspicion to predict more positive perceptions of the Black protestor, we instead found that suspicion of Whites’ motives did not predict perceptions of Black targets.

Study 3

In Study 3, we conceptually replicated Study 2 in an interpersonal bias confrontation domain. Similar to protestors, we reasoned that Whites’ public bias confrontations may be perceived as internally and/or externally motivated, thereby rendering those confrontations attributionally ambiguous. Again, we expected participants to form fewer internal attributions of a White confronter’s confrontation and perceive them as less sincere than a Black confronter, particularly among suspicious participants. Despite nonsignificant results in Study 2, we investigated external attributions using a more reliable measure.

Finally, we investigated whether confronter race and suspicion predicted support for the confronter and their confrontation. Similar to Chu (2017), we expected participants to support the White confronter’s confrontation less than the Black confronter’s confrontation, particularly among suspicious participants. Like Iyer and Achia (2020), we also proposed a moderated mediation hypothesis. Specifically, we expected suspicious participants to prefer the Black versus White confronter’s confrontation directly, and indirectly through the perceived sincerity of the confronter.

Method

Participants

We recruited 252 MTurk workers via a Cloud Research requiring panel Black participants (see the supplemental material for power considerations). Eleven non-Black participants, two participants who failed an attention check, and four participants who indicated having lived in the US for fewer than 5 years were excluded, resulting in 235 participants (66.00% female; M_age = 35.45, SD_age = 16.66).

Procedure

Table 5 provides descriptive statistics of focal measures. Participants read about three men, two White and one Black. Participants read that Andy, who was White, said that he did not get a job because a Black applicant was hired instead, and suggested that the Black applicant was probably unqualified and hired because of affirmative action. Per random assignment, participants read that Andy’s White (Matt) or Black (James) friend confronted Andy’s remarks. Afterward, participants completed the following measures and an attention check where they indicated their recollection of the confronter’s race.

Table 5.

Descriptive statistics and interrelations between primary measures: Study 3.

Measure	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4	5
1. Sincerity (three items)	5.78	1.11	.88	-
2. Internal attributions (four items)	5.57	1.06	.78	.72***	-
3. External attributions (two items)	2.61	1.52	.81	−.43***	−.44***	-
4. Confronter support (two items)	5.71	1.17	.75	.58***	.58***	−.42***	-
5. Suspicion index	−0.22	2.69	-	−.19**	−.17**	.19**	−.08
6. Confrontation worthiness (six items)	5.67	1.11	.74	.46***	.37***	−.24***	.49***	−.05

Note. A sensitivity analysis specifying two-tailed bivariate correlations, α = .05, and n = 235 indicated this sample could detect correlations of r = ±.18 with 80% power.

***

p < .001. **p < .01, *p < .05.

Measures

Confrontation worthiness

Across six items, participants indicated how worthy the biased comment was of confrontation (e.g., “Did you think that Andy’s comment . . . was worthy of confronting?”) on 7-point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = definitely yes).

Confronter/confrontation support

Participants also indicated their support for the confrontation and the confronter (e.g., “I support James’s/Matt’s confrontation”) across two items on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Attributions

Participants then reported attributions to the confronter’s confrontation across seven items on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A similar factor analysis was conducted as previously described. Two factors emerged: internal attributions (four items; e.g., “. . . it was personally important to him to do so”) and external attributions (three items; e.g., “. . . he wanted to look good to the person he was with”). One item was removed from external attributions because doing so improved the measure’s reliability.

Sincerity

Participants then provided trait ratings of the confronter, including the same three sincerity index items as previously described.

Suspicion

Participants then completed the SOMI as previously described.

Results and Discussion

Preliminary results

See Table 5 for interrelations between measures.

Suspicion

Again, suspicion was unaffected by condition (p = .845), and thus could be used as a predictor.

Confrontation worthiness

A one-sample t test comparing participants’ responses to the scale midpoint (4) revealed that participants perceived the biased comment as worthy of confrontation, t(234) = 23.16, p < .001.

Primary results

The analytic plan resembled that of Study 2. Additionally, a moderated mediation analysis was conducted investigating the indirect effect of confronter race on confrontation support through perceived sincerity at high and low levels of participant suspicion.

Sincerity

As expected, participants rated the White confronter as less sincere than the Black confronter (see Table 4 for conditional comparisons). Additionally, suspicion predicted perceived sincerity. However, main effects were qualified by the hypothesized interaction, t(231) = 2.10, B = −0.11, p = .036 (see Figure 3A). Replicating Study 2, suspicion did not predict perceived sincerity of the Black confronter (p = .465), but as suspicion increased, the White confronter was perceived as less sincere, t(231) = 3.75, B = −0.13, p < .001. Furthermore, both unsuspicious (−1 SD) and suspicious (+1 SD) participants rated the White confronter as less sincere than the Black confronter, t(231) = 2.34, B = −0.44, p = .020 and t(231) = 5.32, B = −1.01, p < .001, respectively. Notably, the effect of condition was strongest among suspicious participants.

Figure 3.

Effect of confronter race on perceived confronter sincerity (A) and confrontation/confronter support (B) moderated by participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motivations: Study 3

Attributions

Internal

Again, results replicated Study 2. Specifically, participants made fewer internal attributions of the White versus Black confronter’s confrontation (see Table 4). Additionally, suspicion predicted internal attributions, but effects were qualified by the hypothesized interaction, t(231) = 3.80, B = −0.17, p < .001. Once more, suspicion did not predict internal attributions of the Black confronter’s confrontation (p = .622), but as suspicion increased, internal attributions of the White confronter’s confrontation decreased, t(231) = 4.93, B = −0.15, p < .001. Finally, both unsuspicious and suspicious participants made fewer internal attributions of the White versus Black confronter’s confrontation, t(231) = 2.62, B = −0.45, p = .009 and t(231) = 8.00, B = −1.36, p < .001, respectively. Notably, the effect of confronter race was strongest among suspicious participants.

External

Unlike Study 2, but consistent with initial expectations, participants made more external attributions of the White versus Black confronter’s confrontation (see Table 4). Furthermore, suspicion predicted external attributions, but was qualified by the Condition x Suspicion interaction, t(231) = 2.74, B = 0.18, p = .007. Consistent with prior results, suspicion did not predict external attributions of the Black confronter’s confrontation (p = .705), but suspicion predicted external attributions of the White confronter’s confrontation, t(231) = 4.60, B = 0.20, p < .001. Furthermore, both unsuspicious and suspicious participants made more external attributions of the White versus Black confronter’s confrontation, t(231) = 2.51, B = 0.64, p = .013 and t(231) = 6.40, B = 1.62, p < .001, respectively. As with other results, this effect was strongest among suspicious participants.

Confronter/confrontation support

As hypothesized, participants supported the Black confronter more than the White confronter (see Table 4). Suspicion did not predict confronter support, but the Suspicion x Condition interaction was significant, t(231) = 2.48, B = −0.14, p = .014 (see Figure 3B). Consistent with prior results, suspicion did not predict Black confronter support (p = .358). However, as suspicion increased, support for the White confronter’s confrontation decreased, t(231) = 2.61, B = −0.10, p = .010. Finally, whereas unsuspicious participants supported both confronters similarly (p = .905), suspicious participants supported the White confronter less than the Black confronter, t(231) = 3.63, B = −0.77, p < .001.

Taken together, results closely mirrored those of Study 2. These results further revealed that Black participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motives predicted perceptions of a White confronter similarly as suspicion predicted perceptions of a White protestor.

Moderated mediation

We conducted a moderated mediation analysis using Hayes’s PROCESS macro (Model 8; Hayes, 2018) with 10,000 bootstrapped samples. Condition was entered as the predictor, suspicion as the moderator, sincerity as the mediator, and confrontation/confronter support as the outcome (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Moderated mediation analysis of the effect of confronter race at low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of participants’ suspicion on confronter/confrontation support via perceived confronter sincerity: Study 3.

Replicating regression results, condition and suspicion interacted to predict perceived confronter sincerity. In turn, greater perceived sincerity predicted greater confrontation support, t(230) = 10.10, B = 0.62, p < .001. Critically, the index of moderated mediation was significant, B = −0.07, 95% CI [−0.15, −0.00], and conditional indirect effects were investigated.

Both unsuspicious and suspicious participants supported the Black confronter’s confrontation more than the White confronter’s confrontation indirectly through perceived sincerity, B = −0.27, 95% CI [−0.47, −0.07] and B = −0.62, 95% CI [−0.97, −0.35], respectively. However, pairwise comparisons revealed that the indirect effect through perceived sincerity was stronger among suspicious versus unsuspicious participants, B = −0.35, 95% CI [−0.78, −0.01].

In sum, the White confronter was supported less than the Black confronter because of the extent he was perceived as less sincere. Although this effect was present across participants’ suspicion levels of Whites’ motives, this indirect effect was strongest among suspicious participants.

Study 4

Finally, we assessed whether results replicated in the domain of political allyship. Despite innumerable differences between ally protestors, confronters, and political candidates, we expected Study 4 to replicate Studies 2 and 3.

Method

Participants

Participants were 190 MTurk workers recruited via a Cloud Research panel requiring Black participants (see the supplemental material for power considerations). Eight non-Black participants and nine participants who failed an attention check were excluded, resulting in 173 participants (63.60% female; M_age = 37.08, SD_age = 12.43).

Procedure

Table 6 provides descriptive statistics of focal measures. Participants read about James, a fictional political candidate, and three of his policy proposals about school budget reform, marijuana decriminalization, and small business tax credits. Embedded in each policy description, policies were said to uniquely benefit Black constituents. James was presented as Black or White via an accompanying picture. After reviewing the policies, participants completed the following measures and an attention check where they indicated the race of the candidate they considered.

Table 6.

Descriptive statistics and interrelations between primary measures: Study 4.

	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4
1. Sincerity (three items)	5.15	1.23	.89	-
2. Internal attributions (five items)	5.33	1.17	.89	.72***	-
3. External attributions (five items)	4.75	1.11	.76	−.33***	−.38***	-
4. Candidate support	0.80	0.10	-	.41***	.45***	−.16*
5. Suspicion index	0.59	1.98	-	−.13	−.06	.23**	.01

Note. A sensitivity analysis specifying two-tailed bivariate correlations, α = .05, and n = 173 indicated this sample could detect correlations of r = ±.21 with 80% power. The candidate support values are predicted probabilities of indicating support for the politician (0 = no, 1 = yes). The candidate support correlation coefficients are point-biserial correlation coefficients.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Measures

Unless otherwise noted, measures were completed on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Attributions

Participants reported their attributions of why James proposed his policies across 12 items. A similar factor analysis as previously described, unexpectedly, revealed three factors. First, internal attributions contained five items (e.g., “James personally cares about these policies”), external attributions contained five items (e.g., “James proposed these policies to look good”), and the unexpected third factor contained two items. This factor was not particularly reliable (α = .59), and was inconsistent with previous studies. Accordingly, we focused on internal and external attribution factors herein but provide results from this third factor in the supplemental material.

Sincerity

Participants provided trait ratings of James, including the same three ratings used to form the sincerity index.

Candidate support

Next, participants indicated whether they would or would not consider voting for James on a single dichotomous item (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Suspicion

Next, participants reported their suspicion as previously described.⁵

Results and Discussion

Preliminary results

Table 6 shows interrelations between measures.

Suspicion

Once more, suspicion was unaffected by condition (p = .290).

Primary analyses

The analytic plan resembled that of Study 3 with one exception: a logistic regression was conducted to predict candidate support.

Sincerity

As expected, the White candidate was perceived as less sincere than the Black candidate (see Table 4). However, the effect of condition was qualified by suspicion, t(169) = 2.77, B = −0.24, p = .006 (see Figure 5A). Consistent with prior results, suspicion did not predict the Black candidate’s perceived sincerity (p = .411). However, as suspicion increased, the White candidate’s perceived sincerity decreased, t(169) = 2.99, B = −0.20, p = .003. Additionally, unsuspicious participants (−1 SD) rated both candidates as similarly sincere (p = .133), but suspicious participants (+1 SD) rated the White candidate as less sincere than the Black candidate, t(169) = 5.46, B = −1.34, p < .001.

Figure 5.

Effect of candidate race on perceived candidate sincerity (A) and candidate support (B) moderated by participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motivations: Study 4.

Attributions

Internal

As expected, participants made fewer internal attributions of the White versus Black candidate (see Table 4). This effect, however, was qualified by the Condition x Suspicion interaction, t(169) = 2.55, B = −0.20, p = .012. Replicating Studies 2 and 3, suspicion did not predict internal attributions of the Black candidate’s proposals (p = .158), but greater suspicion predicted fewer internal attributions of the White candidate’s proposals, t(169) = 2.16, B = −0.13, p = .032. Consistent with Study 3, unsuspicious and suspicious participants formed fewer internal attributions of the White versus Black candidate’s proposals, t(169) = 2.97, B = −0.66, p = .004 and t(169) = 6.62, B = −1.47, p < .001, respectively. The effect of candidate race was strongest among suspicious participants.

External

Participants made fewer external attributions of the Black versus White candidate’s proposals (see Table 4). Additionally, suspicion predicted external attributions, t(170) = 2.92, B = 0.12, p = .004. Unexpectedly, the Condition x Suspicion interaction was not significant (p = .628).

Candidate support

A logistic regression was conducted predicting the likelihood of supporting James. Main effects were not significant (ps > .302). Consistent with expectations, however, the interaction was significant, Wald’s χ²(1) = 8.84, B = −0.62, OR = 0.54, p = .003 (see Figure 5B). Consistent with expectations, greater suspicion predicted less likelihood of supporting the White candidate, Z = 2.00, B = −0.31, OR = 0.73, p = .046. Additionally, greater suspicion predicted greater likelihood of supporting the Black candidate, Z = 2.22, B = 0.31, OR = 1.36, p = .026. Finally, unsuspicious participants were equally likely to support the candidates (p = .190). However, suspicious participants were less likely to support the White candidate than the Black candidate, Z = 2.76, B = −1.67, OR = 0.19, p = .006.

Moderated mediation

As in Study 3, we conducted a moderated mediation analysis using Hayes’s PROCESS macro (Model 8; Hayes, 2018) with 10,000 bootstrapped samples. Condition was entered as the predictor, suspicion as the moderator, candidate support as the outcome, and sincerity as the mediator (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Moderated mediation analysis of the effect of candidate race at low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of participants’ suspicion on candidate support via perceived candidate sincerity: Study 3.

Replicating regression results, condition and suspicion interacted to predict perceived sincerity. In turn, greater perceived sincerity predicted greater likelihood of supporting the candidate, Z = 4.45, B = 0.94, OR = 2.56, p < .001. Critically, the index of moderated mediation was significant, B = −0.23, 95% CI [−0.48, −0.07], and conditional indirect effects were investigated. The indirect effect of candidate race on candidate support was not significant among unsuspicious participants, B = −0.35, 95% CI [−0.91, 0.14]. However, suspicious participants were more likely to support the Black candidate to the extent he was perceived as more sincere than the White candidate, B = −1.26, 95% CI [−2.11, −0.70].

In sum, Studies 2–4 consistently showed the same pattern of results. Specifically, Black participants preferred Black protestors, confronters, and politicians more than similar White targets, particularly to the extent participants were suspicious of White allies’ motives to avoid appearing biased. Studies 3 and 4 further revealed that perceptions of the White versus Black targets as less sincere resulted in less support for the White confronter and White candidate relative to the Black targets. Although these effects were found at mean levels of suspicion, negative perceptions of White allies were strongest among suspicious participants.

Summary Analyses

To reconcile inconsistent results related to external attributions and to provide an overall summary of results, we calculated the meta-analytic effect size for the correlations between suspicion and perceptions of White targets across Studies 2–4, using Cumming and Calin-Jageman’s (2017) exploratory software for confidence intervals v. 3. Results can be found in Table 7 (see supplemental material for additional details).

Table 7.

Meta-analytic effects between participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motives to avoid prejudice and perceptions of White allies.

Sample	N	Outcome variable
		Sincerity	Internalattributions	Externalattributions	Allysupport
		r [95% CI]	r [95% CI]	r [95% CI]	r [95% CI]
Study 2	67	−.44 [−0.62, −0.23]	−.35 [−0.54, −0.12]	.32 [0.09, 0.52]	-
Study 3	125	−.29 [−0.44, −0.12]	−.38[−0.52, −0.22]	.35 [0.18, 0.49]	−.23 [−0.39, −0.06]
Study 4	88	−.30 [−0.48, −0.09]	−.21 [−0.40, −0.001]	.24 [0.03, 0.43]	−.22 [−0.41, −0.01]
Meta-analytic effect	280	−.33 [−0.45, −0.21]	−.32 [−0.44, −0.20]	.31 [0.19, 0.43]	−.23 [−0.36, −0.09]

Note. Given methodological differences across studies, we calculated random-effects effect sizes. However, fixed-effects effect sizes yielded the same results. For Study 4’s ally support item, the correlation coefficient reflects a point-biserial correlation.

General Discussion

Dating back to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, social justice movements have included diverse coalitions with Black and White ally members. Despite the contributions of White allies in advancing racial justice, some research suggests that Black beneficiaries may be wary of White allies. Across four studies, we investigated why allies’ efforts are sometimes perceived negatively, and identified an individual difference that predicts these perceptions.

In Study 1, Black participants perceived allies’ motives as ambiguous and comprised of equal parts of internal and external egalitarian motives. In Study 2, we investigated how within-group variations in suspicion of Whites’ motives to avoid appearing prejudiced shaped perceptions of a White versus Black protestor. Results revealed that Black participants perceived the White protestor as less internally motivated and less sincere than the Black protestor, particularly suspicious Black participants. Studies 3 and 4 conceptually replicated Study 2 in different ally contexts: interpersonal confrontations and political allyship. Additionally, Studies 3 and 4 found that participants supported White confronters and candidates less than Black confronters and candidates to the extent they were perceived as less sincere. Again, this effect was particularly strong among suspicious participants. Taken together, these results suggest that the motives underlying ally behaviors are important considerations in how minority beneficiaries perceive White allies, and identify a key individual difference that predicts these reactions.

Contributions

Although prior research suggests that minorities oftentimes perceive Whites allies’ antiracist behaviors favorably (Johnson & Pietri, 2020; Kutlaca et al., 2020; Ostrove & Brown, 2017), other research finds that allies’ efforts are met with incredulity and are perceived negatively (Cheng et al., 2019; Chu, 2017; Iyer & Achia, 2020). Our results help bridge these two seemingly divergent literatures, demonstrating that Black participants do value and desire ally participation (Study 1). However, ally efforts may be perceived negatively to the extent minority beneficiaries perceive White allies as insincere and externally motivated (Studies 2–4).

Additionally, we contribute to the literature on nontarget allies by investigating perceptions of allies across multiple ally domains within a single program of research. Specifically, prior research investigating perceptions of allies has typically focused on single ally domains (e.g., confrontations of bias), thereby limiting the generalizability of prior results to other domains. In contrast, we examined minorities’ perceptions of White allies protesting against racism, confronting racial bias, and advocating for egalitarian public policies. Critically, results were consistent across these domains and suggest suspicion of Whites’ motives extends to various types of ally behaviors.

Our findings also contribute to research surrounding minorities’ suspicion of Whites’ antiprejudice motives. Specifically, prior research has investigated minorities’ suspicion of Whites’ motives to avoid appearing biased (i.e., cloaking bias with a smile; Lloyd et al., 2017). In contrast, our findings demonstrated that these suspicions translated to perceptions of Whites’ motives to approach antiprejudice opportunities (i.e., attending an antiprejudice protest).

Finally, the present research helps situate ally research alongside research related to perceptions of prosocial actors and prosocial behavior. Specifically, prior research has found that the perceived motives of prosocial actors influence perceptions of those actors’ sincerity and of their prosocial behavior (Barasch et al., 2014; Berman et al., 2015; Hahl & Zuckerman, 2014). Similarly, the present research demonstrates that ally behaviors are perceived similarly to other types of prosocial behaviors (e.g., donating to charity).

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite these contributions, there are a number of caveats that warrant mention and call for future research. For instance, the scenarios participants considered in Studies 2–4 were deliberately designed to heighten the attributional ambiguity of the target’s antiprejudice behaviors. Similarly, participants only considered a single target engaging in a single public behavior. For instance, in Study 3, participants considered a White or Black confronter publicly confronting a biased remark. Although we designed a public confrontation scenario intentionally, and prior confrontation research often has had participants consider public confrontations, we acknowledge the possibility that results may have differed had participants considered private confrontations. Similarly, our focus on suspicion as an individual difference invites future research to investigate situational factors that may elicit more or less suspicion from minorities (i.e., “calling-in” vs. “calling-out” confrontations; Woods & Ruscher, 2021).

Additionally, we did not manipulate characteristics of the targets herein other than their race. However, some White allies likely elicit more suspicion than others. For instance, Whites vary in concern about appearing biased (Plant & Devine, 1998), vary in communal narcissism (Gebauer et al., 2012), and vary in their interracial interaction motivations to be liked or respected (Bergsieker et al., 2010). Future research ought to examine how ally characteristics interact with participants’ suspicion to predict ally perceptions.

Additionally, participants in Studies 2–4 always considered a White or Black man, and results may have differed had participants considered female allies or other racial minority allies (e.g., Asian allies against anti-Black racism) instead. Given White men are advantaged group members often stereotyped as being biased (Bergsieker et al., 2010), it is possible that members of other disadvantaged ally groups may be met with less suspicion. Future research investigating minorities’ perceptions of non-White allies and/or female allies is necessary to more fully understand Black people’s perceptions of allies and multicultural social justice coalitions.

The present research did not investigate the perceived efficacy of allies’ efforts. Are insincerely motivated allies perceived as less effective than sincerely motivated allies? Furthermore, are insincerely motivated allies actually less effective than sincerely motivated allies? On the one hand, Radke et al. (2020) highlight that various motivations can produce the same ally behaviors, and perhaps ally sincerity does not impact the effectiveness of ally efforts (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). On the other hand, research on aversive racism suggests that the underlying insincerity of a White ally may negatively affect the quality of their efforts. For instance, aversive racists may present themselves as unbiased but still express subtle microaggressions (Sue et al., 2008) and other indirect expressions of bias (Dovidio et al., 1997). In particular, aversive racism negatively impacts Whites’ efforts in prosocial domains such as health care (Dovidio et al., 2018; Penner et al., 2010). Ultimately, we believe that the effect of sincerity on ally effort effectiveness lies, in part, in the specific ally behavior. An insincere ally participating in a protest may be an effective ally simply by contributing to the size/diversity of the protest. However, an insincere confronter of bias may disempower Black beneficiaries (Chu, 2017) and/or confront in less effective ways (Monteith et al., 2019). Future research ought to investigate this open question.

Finally, we wanted to briefly discuss whether minorities’ suspicion of allies’ motives may undermine or benefit social justice coalitions. Previous research has found that more suspicious Black participants are better able to accurately discriminate between Whites’ authentic and inauthentic smiles (Kunstman et al., 2016), and are more accurate in assessing Whites’ actual external motivations to avoid prejudice (LaCosse et al., 2015). Thus, suspicion may help Black activists accurately discern sincerely versus insincerely motivated White allies and, in turn, benefit in building sincere and effective social justice coalitions. Of course, future research is needed to investigate this possibility.

Conclusion

In the quote opening this manuscript, Malcolm X highlighted the importance of the sincerity of White allies. As important as White allies may be in social justice movements, social pressures encouraging Whites to avoid appearing prejudiced render their sincerity ambiguous. Across four studies, we investigated how suspicion of Whites’ motives to behave without prejudice predicted perceptions of ally sincerity. Results consistently revealed that, despite being desired, allies’ efforts are often met with suspicion because the underlying sincerity of their efforts is ambiguous. In turn, we found that Whites’ ally efforts were supported less than the same behaviors from Black targets, particularly among those chronically suspicious of Whites’ antiprejudice motives. Our findings highlight the importance of considering racial minorities’ perceptions of allies and the importance of ally sincerity in influencing these perceptions.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-gpi-10.1177_13684302211059699 – Supplemental material for “Sincere White people, work in conjunction with us”: Racial minorities’ perceptions of White ally sincerity and perceptions of ally efforts

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-gpi-10.1177_13684302211059699 for “Sincere White people, work in conjunction with us”: Racial minorities’ perceptions of White ally sincerity and perceptions of ally efforts by Mason D. Burns and Erica L. Granz in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Andrew H. Hales, Kelsey Green, Kayla Horne, Cassidy Gunthorp, and Michal Sasson for their insightful and encouraging feedback.

Author note

Both authors contributed equally to this program of research. Authorship was determined alphabetically.

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Mason D. Burns

Erica L. Granz

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Barasch

Levine

E. E.

Berman

J. Z.

Small

D. A.

(2014). Selfish or selfless? On the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037207

Bergsieker

H. B.

Shelton

J. N.

Shelton

J. A.

(2010). To be liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018474

Berman

J. Z.

Levine

E. E.

Barasch

Small

D. A.

(2015). The braggart’s dilemma: On the social rewards and penalties of advertising prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0002

Brockman

D. E.

(2013). Black politicians are more intrinsically motivated to advance Blacks’ interests: A field experiment manipulating political incentives. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12018

Brown

K. T.

Ostrove

J. M.

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

Chandler

Rosenzweig

Moss

A. J.

Robinson

Litman

(2019). Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 2022–2038. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7

Cheng

S. K.

L. C.

Traylor

A. M.

King

E. B.

(2019). Helping or hurting?: Understanding women’s perceptions of male allies. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 5, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2019.02.006

Chu

(2017). Target perceptions of prejudice confrontations: The effect of confronter group membership on perceptions of confrontation motive and target empowerment [Master’s thesis, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis]. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Repository. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/12347

Crandall

C. S.

Eshleman

O’Brien

(2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359

10.

Crocker

Voelkl

Testa

Major

(1991). Social stigma: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.218

11.

Cumming

Calin-Jageman

(2017). Introduction to new statistics: Estimation, open science, and beyond. Routledge Press.

12.

Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

(2004). Aversive racism. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–52). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(04)36001-6

13.

Dovidio

J. F.

Kawakami

Johnson

Howard

(1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510–540. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1997.1331

14.

Dovidio

J. F.

Pearson

A. R.

Penner

L. A.

(2018). Aversive racism, implicit bias, and microaggressions. In Torino

G. C.

Rivera

D. P.

Capodilupo

C. M.

Nadal

K. L.

Sue

D. W.

(Eds.), Microaggression theory: Influence and implications (pp. 16–31). Wiley.

15.

Droogendyk

Wright

S. C.

Lubesnky

Louis

W. R.

(2016). Acting in solidarity: Cross-group contact between disadvantaged group members and advantaged group allies. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12168

16.

Estevan-Reina

de Lemus

Megias

J. L.

(2020). Feminist or paternalistic: Understanding men’s motivation to confront sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02988

17.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

18.

Gebauer

J. E.

Sedikides

Verplanken

Maio

G. R.

(2012). Communal narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 854–878. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029629

19.

Good

J. J.

Sanchez

D. T.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

(2018). A paternalistic duty to protect? Predicting men’s decisions to confront sexism. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 19, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000077

20.

Gulker

J. E.

Mark

A. Y.

Monteith

M. J.

(2013). Confronting prejudice: The who, what, and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8, 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.736879

21.

Hahl

Zuckerman

E. W.

(2014). The denigration of heroes? How the status attainment process shapes attributions of considerateness and authenticity. American Journal of Sociology, 120, 504–554. https://doi.org/10.1086/678304

22.

Haley

. (1965). The autobiography of Malcolm X: As told by Alex Haley. Ballantine Books.

23.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

24.

Hildebrand

L. K.

Jusuf

C. C.

Monteith

M. J.

(2020). Ally confrontations as identity-safety cues for marginalized individuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 1318–1333. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2692

25.

Hopkins

Reicher

Harrison

Cassidy

Bull

Levine

(2007). Helping to improve the group stereotype: On the strategic dimension of prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 776–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301023

26.

Iyer

Achia

(2020). Mobilized or marginalized? Understanding low status groups’ responses to social justice efforts led by high-status groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000325

27.

Johnson

I. R.

Pietri

E. S.

(2020). An ally you say? Endorsing White women as allies to encourage perceptions of allyship and organizational identity-safety among Black women. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220975482

28.

Jones

K. N.

Brewster

M. E.

Jones

J. A.

(2014). The creation and validation of the LGBT Ally Identity Measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000033

29.

Kunstman

J. W.

Fitzpatrick

C. B.

(2018). Why are they being so nice? Social identity threat and the suspicion of Whites’ motives. Self and Identity, 17, 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1413007

30.

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, 1193–1205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216652860

31.

Kutlaca

Becker

Radke

(2020). A hero for the outgroup, a black sheep for the ingroup: Societal perceptions of those who confront discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 88, Article 103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103832

32.

LaCosse

Tuscherer

Kunstman

J. W.

Plant

E. A.

Trawalter

Major

(2015). Suspicion of Whites people’s motives relates to relative accuracy in detecting external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.007

33.

Lloyd

E. P.

Kunstman

J. W.

Tuscherer

Berstein

M. J.

(2017). The face of suspicion: Suspicion of Whites’ motives moderates mental representations of Whites. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 953–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617699251

34.

Major

Kunstman

J. W.

Malta

B. D.

Sawyer

P. J.

Townsend

S. S. M.

Mendes

W. B.

(2016). Suspicion of motives predicts minorities’ responses to positive feedback in interracial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.007

35.

Major

Sawyer

P. J.

Kunstman

J. W.

(2013). Minority perceptions of Whites’ motives for responding without prejudice: The Perceived Internal and External Motivation to Avoid Prejudice Scales. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213475367

36.

Marshburn

C. K.

Folberg

A. M.

Crittle

Maddox

K. B.

(2021). Racial bias confrontation in the United States: What (if anything) has changed in the COVID-19 era, and where do we go from here? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24, 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220981417

37.

Mendoza-Denton

Goldman-Flythe

Pietrzak

Downey

Aceves

M. J.

(2010). Group-value ambiguity: Understanding the effects of academic feedback on minority student’s self-esteem. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609357796

38.

Monteith

M. J.

Burns

M. D.

Hildebrand

L. L.

(2019). Navigating successful confrontations: What should I say and how should I say it? In Mallett

R. K.

Monteith

M. J.

(Eds.), Confronting prejudice and discrimination: The science of changing minds and behaviors (pp. 225–248). Elsevier Academic Press.

39.

Ostrove

K. T.

Brown

J. M.

(2017). Are allies who we think they are?: A comparative analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12502

40.

Penner

L. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

West

T. V.

Gaertner

S. L.

Albrecht

T. L.

Dailey

R. K.

Markova

(2010). Aversive racism and medical interactions with Black patients: A field study. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 436–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.004

41.

Plant

E. A.

Devine

P. G.

(1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811

42.

Radke

H. R. M.

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, 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320918698

43.

Rasinski

H. M.

Czopp

A. M.

(2010). The effect of target status on witnesses’ reactions to confrontations of bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903539754

44.

Rattan

Ambady

(2014). How “it gets better”: Effectively communicating support to targets of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213519480

45.

Subašić

Hardacre

Elton

Branscombe

N. R.

Ryan

M. K.

Reynolds

K. J.

(2018). “We for She”: Mobilising men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 707–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218763272

46.

Sue

D. W.

Capodilupo

C. M.

Nadal

K. L.

Torino

G. C.

(2008). Racial microaggressions and the power to define reality. American Psychologist, 63, 277–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.4.277

47.

Wakefield

J. R. H.

Hopkins

Greenwood

R. M.

(2012a). Meta-stereotypes, social image, and help seeking: Dependency-related meta-stereotypes reduce help-seeking behavior. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2126

48.

Wakefield

J. R. H.

Hopkins

Greenwood

R. M.

(2012b). Thanks, but no thanks: Women’s avoidance of help-seeking in the context of a dependency-related stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312457659

49.

Winslow

M. P.

Aaron

Amadife

E. N.

(2011). African Americans’ lay theories about the detection of prejudice and nonprejudice. Journal of Black Studies, 42, 43–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934709357025

50.

Woods

F. A.

Ruscher

J. B.

(2021). “Calling-out” vs. “calling-in” prejudice: Confrontation style affects inferred motive and expected outcomes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60, 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12405

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

2.44 MB