Arts, Faculty of
Psychology, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
De Souza, Lucille (Lucy)
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
Despite increased popular and academic interest, allyship is a conceptually ambiguous phenomenon. This dissertation reflects my arc of discovery in addressing the question “What is allyship?” In Chapters 1 and 2, I introduce my theoretical model, the Typology of Allyship Action, which characterizes allyship actions as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and/or proactive (fostering positive outcomes such as inclusion and capacity), both of which can vary in scope (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional). In Chapter 3, I develop and validate scenario-based stimuli that exemplify action forms distinguished in the typology. In subsequent quantitative studies, I use these stimuli to demonstrate meaningful differences in reactive and proactive actions’ effectiveness (evaluations of personal inclusion and workplace culture). As past work largely focuses on the benefits of confrontation, these studies newly demonstrate the unique advantages of proactive action (e.g., increasing disadvantaged group members’ social fit and workplace commitment). Acknowledging the limitations of quantitative paradigms, in Chapter 4, I explored lived experiences of allyship through qualitative methods. I describe findings from a focus group study of professional women who shared their perspectives on and experiences with allyship in STEM. In this work, I used reflexive thematic analysis to inductively understand women’s definitions of allyship, distinctions between actions, and their outcomes. Women’s perspectives both complemented (e.g., viewing allyship as an ongoing pattern of multiple behaviors) and complicated (e.g., focusing on advantaged status rather than group identity) the Typology of Allyship Action. Providing theoretical and empirical insight through both quantitative and qualitative methods, this dissertation offers conceptual clarity on what allyship is and suggestions for future research on the phenomenon.
WHEN PEOPLE DO ALLYSHIP: A TYPOLOGY OF ALLYSHIP ACTION by LUCILLE (LUCY) DE SOUZA B.A., Wesleyan University, 2016 M.A., Wesleyan University, 2017 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2019 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2023 © Lucille (Lucy) De Souza, 2023 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: When people do allyship: A typology of allyship action submitted by Lucille (Lucy) De Souza in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology Examining Committee: Dr. Toni Schmader, Professor, Psychology, University of British Columbia Supervisor Dr. Jennifer Berdahl, Professor, Sociology, University of British Columbia Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Stephen Wright, Professor, Psychology, Simon Fraser University Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Ara Norenzayan, Professor, Psychology, University of British Columbia __ University Examiner Dr. Joey Hoegg, Professor, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia University Examiner Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Dr. Nancy Sin, Professor, Psychology, University of British Columbia Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract Despite increased popular and academic interest, allyship is a conceptually ambiguous phenomenon. This dissertation reflects my arc of discovery in addressing the question “What is allyship?” In Chapters 1 and 2, I introduce my theoretical model, the Typology of Allyship Action, which characterizes allyship actions as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and/or proactive (fostering positive outcomes such as inclusion and capacity), both of which can vary in scope (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional). In Chapter 3, I develop and validate scenario-based stimuli that exemplify action forms distinguished in the typology. In subsequent quantitative studies, I use these stimuli to demonstrate meaningful differences in reactive and proactive actions’ effectiveness (evaluations of personal inclusion and workplace culture). As past work largely focuses on the benefits of confrontation, these studies newly demonstrate the unique advantages of proactive action (e.g., increasing disadvantaged group members’ social fit and workplace commitment). Acknowledging the limitations of quantitative paradigms, in Chapter 4, I explored lived experiences of allyship through qualitative methods. I describe findings from a focus group study of professional women who shared their perspectives on and experiences with allyship in STEM. In this work, I used reflexive thematic analysis to inductively understand women’s definitions of allyship, distinctions between actions, and their outcomes. Women’s perspectives both complemented (e.g., viewing allyship as an ongoing pattern of multiple behaviors) and complicated (e.g., focusing on advantaged status rather than group identity) the Typology of Allyship Action. Providing theoretical and empirical insight through both quantitative and qualitative methods, this dissertation offers conceptual clarity on what allyship is and suggestions for future research on the phenomenon. iv Lay Summary This dissertation reflects my arc of discovery in addressing the question “What is allyship?” In Chapters 1 and 2, I introduce the Typology of Allyship Action to organize the various ways that advantaged individuals can support people with less power. I distinguish between reactive (challenging bias) and proactive (fostering inclusion) action, both of which can vary in scope (addressing one’s own, other individuals’, or institutions’ actions). In Chapter 3, I find unique advantages of proactive compared to reactive action (e.g., increasing feelings of inclusion and improving workplace culture). In Chapter 4, I interview professional women who share their perspectives on allyship in STEM. Women’s perspectives both support (e.g., viewing allyship as consistent behaviors) and challenge (e.g., including all identity groups) the Typology of Allyship Action. Together, this dissertation clarifies what allyship is and provides suggestions for future research on the topic. v Preface All work presented henceforth was conducted in the Social Identity Laboratory at the University of British Columbia, Point Grey Campus. All projects and associated methods, reflected in Chapter 3 [certificate #H19-01211] and Chapter 4 [certificate #H22-00394], were approved by the University of British Columbia’s Research Ethics Board. I (Lucy De Souza) was the lead investigator for all projects reflected in this dissertation, responsible for all major areas of concept formation, data collection, and analysis, as well as manuscript composition. Dr. Toni Schmader was the supervisory author on these projects and was involved throughout the projects in concept formation and manuscript edits. vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... xiiii Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Dissertation Context ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Defining Allyship ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Dissertation Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2: The Typology of Allyship Action Framework ....................................................... 12 Distinguishing Reactive from Proactive Allyship Action: Timing, Aim, and Focus .................... 14 Considering Level: Allyship Actions Addressing Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Institutional Issues ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Comparing the Unique Benefits and Constraints of Reactive and Proactive Allyship Action Broadly ................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Emerging Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 46 Chapter 2 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 3: The Perceived Effectiveness of Reactive and Proactive Allyship Action ............ 53 Chapter 3 Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 56 Study 1 .................................................................................................................................................................. 58 Study 2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 70 Study 3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 74 Study 4 .................................................................................................................................................................. 83 General Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 90 Chapter 3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 94 Chapter 4: Complementing and Complicating the Typology of Allyship Through an Interpretive Paradigm ................................................................................................................ 96 Research Context ............................................................................................................................................... 96 Research Goals ................................................................................................................................................... 99 Method ................................................................................................................................................................ 101 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 105 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................... 128 Chapter 4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 135 Chapter 5: Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 136 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 145 Appendix A: Preregistered Sample Size Calculations (Studies 1-4) ..................................... 166 vii Appendix B: Study 1 Materials and Additional Analyses ..................................................... 168 Stimuli and Measures (Study 1a) ................................................................................................................ 168 Stimuli and Measures (Study 1b) ............................................................................................................... 170 Additional Analyses ........................................................................................................................................ 172 Appendix C: Study 2 Materials and Additional Analyses ..................................................... 181 Stimuli (Study 2a) ........................................................................................................................................... 181 Stimuli (Study 2b) ........................................................................................................................................... 182 Study 2a&b Measures .................................................................................................................................... 184 Additional Analyses ........................................................................................................................................ 185 Appendix D: Study 3 Measures and Additional Analyses ..................................................... 188 Stimuli and Measures (Study 3a) ................................................................................................................ 188 Stimuli and Measures (Study 3b) ............................................................................................................... 189 Study 3a&b Measures .................................................................................................................................... 191 Additional Analyses ........................................................................................................................................ 193 Appendix E: Study 4 ................................................................................................................. 201 Stimuli and Measures ..................................................................................................................................... 201 Additional Analyses ........................................................................................................................................ 204 Appendix F: Focus Group Protocol ........................................................................................ 206 viii List of Tables Table 3.1 Scenario sets reflecting proactive and reactive action at two levels 61 Table 3.2.1 Study 1a exploratory factor analysis: factor loadings and communalities based on a maximum likelihood analysis with direct oblimin rotation for scenario (s) measures 65 Table 3.2.2 Study 1b confirmatory factor analyses 66 Table 3.3 Study 1a&b descriptive statistics and main effects of action type from mixed ANOVA analysis 67 Table 3.4 Study 2a&b descriptive statistics and main effects of action type from mixed ANOVA analysis 73 Table 3.5 Study 4 outcome variables regressed on proactive action frequency, controlling for perceptions of gender bias 88 Table 3.6 Study 4 correlation matrix reflecting action frequency and outcome variables 88 Table 3.7 Study 4 descriptive statistics 89 Table 4.1 Summary of themes 105 Table A.1 Study 1a&b Cronbach alphas for each scenario composite 175 Table A.2.1 Study 1a&b mixed analyses of variance tests, controlling for participant identity 176 Table A.2.2 Study 1a&b mixed analyses of variance tests, effects involving participant identity 177 Table A.2.3 Study 1a&b descriptive statistics for time, aim, and focus items 178 Table A.3 Study 2a&b descriptive statistics for outcome variables 185 ix Table A.4 Study 2a&b mixed analysis of variance tests for outcome variables, controlling for participant identity 186 Table A.5 Study 3a&b mixed analysis of variance tests for outcome variables, controlling for participant identity 193 Table A.6 Study 3a&b descriptive statistics for outcome variables 194 Table A.7 Study 3a&b descriptive statistics for standing variable 200 Table A.8 Study 3a&b mixed analysis of variance tests for standing, controlling for participant identity 200 Table A.9 Study 4 mean level comparisons of action frequency by type, level, and agent gender 204 Table A.10 Study 4 social identity threat: awareness of gender regressed on proactive action frequency, controlling for perceptions of gender bias 204 Table A.11 Study 4 outcome variables regressed on action frequency, controlling for perceptions of gender bias 205 x List of Figures Figure 1.1 Google searches for “what is allyship?” from January 2019–December 2021 (Google Trends, 2022) 2 Figure 1.2 Distinguishing reactive from proactive allyship action 14 Figure 1.3 Reactive and proactive allyship action at three levels 21 Figure 2.1 Study 2a&b descriptive statistics and main effects of action type from mixed ANOVA analysis 78 Figure 2.2 Study 3b mean and (standard deviations) for impact for racial/ethnic equality outcome variables and pairwise comparisons from mixed ANOVA 79 Figure A.1 A priori power analyses for studies 1-3 165 Figure A.2 A priori power analyses for Study 4 166 Figure A.3.1 Factor loadings for time: before 172 Figure A.3.2 Factor loadings for time: after 172 Figure A.3.3 Factor loadings for time: contingent 172 Figure A.3.4 Factor loadings for aim: decrease bias 173 Figure A.3.5 Factor loadings for aim: increase inclusion 173 Figure A.3.6 Factor loadings for focus: perpetrators 173 Figure A.3.7 Factor loadings for focus: those potentially affected by bias 174 Figure A.4.1 Study 3a time manipulation checks 196 Figure A.4.2 Study 3a aim manipulation checks 196 Figure A.4.3 Study 3a focus manipulation checks 197 Figure A.4.4 Study 3a level manipulation checks 197 Figure A.4.5 Study 3b time manipulation checks 197 xi Figure A.4.6 Study 3b aim manipulation checks 198 Figure A.4.7 Study 3b focus manipulation checks 198 Figure A.4.8 Study 3b level manipulation checks 198 xii Acknowledgements To Dr. Toni Schmader— this six-year-long endeavor would not have been possible without your mentorship. Thank you, Toni, for your unwavering guidance, constructive feedback, and belief in my ideas. I am and will continue to be inspired by your passion for social psychology and I am profoundly grateful to take what I have learned from you into my next academic chapter. To my supervisory committee (Dr. Jennifer Berdahl, Dr. Nancy Sin, and Dr. Steven Wright)— I am deeply appreciative of your feedback on earlier drafts of this dissertation. Thank you (as well my examiners) for your invaluable suggestions for moving this research forward. To past and present members of the Social Identity Lab (Audrey Aday, Carmelle Bareket-Shavit, Dr. Kate Block, Dr. Tara Dennehy, Yingchi Guo, Holly Engstrom, Dr. Christa Nater, my research assistants Andrea Camacho and Joel Braun who provided feedback on this work, and the many other research assistants who have supported our research) — Many thanks for your ideas and encouragement throughout the years. It is wonderful having you as an academic family. To my peers (especially “the cohort”)— Thank you for your friendship, including but not limited to first-year happy hours, SPSP adventures, and statistics help. To Jason Winikoff— Thank you for much-needed weekend couch time. There’s nothing like doing nothing with you. To my family— Thank you for your love across the continent and for driving me to/from EWR, various trains, and a ferry throughout my grad school career. I am thrilled to be continuing my academic path on your side of North America. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Social inequities and exclusion are persistent problems but have received renewed attention and public conversation in recent years. Examples of these conversations range from the lack of diverse representation in the cultural sphere (#OscarsSoWhite) to challenging the ubiquity of sexual abuse and harassment (#MeToo). One of the largest dialogues has centered around the legacy and prevalence of racism in the United States. Black Lives Matter (gaining new momentum in late May 2020) sparked nationwide conversations about the importance of taking concrete action beyond solely expressing support. Notably, these conversations have involved not just those who are disadvantaged by social prejudice and inequities, but also members of advantaged groups, those who enjoy positions of power and privilege. As evidence that this might be a new phenomenon in need of greater conceptual clarity, Dictionary.com named the word “allyship” its word of the year in 2021. Further demonstrating public interest in the concept of allyship, Google Trends (2022) shows that internet searches of the question “What is allyship?” grew rapidly in late May 2020, reaching its peak in the subsequent summer (Figure 1.1). 2 Figure 1.1 Google Searches for “What is Allyship?” from January 2019–December 2021 (Google Trends, 2022) Paralleling increased public interest in understanding allyship, academics have sought to describe what allyship is conceptually and in practice. Although the question “what is allyship” may appear straightforward, social psychological papers on this topic are diverse and fragmented. First, scholars diverge in how they define allyship as a concept. Second, there are several bodies of literature describing actions that constitute allyship, but they remain largely distinct from one another. Only a few papers discuss multiple actions at once (e.g., Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Cheng et al., 2018; 2019; Gonzalez et al., 2015; Ostrove & Brown, 2018) and make indirect attempts to integrate multiple literatures under one framework. For these reasons, the allyship literature is vast but wanting in structure and difficult to navigate. My goal is to provide this structure, an overarching theoretical typology to distinguish between and drive empirical comparisons of multiple forms of allyship action. 3 Dissertation Context Before discussing previous allyship research and how this dissertation contributes to this literature, it is important to provide context for my work. First, this dissertation reflects my arc of discovery in developing the Typology of Allyship Action. I present my research in the order that it was conducted, representing the evolution of my conceptualization of allyship over time and in response to the research I have conducted. Chapters 1 and 2 reflect my starting assumptions and definitions, providing the theoretical foundation of a Typology of Allyship Action. Through my empirical research (Chapters 3 and 4), I refine this original model of allyship and conclude (Chapter 5) with my developed conception of what allyship is and involves. By providing this context, I do not mean to imply that my theoretical work presented in Chapters 1 and 2 is ultimately unsupported (on the contrary, it is predominately supported by my empirical research). Rather, it is a note to consider Chapters 1 and 2 as capturing a moment in my thinking, rather than reflecting a static, unchanging definition of allyship. Second, it is important to recognize my orientation towards allyship as a topic. Historically allyship research has largely centered on the perspectives of advantaged group members (Brown & Ostrove, 2013). Although more empirical studies are investigating allyship from the perspectives of disadvantaged group members (e.g., Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Collier-Spruel & Ryan, 2022; Hildebrand et al., 2020), I argue that the social psychological literature lacks theoretical models of allyship that explicitly prioritize the perspectives of disadvantaged group members. I believe this lack of active centering of disadvantaged group members’ views is problematic. Sharing the view held by many community groups and activists (e.g., McKenzie, 2014; PeerNet BC), I argue that the power to define allyship should be given to those it seeks to serve rather than members of advantaged groups. Otherwise, conceptions of allyship risk being 4 unhelpful or, at worst, harmful to the people that allyship seeks to serve. I preface this dissertation with this brief note on my positionality to contextualize several theoretical (e.g., taking a practice versus identity-oriented view of allyship in Chapter 1) and methodological choices (e.g., prioritizing sampling women in STEM in Chapter 4) that I make in my work. Defining Allyship Reflecting on “allyship” as the 2021 word of the year, Sheree Atcheson (2021) emphasized, “To recognize allyship now in this way is notably powerful- it brings the word into a more mainstream, accessible platform, perhaps meaning that real change can be potentially affected.” Atcheson (2018; 2021) nevertheless cautions against allyship as simply a buzzword, stressing that allyship is an action-oriented practice that should not depend on being forced to do so when issues arise. In line with Atcheson’s conceptions of allyship, I likewise stress that allyship is an ongoing practice of actions that expand beyond calls to action. Who Practices Allyship? In my definition, allyship is centered on actions taken by individuals who have an advantaged identity (i.e., hold relatively higher societal status, relevant to the social issue at hand, compared to the groups they seek to support). This is not to suggest that people who share similar group status or identities do not take meaningful action. However, I distinguish support where there is unequal status (allyship) from where there is shared status (perhaps better defined as solidarity, e.g., Burson & Godfrey, 2020; Craig et al., 2020). For example, I perceive a Black and White American person challenging anti-Asian-American bias as qualitatively different. In the former case, a Black American person is “stigmatized within the same dimension of identity” (Craig et al., 2020, p.43), sharing similar experiences of race-based inequities. In contrast, a 5 White American person likely does not share experiences of racial inequities given their membership in an advantaged racial group. Recognizing that identities are multi-faceted and valuing considerations of intersectionality, I do not suggest that people who identify with certain advantaged groups are never in solidarity with others (e.g., a person may hold more power in some ways and less power in other ways due to their social group memberships). I also recognize that there is cross-cultural variation in how advantaged versus disadvantaged group categorizations are construed and which inequalities are most psychologically relevant to groups (van Zomeren, 2019). For this reason, I emphasize the importance of context; whether an agent’s action reflects allyship or solidarity is dependent on the social justice issue(s), salient identities, and power dynamics between the agent and the person(s) they seek to support. Moreover, my emphasis on individual actors, rather than groups acting, does not imply that these actions are irrelevant to larger social group dynamics. Allyship in my view involves individuals whose advantaged or disadvantaged status is not due to their individual identities, but rather is tied to their belonging to groups that hold system-level differences in power and status. Additionally, allyship is driven by the actor's recognition of unequal and illegitimate intergroup relations. Taken together, individuals and their interactions with others are related to and embedded in larger cultural/societal structures and are often determined by the place of their own and other groups within that larger cultural/societal structure (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Pettigrew, 1997; 2018). Nevertheless, I believe there is a meaningful distinction between advantaged group members taking action on their own (allyship) versus taking action together as a group (e.g., coalitions). Allyship as Practice, Rather than Identity-oriented 6 Despite its new prevalence as a term, definitions of allyship vary. Variation in how allyship is conceptualized is not necessarily a problem; multiple perspectives allow for nuanced discussion of what allyship is. Nevertheless, the concept remains difficult to pin down without an explicit discussion of how it is studied. Below I enter this discussion, describing two common orientations towards allyship, and subsequently provide the lens through which I approach studying allyship. Several conceptualizations of allyship within the social psychological literature are identity-oriented, defining allies as “[people who are members] of the ‘dominant’ or ‘majority’ group who work to end oppression in his or her personal and professional life through support of, and as an advocate with and for, the oppressed population” (Washington & Evans, 1991, p.195). Allies are those who are able and willing to be involved in social justice efforts, an identity that emerges from attitudes and experiences (e.g., education, interracial relationships; Broido, 2000; Broido & Reason, 2005; Reason et al., 2005; also see Drury & Kaiser, 2014). For people of color, allies are those who are high in affirmation (e.g., respectful, caring) and informed action (willing to be active in their support; Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Ostrove & Brown, 2018; see also Jones et al., 2014 and Park et al., 2022 for similar discussion). Radke and colleagues (2020) note that members of advantaged groups who take action to rebuild or repair their own group’s threatened status or tarnished image or seek to meet their own personal needs do not meet the criteria for being an ally (allies are instead genuinely motivated to improve the status of disadvantaged groups). Similarly, Craig et al. (2020) find evidence that dominant-group allies are both highly identified with their in-group but also cognizant of their group’s power and thus aim to dismantle the systems of power that privilege them. In sum, the social psychological literature 7 has often defined allyship as an identity, emphasizing that certain behaviors and motivations designate certain people as allies. Although scholarship using an identity-oriented perspective provides insight into motivations of the advantaged group member and the desires of the group being supported, I challenge the concept of ally-as-identity with a practice-oriented perspective. Allyship from this perspective is not a title or stable identity, but a chronic practice of actions that must be recognized by those they seek to support (Atcheson 2018; 2021; PeerNet BC, 2016; Pierce, 2015). Put simply, people are not allies; people do allyship. This perspective is not entirely in conflict with more identity-oriented definitions (they both emphasize the importance of behavior and egalitarian motivation), but it does set a higher standard for what allyship is. The importance of chronic practice appears in research on disadvantaged group members’ perceptions of allyship; as Cheng and colleagues (2019) found that amongst working women, “Although single actions certainly had the power to be effective and remained salient in women’s minds, continual actions tended to be described as more effective on the whole” (p.47). I define allyship as a custom (1) comprised of several actions rather than one action alone taken by advantaged group individuals, which are (2) motivated by egalitarian goals to support outgroups that are disadvantaged and (3) are or would be recognized as supportive by those they seek to support. First, because systemic social-identity based issues materialize in various ways, it follows that allyship, as a practice to address these issues, must also vary. Second, I emphasize the importance of egalitarian goals because advantaged group members whose motivations are in-group or self-focused are likely to take public but not private action, provide dependency-oriented help, and/or deprioritize the needs of those they seek to support (Radke et al., 2020; Shnabel et al., 2016; perceived as “allyship missteps” by members of disadvantaged groups; 8 Collier-Spruel & Ryan, 2022). In contrast, egalitarian-motivated actions (compared to alternative motivations such as paternalism) are more likely to empower those whom advantaged individuals seek to support (Estevan-Reina et al., 2021). Supporting my argument that egalitarian motivations are important to the definition of allyship, those who are higher in social dominance orientation (supporting group-based hierarchies and inequalities, Pratto et al., 1994) are less willing to enact allyship (Fletcher & Marvell, 2022). Third and finally, actions taken as part of an allyship practice must be perceived as supportive or empowering by the person or people they seek to serve. Actions are aligned with the purpose of allyship to support and empower only when they center on what disadvantaged group members desire or need. Although this practice-oriented approach makes allyship more challenging to do, it also moves the concept of allyship from a buzzword to a more concrete and meaningful tool for addressing social inequalities. Moving away from an allyship-as-identity perspective toward a practice-oriented approach also helps us identify and avoid allyship missteps by self-described “allies,” whose well-intentioned actions can be misinformed and harmful to members of disadvantaged groups (Collier-Spruel & Ryan, 2022). However, my practice-oriented definition of allyship need not diminish the impact of singular actions that people take in support of disadvantaged groups. Instead, I believe that it is important to differentiate between allyship as a sustained practice and the singular behaviors that aspire to constitute this practice. I call these singular behaviors allyship actions. Allyship Actions An allyship action is any singular behavior taken to support disadvantaged groups. Thus, within the broader domain of allyship as a practice, people can carry out specific allyship actions. Importantly, however, no single allyship action meets the criteria to constitute an 9 allyship practice, just as no single health behavior constitutes a healthy lifestyle (Short & Mollborn, 2015). The social psychological literature is rich with exemplars of allyship actions and their impact. For example, confrontation is an effective way to curb prejudice, particularly when the confronter is not from the group targeted by the prejudice (Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Eliezer & Major, 2012; Rasinski & Czopp, 2010). Seeking interactions with outgroup individuals can reduce prejudicial attitudes by fostering positive connections with people one does not commonly interact with (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000; 2006). Further research has examined how and what individuals from advantaged groups can do to be supportive of social change initiatives (Droogendyk et al., 2016a; Droogendyk et al., 2016b; Louis et al., 2019). As these bodies of literature have traditionally focused on in-person contexts, I predominately discuss offline action. However, allyship actions can and do occur in virtual contexts. Given the ubiquity of the internet, there has been increased attention to online action; for example, researchers have elucidated the impact of online collective action efforts (Greijdanus et al., 2020) and amplification of voices through social media (Clark, 2019). I consider allyship actions in virtual spaces in my discussion of emerging research questions. Again, my typology adds to a still small but growing range of papers on what I call allyship actions (e.g., Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Chen et al., 2023; Cheng et al., 2019; Collier-Spruel and Ryan, 2022; Gonzalez et al., 2015; Ostrove & Brown, 2018; Sue et al., 2019). The novel impact of my work is providing a broader framework to organize the diversity of actions that constitute allyship; I call this framework the Typology of Allyship Action. 10 Dissertation Overview With this definition of allyship (actions) in mind, this dissertation reflects three papers. Chapter 2 is a theoretical paper in which I introduce my Typology of Allyship Action. This typology is comprised of two core conceptual distinctions that are themselves orthogonal to one another. As the primary, definitional dimension, I propose that allyship actions can be evaluated as reactive or proactive behaviors that are distinguished by three indicators: timing, aim, and focus. I then explain how these actions can be described by their intended scope (a secondary dimension): is the action aimed at addressing bias and inclusion at the individual, interpersonal, or institutional level? To describe reactive and proactive action at various levels, I review and incorporate several exemplars if not prolific areas of research (i.e., bias control, confrontation, supporting collective action efforts, seeking positive contact, positive cross-group relationships, and inclusive leadership) that can be integrated into my typology. After establishing and exemplifying this typology, I compare the unique benefits of and hurdles to taking one type of action versus another. The typology described in Chapter 2 not only provides an organizing framework for several existing literatures, but also provides a tool for directly comparing the outcomes of various actions. Therefore, Chapter 3 reflects an empirical paper in which I develop and validate scenario-based stimuli which represent action forms distinguished in the typology. In this empirical work, I use my scenario-based stimuli to demonstrate meaningful differences in actions’ outcomes. More specifically, I test hypotheses about the ways in which reactive and proactive forms of action differ in their effectiveness; I operationalize effectiveness in several ways to capture various benefits and constraints (i.e., subjective evaluations of actions’ impact on 11 feelings of inclusion and workplace culture). Chapter 3 examines the impact of these actions in the context of both gender and racial issues. With a theoretical framework and quantitative empirical studies supporting it, I then seek to understand how the typology of actions aligns with people’s lived experiences. Chapter 4 reflects an interpretivist, qualitative study of professional women’s experiences and perceptions of allyship in STEM. Using focus groups and reflexive thematic analysis, I gain a more bottom-up perspective on definitions of allyship, distinctions between actions, and their benefits and constraints. Women’s stories both complemented and complicated my typology and quantitative findings, supporting and expanding my understanding of allyship. 12 Chapter 2: The Typology of Allyship Action Framework Despite claims of progress toward equality, group-based bias still exists. According to a Pew Research survey (Parker & Funk, 2017) of working professionals, women are approximately three times more likely than men to experience repeated, gender-based slights at work and sexual harassment. In a national survey on racism in Canada, 54% of Black and 53% of Indigenous people report experiencing racial or ethnic discrimination from time to time, if not regularly (Neuman, 2019). From these statistics on race and gender alone, it is clear that many members of disadvantaged identity groups in North America experience harassment and unfair treatment as well as more subtle forms of bias, which can have detrimental outcomes both personally and professionally (Murrar et al., 2017; Pascoe & Richman, 2009). For example, women in male-dominated fields who experience gender bias or a lack of inclusion subsequently experience social identity threat (an awareness of being judged through the lens of a devalued identity), which in turn predicts psychological burnout, poorer performance, and exit from societally valuable domains (Hall et al., 2015; Logel et al., 2009; Moss-Racusin et al., 2018). Similarly, LGBTQ+ STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) employees who face harassment and devaluation in their workplaces more frequently experience health difficulties and have stronger intentions to leave the field (Cech & Waidzunas, 2021). Given the harmful outcomes of bias, it is unsurprising that a major form of allyship action discussed in social justice literatures is to speak out against oppression (reflected in the popularity of bystander intervention research; for review see, Labhardt et al., 2017 and Nelson et al., 2011). I describe these types of allyship action as reactive: behaviors aimed at decreasing or counteracting bias when it occurs (De Souza & Schmader, 2022). In the context of goals for 13 equity, inclusion, and diversity (EDI), reactive action1 strives to foster EDI through decreasing or countering threats to these goals. Although addressing bias when one sees it is important, it is not the only way to support members of disadvantaged groups. Research demonstrates that members of disadvantaged groups often find themselves in situations where they report feeling a general lack of belonging (Cheryan et al., 2009; Walton & Cohen, 2007), an inability to be themselves (Cheryan & Markus, 2020; Schmader & Sedikides, 2018), or a chilly climate that is not always attributable to explicit negative treatment (Hall et al., 2019). For example, one nationally representative survey revealed that U.S. professionals from minoritized ethnic/racial groups experienced less belonging (e.g., feeling seen for their contributions, connected to coworkers, supported in their daily work and career development) in their workplaces than their White counterparts (Kennedy & Jain-Link, 2021). Feeling as if one does not belong or cannot be oneself could certainly be due to active exclusion and disrespect, however, these feelings can also be attributed to not fitting cultural defaults (Cheryan & Markus, 2020; Schmader & Sedikides, 2018). Although not necessarily attributable to biased events, interactions, or policies, social identity and belonging threat are nonetheless harmful to well-being, performance, and health (Major & Schmader, 2018; Spencer et al., 2016). For example, the social identity threat literature demonstrates that detecting the potential for identity-based devaluation can hinder performance and increase disengagement in the setting (Steele, 1997; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). Given the prevalence of belongingness threat, people can support members of disadvantaged groups not only by reacting to bias when it occurs, but also anticipating inequity, exclusion, and a lack of diversity. From the very start of an interaction, people can communicate 1 I use reactive/proactive action and reactive/proactive allyship action interchangeably. 14 respect for, invite equal participation from, and foster inclusion of members of disadvantaged groups to promote personal growth, positive experiences, and inclusive spaces. I describe these forms of behavior as proactive allyship actions. Distinguishing Reactive from Proactive Allyship Action: Timing, Aim, and Focus Figure 1.2. Distinguishing Reactive from Proactive Allyship Action With these definitions of reactive and proactive action, I can identify three features that distinguish them from one another: 1) timing (when the allyship action occurs in relation to bias occurring), 2) aim (the immediate goal of the allyship action), and 3) focus (who or what the allyship action is focused on addressing). As I expand upon below, timing, aim, and focus refer to the proximal context, rather than a distal context (broader circumstances). I discuss each of these features in turn. I recognize that actions are nuanced; it is not the case that an allyship action must include all three features to be considered reactive or proactive. Instead, I suggest that whereas timing is a definitional distinction, aim and focus are correlates that naturally follow 15 distinctions in time and assist in holistically differentiating a reactive from proactive allyship action. Distinguishing between reactive and proactive action in these ways broadens the scope of language and improves my understanding of what constitutes allyship. Timing: When Does the Allyship Action Occur in Relation to a Specific Event? By definition, reactive and proactive actions differ in timing. Reactive actions are triggered by or contingent on a specific event (i.e., the presence of bias). Because social inequities are often systemic, one might argue that any form of action is a secondary, or reactive, intervention. Philosophically, I agree with this point; all actions in support of disadvantaged group members are in response to the group’s marginalization. Nevertheless, reactive actions are unique in that there is a specific and proximal cue to bias that is observed and consequentially addressed. For example, for men to confront sexism (I categorize confrontation as reactive action), men must see or hear sexist comments, jokes, or behavior. Although similarly intending to foster EDI goals, proactive action differs from reactive action in that it is less contingent on a specific event occurring. In other words, people are not time constrained in taking proactive action, because they do not need to wait to see a biased event happen. For example, without seeing bias, people can take measures to ensure that disadvantaged racial/ethnic groups’ voices are centered in discussion, create job and educational opportunities for recent immigrant or refugee groups, or offer mentorship to early career women in male-dominated fields. Some forms of allyship action are necessarily contingent on a negative event and therefore reactive (e.g., confrontation). I nevertheless note that context, specifically whether there is an event cueing bias, can shift whether an action is relatively more reactive or proactive. Consider someone offering mentorship to early career women in male-dominated fields. Mentorship is most typically offered without a specific negative cue to do so and therefore I 16 generally categorize it as a proactive action. However, if mentorship is offered after someone sees women being actively excluded, this same action becomes a more reactive measure to mitigate the impact of active exclusion. The timing of when actions occur in relation to proximal bias is the primary distinction between reactive and proactive action. Nevertheless, it is important to consider allyship action features that accompany timing as they have additional implications for comparing outcomes of reactive and proactive allyship actions. Aim: What is the Proximal Goal of the Allyship Action? A second feature distinguishing reactive from proactive action is the behavior’s intended aim. Is the goal of the allyship action to address and reduce negative experiences or to foster and encourage positive experiences? I argue that for reactive actions, the proximal goal is to mitigate and/or counteract bias. For example, speaking up against a classist remark has the proximate goal to diminish the legitimacy of the statement and/or attenuate the impact that the comment has on targeted people. In other words, reactive actions aim to decrease negative experiences (by reducing bias itself as well as its immediate negative consequences). In contrast, proactive actions aim to increase feelings of, experiences of, and/or capacity for inclusion and respect. For example, including women socially and professionally in male-dominated workplaces (aiming to increase inclusion), recruiting people of color for higher ranked positions (aiming to increase representation), and educating oneself on how to support people with disabilities (aiming to increase self-efficacy) are all proactive actions. I again recognize that allyship actions can have both reactive and proactive qualities in aim. Intentions to decrease the negative and increase the positive can coexist for a particular action, but it is nonetheless conceptually valuable to categorize actions by their predominant and proximal intention. It is possible that reactive actions are also aimed at increasing the positive, 17 such as increasing feelings of inclusion by making it clear that expressions of prejudice will not be accepted in an organization. However, I suspect that here, the resulting feelings of inclusion are more of a distal aim than an immediate one. Reactive actions are first and foremost aimed at decreasing the bias that can create disparities for members of disadvantaged groups; it is only through decreasing the negative that reactive action aims to increase the positive. In a similar way, proactive actions might, in the long run, decrease the negative (i.e., the expression of biases), for example by raising awareness of racism and creating powerful norms for how to challenge it. Here, a long-term goal to decrease the negative might be accomplished from shorter term goals to increase positive outcomes. By increasing positive outcomes, such as feelings of psychological safety for another person or self-efficacy in recognizing what bias could look like, proactive action might also build resiliency against or capacity to address negative events in the future. Again, there is room for nuance; efforts to promote psychological safety might themselves be reactive if they come in response to a specific incident of exclusion. Focus: Whom or What is the Allyship Action Focused On? The third feature that distinguishes reactive and proactive allyship action is whether the focus of the action is on the perpetrator as the causal source of bias or on the individuals who stand to immediately benefit from the action. When reactive action is aimed at decreasing the negative, the proximal focus of the action (i.e., who or what does the action intend to affect) is on the perpetrators of the observed incident of bias. Perpetrators are not limited to another individual; they can be groups of people, oneself, or institutional policies, practices, and norms. Imagine a man who works in an office where women and non-binary colleagues are actively excluded. If this man intends to decrease the alienation felt by his female and non-binary colleagues, he will focus his attention on the source of this exclusion: confronting other men 18 when they make problematic jokes, speaking out against exclusionary institutional norms, and apologizing for his own behaviors when he realizes he has been exclusionary. Paralleling my conception of aim, the distal focus of the action may be those who are potentially affected by bias; in speaking out against sexist behaviors and practices, a man may certainly have women and non-binary people’s feelings of inclusion in mind. However, the proximal focus of the allyship action is the perpetrator, rather than those the action consequentially affects. As proactive action is aimed at increasing positive outcomes, it is more likely to center foremost on people and groups that will benefit from the action. Proactive actions often concern members of groups that are disadvantaged in society, ensuring that those who could be potentially silenced and ignored are given equitable opportunities and resources. However, those who are not systemically disadvantaged can likewise be the focus of proactive action. For example, members of advantaged groups can educate people in their in-group about social inequalities. Education in this case benefits advantaged group members, centered on their learning and perhaps reducing their expressions of bias in the future. As with time and aim, I recognize that similar actions can have differing foci across contexts. For example, if an advantaged group member acts (e.g., educating others) because problematic behaviors have recently occurred, this action becomes a more reactive measure focused on proximal perpetrators. In sum, my typology distinguishes between two different types of action: those that are reactive to distinct episodes of bias when they occur and those that proactively aim to foster inclusion among those with the potential to feel marginalized. Although not always mutually exclusive, proactive and reactive action are generally distinguished by differences in their proximal timing, aim, and focus. Beyond the conceptual benefits of these distinctions, 19 considering timing, aim, and focus can also be beneficial in practice. For someone striving to practice effective allyship, reflecting on timing, aim, and focus allows for a deliberate decision on what actions might be most impactful in their specific contexts.2 Next, I consider how, orthogonal to this distinction, allyship action can also differ by level, or the scope of the issue addressed. Both reactive and proactive actions can be directed at oneself (intrapersonal), at another (interpersonal), or at institutional practices and policies. Considering Level: Allyship Actions Addressing Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Institutional Issues A core assumption underlying my approach is that people’s experiences of bias and inclusion occur within a localized cultural context whereby attitudes, beliefs, behavioral norms, and policies are mutually constituted at different levels of analysis (Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Stephens et al., 2021). Institutional policies and practices can foster cultural practices systemically through rules, procedures, and incentive structures. Those systemic cultural signals can then shape the nature of people’s interpersonal interactions, which in turn have consequences for individuals’ own experiences. But individuals’ own attitudes and beliefs can also shape how they interact with one another and the degree to which they support changes to systemic structures in that organization. When members of the advantaged group (those of the cultural default) engage in reactive or proactive action, they might do so with the hope of enacting a change in their local culture at any of these levels of analysis (Dang & Joshi, 2022; Schmader et al., 2020; Sue et al., 2019). This multi-level understanding of what culture is suggests that 2 The reactive and proactive distinction is one meaningful dimension to categorize and compare allyship action. There are certainly alternative dimensions that scholars may consider when classifying them. For example, actions might be distinguished by a prevention versus promotion intention or focus on in-group versus out-group members. Discussing these alternative dimensions are beyond the scope of this paper but could be important to consider in future research. 20 allyship actions in one’s local culture could be targeted at any of these three different entry points (Schmader et al., 2020). For example, at two levels of analysis, Sue and colleagues (2019) distinguish between individuals’ actions (micro-interventions) that address micro-aggressions (individual perpetrators’ behaviors) and macro-aggressions (changing institutional practices and social policies). However, in the existing literature, scholars have tended to propose and test theories for only one type of action at one level of analysis. In my review, I seek to demonstrate that reactive and proactive actions occur at each of these three levels. I do this by organizing some of the most prominent bodies of social psychological literature into a two (Type of Action: Reactive, Proactive) by three (Level of Action: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Institutional) typology. As emphasized in my definition of allyship above, I always refer below to an individual acting, although the individual’s action targets intrapersonal, interpersonal, or institutional level issues. Although I acknowledge that this typology might not cover the entirety of research on possible action, I believe it provides a coherent conceptual framework by which traditionally separate literatures can be integrated and compared. In addition, my goal is not to provide an exhaustive review of research in each category, but rather to highlight the broader conceptual distinctions among them. 21 Figure 1.3. Reactive and Proactive Allyship Action at Three Levels Reactive Allyship Action at the Intrapersonal Level: Bias Control Where do intergroup biases come from and how do I address them? Seeking answers to these questions, social psychologists have long attended to the prejudicial attitudes, stereotyped beliefs, and discriminatory behaviors of individuals as a main arena for change (Grzanka & Cole, 2021). When framed as individual-level allyship action, efforts to change one’s own prejudicial attitudes, stereotypes, and/or discriminatory behavior can be labeled intrapersonal reactive action. In other words, these are actions evoked when people recognize that their own beliefs and behavior are mismatched with their egalitarian values, setting in motion efforts to actively control, inhibit, or address those negative thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. For example, one might actively reflect on assumptions they have about outgroups, apologize for problematic behaviors, and/or make efforts to avoid repeating them. 22 Encompassing some of these examples, one area of literature that best exemplifies intrapersonal reactive action is bias control, where individuals work to actively downregulate or suppress their own negative intergroup attitudes or stereotypes (for review see Monteith et al. 2016). I center on bias control from people who actively strive to be egalitarian (i.e., those internally motivated to respond without prejudice; Amodio et al., 2008; Amodio et al., 2003; Devine et al., 2002; Klonis et al., 2005). This is not to suggest that people who are primarily externally motivated do not engage in self-regulation (e.g., Blanchard et al., 1991; Monteith et al., 1996). However, only bias control from those who are internally motivated fits my definition of allyship action as they are acting for the purpose of supporting disadvantaged groups. Research on bias control assumes that those who aim to support members of disadvantaged groups are egalitarian in their beliefs. However, distinct from their explicitly reported beliefs and values, these same egalitarian-minded people can hold implicit attitudes and stereotypes (Devine, 1989; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; also see Payne & Gawronski, 2010), associating members of certain social groups (e.g., Black-Americans) with negative feelings or thoughts (e.g., aggression) that can be automatically activated. When these cognitions or affective responses are activated, they may engender biased behavior (e.g., evaluating Black Americans as more hostile in ambiguous situations; Devine, 1989; Devine & Monteith, 1999; Dovidio et al., 1997; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993; Dovidio et al., 2002). Timing. Although some have proposed that these automatic processes are beyond one’s control (Bargh, 1999), most research suggests that people can engage in controlled processes to diminish expressions and consequences of bias (Blair, 2002; Cunningham et al., 2004; Devine, 1989). Such control assumes that people catch themselves thinking or behaving in biased ways, are motivated to downregulate these reactions, and have the cognitive capacity to do this 23 effectively. In this way and in the context of my time feature, bias control strategies are typically reactive actions because they are executed in the presence or in response to (one’s own actual or potential for) bias. As a concrete example, research has examined how bias control can be facilitated by implementation intentions: “If-Then” plans that allow people to act against their own biased thoughts or behavior (Gollwitzer, 1999; Mendoza, et al., 2010). A person identifies an “if” situation relevant to their biases (e.g., If I realize I am making assumptions about a woman’s expertise) and develops a “then” plan to counter it (e.g., …then I will take a moment to reflect on where that thought is coming from and how it is incorrect). Another well-discussed form of bias control is to replace automatically activated stereotypes by reflecting on counter stereotypic exemplars (Blair & Banaji, 1996; Blair et al., 2001; Joy-Gaba & Nosek, 2010). I reemphasize that there is room for nuance in describing actions through my typology. Planning an “If-Then” strategy or reflecting on counterstereotypes without a specific cue may be considered more proactive, as doing so is not contingent on bias or stereotypes occurring (and decreases bias/stereotypes through increasing one’s knowledge of what is (not) biased or stereotypical). However, the actual implementation of an If-Then plan or counter stereotyping as a bias control strategy can be considered a reactive action as it occurs only in the presence of bias (and is centered on mitigating the specific problematic thought or behavior). Aim. Research on the impact of bias control reveals that these strategies fit the aim feature of reactive action: bias control successfully diminishes individuals’ problematic thought and behavior patterns. Monteith’s (1993) self-regulation of prejudice model suggests how bias control strategies meet the aim to reduce bias: after thinking or behaving in a biased way (reflecting bias control’s contingency on bias occurring), people experience incongruity between their values and their behavior. This in turn increases negative affect and reflection on one’s 24 behaviors (e.g., guilt; Amodio et al., 2007; Monteith et al., 2002; Monteith & Mark, 2005). Activating the behavioral inhibition system, this experience subsequently creates cues for control: people become conscious of the cues to their bias and can better avoid having the same response in future, similar contexts (Monteith, 1993; Monteith & Mark, 2005). In line with Monteith’s self-regulation model, research on specific bias control strategies demonstrates their success in reducing bias. For instance, implementation intentions reduce stereotyping, specifically by changing one’s automatic processes (Stewart & Payne, 2008). Challenging one’s biases with counterstereotypes decreases stereotyping (Blair & Banaji, 1996; Blair et al., 2001; Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004; Joy-Gaba & Nosek, 2010; although see Hugenberg et al., 2010). Focus. With an aim to identify and reduce the specific biases that individuals hold, the direct focus on bias control is on the self as a perpetrator of bias. Bias control is effective in helping perpetrators of bias increase their awareness of and challenge their beliefs and behaviors, both in the shorter and longer term (e.g., Devine, 2012). Moreover, self-regulation strategies can also increase perpetrators’ concern for discrimination generally (Devine et al. 2012; 2017; although these interventions also include proactive strategies such as perspective-taking and intergroup contact, reviewed below). Intrapersonal reactive action identifies and mitigates bias, focused on oneself as the perpetrator (e.g., actions described in the bias control literature). Nevertheless, not all actions at the intrapersonal level necessarily involve addressing negative thoughts and behaviors; intrapersonal proactive action can be taken without the presence of bias. Proactive Allyship Action at the Intrapersonal Level: Seeking Positive Contact Like intrapersonal reactive action, intrapersonal proactive actions are behaviors focused inward on the self. However, intrapersonal proactive actions differ in that the aim is not to 25 mitigate one’s own problematic biases, but rather to expand one’s capacity to support members of disadvantaged groups by actively increasing more positive attitudes and beliefs about outgroups. People who take intrapersonal proactive action might strive to become more conscientious about social inequalities, seek opportunities to learn about other groups, or preemptively develop skills to confront bias. For example, in The Nature of Prejudice, Gordon Allport (1954) suggests that people must be open to new experiences with other groups to become more fair-minded. Thus, one example of intrapersonal proactive action is when members of an advantaged group seek out positive contact as a strategy to broaden their own understanding of the outgroup. It might seem counterintuitive to categorize seeking positive contact as an intrapersonal strategy, given the interpersonal nature of contact. I differentiate intrapersonal from interpersonal level actions by examining who the action is first and foremost oriented towards (i.e., is it for the benefit of oneself or another individual). In this way, I argue that positive contact can vary in scope depending on the primary objective of the action. Seeking positive contact as a method for self-expansion, as often described in the intergroup contact literature (for further discussion, see Wright & Lubensky, 2009), is more oriented towards the advantaged group member themselves. I view seeking positive contact in this way as qualitatively different from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships (i.e., where both groups directly benefit from the interaction; see my interpersonal proactive section below). Although advantaged group members hope to gain knowledge about outgroup members, they might often still be focused on broadening one’s own perspective rather than benefiting outgroup members per se. I acknowledge that beyond taking action to seek out positive contact, beneficial aspects of that contact likely do move toward the interpersonal level. Beginning with Gordon Allport 26 (1954) and reformulated by Thomas Pettigrew (1998), intergroup contact theory suggests that cross-group interactions are effective in reducing prejudice, specifically when they allow for learning about the outgroup, adopting new behaviors, creating affective ties, reappraising one’s ingroup, and providing an opportunity for cross-group friendships (Pettigrew, 1998; for empirical support of intergroup contact theory, see Lemmer & Wagner, 2015; Pettigrew & Tropp 2000; 2006). When positive contact results in these friendships, there is a potential for allyship action at the interpersonal level, which I will discuss in more detail below. First, I further justify why the act of seeking out intergroup contact is an intrapersonal proactive action. Aim. Although prejudice reduction is a downstream consequence of intergroup contact, I believe that the more immediate aim of intergroup contact is not a reactive effort to reduce one’s own prejudice but the proactive aim to foster positive experiences. Allport (1954)’s original contact hypothesis suggests that prejudice reduction is a direct outcome of intergroup contact, only possible under certain conditions (equal status, common goals, cooperation, and support of authority). However, recent theorists frame Allport and Pettigrew’s conditions for successful intergroup contact not as prerequisites, but as social psychological processes driving attitude change (Wright, 2009a; Wright et al., 2008; Wright & Van der Zande, 1999). I believe these mediating processes are often immediate aims of contact and are proactive in nature. For example, intergroup contact engenders perspective taking that subsequently promotes positive feelings and empathy towards outgroups (Batson et al., 2003; Batson et al., 1997; Dovidio et al., 2010; Finlay & Stephan, 2000; Pagotto et al., 2010; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Stephan & Finlay, 1999; Vescio et al., 2003). Moreover, intergroup contact can motivate people to support reconciliation between groups and promote future positive contact (for a review of this empirical work, see Tropp, Mazziotta, & Wright, 2017). These positive outcomes of intergroup 27 contact are found cross-culturally; for instance, intergroup contact predicted stronger awareness of discrimination towards transgender people in Hong Kong (King et al., 2009) and greater perspective taking and trust towards ethnic minority members in Northern Cyprus, Romania, and Israel (Çakal et al., 2021). Beyond affective experiences, intergroup contact can catalyze cognitive processes such as stereotype disconfirmation and enhancing knowledge of the outgroup (Davies et al., 2011; Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Tausch & Hewstone, 2010; Wright et al., 2004). Taken together, intergroup contact is most impactful in giving rise to positive, capacity-building experiences for advantaged group members (although it can also buffer people from negative experiences, specifically anxiety and threat; Barlow et al., 2009; Binder et al., 2009; Blascovich et al., 2001; Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Levin et al., 2003; Page-Gould et al., 2008; Pagotto et al., 2010; Paolini et al., 2004; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000; 2008; Stephan et al., 2002; Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Tropp & Barlow, 2018; Voci & Hewstone, 2003; see Techakesari et al., 2015 in the context of Hong Kong and Thailand; also see Stephan, 2014 for review). Thus, seeking out positive contact might typically be aimed at promoting personal growth first, not reducing one’s own biases. Focus. Seeking out intergroup contact (as a form of allyship action) is most proximally aimed at engendering these positive outcomes rather than challenging bias. It follows then that it is a proactive action focused on the individual (i.e., the advantaged group member) most directly affected by the action (i.e., experiencing a change in attitudes, perspective, or outlook). This is not to imply that intergroup contact is never focused on outcomes for disadvantaged group members (which I discuss in my section on interpersonal proactive action), but it is important to 28 differentiate seeking intergroup contact to change one’s own attitudes from having the sort of contact that builds mutually beneficial relationships. Time. Finally, considering the time feature, seeking out intergroup contact falls within the proactive category as making efforts to diversify one’s own perspectives and social networks is not contingent on the presence of bias. A motivation to seek out diversity in one’s life for self-expansion (e.g., Dys-Steenbergen et al., 2016; Paolini et al., 2016), learning (e.g., Migacheva & Tropp, 2012), or because one values diversity (e.g., Tropp & Bianchi, 2006) can inspire interest in interpersonal contact (also see Paolini et al., 2018), without needing a biased cue to do so. In sum, intrapersonal proactive actions are focused on increasing individuals’ understanding of and capacity for supporting those from disadvantaged groups. Seeking out positive contact involves engagement with disadvantaged group members; however, if the goal is centered on the personal growth of the advantaged group member, the action is intrapersonal rather than interpersonal in nature. In the next section, I next describe how actions can expand beyond the individual and center on one or multiple others. Reactive Allyship Action at the Interpersonal Level: Confrontation Interpersonal reactive actions are behaviors targeted towards another or several other individuals to directly address bias. With this definition in mind, confrontation is the most prototypical form of interpersonal reactive action (although there are certainly other behaviors that would fall under this classification, e.g., educating people who express biased beliefs, identifying problematic assumptions in others’ arguments; Sue et al., 2019). Confrontation is broadly defined as “expressing one’s dissatisfaction with prejudicial and discriminatory treatment to the person who is responsible for the remark or behavior” (Shelton et al., 2006, p.3). 29 Time. Although confrontation behaviors are all characterized by an expression of dissatisfaction, these expressions can take various forms (Chaney & Sanchez, 2021; Woodzicka & Good 2020): verbal or non-verbal (e.g., frowning, looking away, eye-rolling; Saucier et al., 2020), direct or indirect signals of condemnation (e.g., comments of inappropriateness versus low stakes prodding, questioning, sarcasm/humor, and grumbling; Swim & Hyers, 1999; Woodzicka & Good, 2020; Woodzicka et al., 2020; see Czopp & Ashburn-Nardo, 2012 for further review), and high or low threat (e.g., accusatory/calling a person bigoted versus expressing disapproval of prejudice without threatening a person’s self-conception as a “good person”; Becker & Barretto, 2014; Chaney & Sanchez, 2021; Czopp et al., 2006). Regardless of form however, all confrontation behaviors fall under the reactive category because of their timing. By definition, confrontation requires something to challenge. In my context, interpersonal confrontation involves responding to specific cues to bias perpetuated by one or several individuals. Focus. Additionally, interpersonal confrontation is focused on perpetrators of action. Interpersonal confrontation can certainly benefit those who are potentially impacted by bias; confrontation can buffer targeted group members from lowered self-confidence, self-stereotyping, decreased task performance (Cihangir et al., 2014) and protect identity-safety (specifically when confrontations are affirmed by bystanders; Hildebrand et al., 2020). However, the direct focus of the action is not on the people who are potentially affected but addressing the person or few people who are responsible for harm. Aim. With a focus on the source of bias, the aim of interpersonal confrontation is to mitigate its presence and future occurrence. Research demonstrates that confrontation is effective in this aim; when confronted, perpetrators experience negative affect (e.g., guilt, rumination), 30 which in turn promotes behavioral change. For example, the confronted subsequently find problematic jokes less funny, use fewer stereotypes, and become better at detecting problematic behavior in the future (Chaney & Sanchez, 2018; Czopp et al., 2006; Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Mallett & Wagner, 2011). In other words, interpersonal confrontation is most proximally directed at reducing or changing the prejudiced thoughts or behaviors of others. Interpersonal reactive actions, best exemplified by confrontation, occur in response to bias. These actions are focused on perpetrators, as one or several other individuals, with the goal to raise awareness of, punish, and/or reduce social biases. As is the case with intrapersonal actions however, interpersonal actions are not always in response to negative biased events. Below, I discuss how interpersonal actions can likewise be proactive. Proactive Allyship Action at the Interpersonal Level: Positive Cross-Group Relationships Like interpersonal reactive actions, interpersonal proactive actions are externally focused. However, as my model suggests, interpersonal proactive actions are explicitly aimed at improving the experiences of one or a few individual members of minoritized groups. The focus is not on addressing perpetrators or broadening one’s own perspective as an advantaged group member (although the latter may still happen as an outcome) but supporting those who are at risk of feeling or being excluded based on their social identity. People can take interpersonal proactive action to support members of disadvantaged groups in various ways, including but not limited to providing resources and opportunities to one or a few individuals, supporting their endeavors, and conveying respect for their perspectives, contributions, and experiences. Above, I alluded to how seeking out positive contact can be an intrapersonal proactive allyship action if done for one’s own benefit. However, when intergroup contact is a mutually beneficial relationship, it can be a powerful strategy for improving outcomes for disadvantaged 31 group members. For this reason, I consider intergroup contact that takes the specific form of longer-lasting, mutual relationships as a form of interpersonal proactive action. Below, I draw from research on the impact of positive contact that focuses on chronic and reciprocated relationships specifically (e.g., colleague interactions, cross-group friendships). Timing. Unlike confrontation, which includes actions that directly address perpetrators of bias, proactive interpersonal actions are not responsive to bias. Rather, they seek to foster inclusion in those at risk of feeling marginalized before or without a specific biased event occurring. Through positive contact, advantaged group members have a privileged opportunity to signal inclusion in environments where disadvantaged group members may be attentive to potential identity-based judgments (Dwertmann et al., 2018). Demonstrating the impact of positive contact independent from the presence of bias, Hall and colleagues (2018; 2019) found that positive workplace conversations with men in their organization most strongly predicted identity safety for women in STEM. The same benefits were not observed for having similarly supportive interactions with women. Moreover, women’s negative experiences of identity threat and burnout were predicted by the absence of interpersonal support, not by the presence of hostility or conflict. Such findings support my claim that actions from advantaged group members can be uniquely beneficial and need not be reactions to bias. Focus. Positive contact as interpersonal action is similar to positive contact as intrapersonal action in that the focus is on the beneficiaries of the action. As with intrapersonal positive contact, advantaged group members can benefit from relationships with members of disadvantaged groups. However, positive contact at the interpersonal level expands beyond the advantaged individual by also focusing on supporting or improving the experiences of disadvantaged group members. Although my conception of focus is oriented towards 32 beneficiaries, this distinction parallels that of Trawalter and Richeson’s (2006) prevention versus promotion approaches, where the focus is on positive interaction with a disadvantaged group member rather than one’s own biases. Through establishing mutual relationships, members of advantaged groups are not only addressing their desires to become more knowledgeable and supportive people, but also benefitting those they engage with. This reflects an interpersonal proactive aim. Aim. The immediate aim of positive contact in meaningful relationships is to increase positive outcomes for members of disadvantaged as well as advantaged groups (thus it is interpersonal, rather than intrapersonal. In general, intergroup contact that develops into longer-lasting cross-group relationships promotes friendship, closeness, and self-expansion which subsequently cultivates positive attitudes toward outgroup members (Davies et al., 2011; Davies et al., 2011; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Tropp et al., 2017; Wright, 2009a; Wright et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2004). For example, cross-group dialogue has been found to increase capacity for perspective taking amongst both Israeli-Jewish and Arab-Palestinian adolescents, leading to decreased tension and increased empathy in interactions (Influs et al., 2019). In addition to these general benefits for everyone, cross-group friendships have been found to increase feelings of belonging and satisfaction among disadvantaged group members who are susceptible to feeling excluded (Mendoza-Denton & Page-Gould, 2008; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2006). Moreover, positive cross-group ties can increase individuals from disadvantaged groups’ resiliency against the psychological harm of exclusion (both anticipated and actual, e.g., Marinucci et al., 2021; Page-Gould et al., 2014; Page-Gould et al., 2008). In sum, intergroup contact as relationships exemplifies how interpersonal proactive actions can be taken at any time (they are not dependent on witnessing bias) and aim to increase 33 positive outcomes for one or multiple others. Nevertheless, both proactive and reactive action is not and should not be limited to interactions between individuals. Biases do not only manifest in interpersonal actions or judgments; they are also often embedded in institutional systems. I next highlight actions that seek to engender equity, diversity, and inclusion at institutional levels. Reactive Allyship Action at the Institutional Level: Supporting Collective Action Efforts As described in my reviews above, the social psychological literature has traditionally centered on individuals and the interactions between them as the source of bias. Nevertheless, researchers over the past several decades have also considered the ways in which people address social inequities rooted in institutional practices. I define this type of action as institutional reactive: behaviors that challenge biased policies, practices, and norms that systematically disadvantage specific groups of people. These behaviors address issues embedded in structures, larger than single individuals or the interactions between them. I emphasize that individuals can be agents of institutional reactive action, but the target of the action expands beyond problematic individuals. For example, individuals can protest institutional practices and systemic biases that harm disadvantaged groups and speak out against oppressive norms (Sue et al., 2019). In the social psychological literature, research on support for collective action best represents this institutional reactive action, as it is focused on improving the status or influence of an entire disadvantaged group in society (Becker, 2012; van Zomeren & Iyer, 2009; Wright et al., 1990). Although collection action, by definition, occurs at the level of groups not individuals, collective action research often assesses individuals acting as representatives of a disadvantaged group to participate in or support a group-performed action such as signing a petition or joining a 34 demonstration (Becker, 2012; van Zomeren & Iyer, 2009).3 Additionally, collective action can take both normative (e.g., political participation, peaceful demonstrations, petitions) and non-normative (e.g., violence, civil disobedience) forms (Becker & Tauch, 2015; Shuman et al., 2020; Tausch et al., 2011), although I review research on the former. Although collective action research has attended to systematically disadvantaged groups participating in struggles for power and/or justice (Simon & Klandermans, 2001; Wright & Lubensky, 2009), advantaged group members can and do participate in movements. Joining movements and banding with disadvantaged group members around shared opinions promotes support and participation for advantaged groups (McGarty et al., 2009; Thomas & McGarty, 2009). Advantaged group members can be particularly impactful in speaking up against and changing sources of systemic biases at the institutional level as they are often more likely to have the power and resources to persuade others or enact change directly (Iyer & Leach, 2009). It is crucial however to highlight an alternative perspective of how advantaged group members should take institutional reactive action. Collective action is often described specifically as action without direct participation from dominant outgroups (Drury et al., 2015) which is necessary to motivate an empowered front amongst the disadvantaged group (Dixon et al., 2012; Droogendyk et al., 2016b; Drury et al., 2015; Iyer & Achia, 2021; Nadler et al., 2009; Nadler & Halabi, 2006; Radke et al., 2016; Wright & Lubensky, 2009; Wright & Tropp, 2002). As an alternative, scholars suggest that advantaged groups should engage in supportive contact (Droogendyk et al., 2016a; Droogendyk et al, 2016b). Supportive contact is likewise an institutional reactive action, in which advantaged group members explicitly challenge injustice 3 I acknowledge the perspective that groups are agents of collective action, rather than individuals. Nevertheless, I propose that it is important to understand individuals’ motivations to support collective action efforts, although the efficacy of collective action clearly occurs at the group level. 35 and support disadvantaged groups’ collective action efforts (but do not take leading roles within them; Droogendyk et al., 2016a; Droogendyk et al., 2016b). As collective action and supportive action efforts are similar in terms of my typology, I discuss them simultaneously (as collective and supportive actions), nevertheless recognizing that the nature of advantaged group members’ participation differs between them. Timing. Collective and supportive actions both fall under the reactive category given their temporal relationship to inequities. Perceiving institutional policies or beliefs as biased evokes outrage and consequentially motivation and participation in collective action against the issue (e.g., in the case of disadvantaged groups: Becker & Wright, 2011; van Zomeren et al., 2004; also see Dixon et al., 2016; Spring et al., 2018). For advantaged group members, perceiving their group-based advantage as immoral can elicit guilt and anger, which in turn motivates support for political action (Iyer et al., 2003; Leach et al., 2006). For example, group-based anger predicts Hong Kong Chinese people’s willingness to address discrimination against people from Mainland China (e.g., signing petitions, participating in demonstrations; van Zomeren et al., 2011). In this way, collective and supportive actions are a reaction to specific inequities. Focus. Additionally, it is important to recognize that the specific inequities that collective and supportive actions respond to are not incidental. Collective and supportive actions hold institutions responsible for inequities and focus on organizational level structures as perpetrators of these unfair outcomes. I note that although the inequities that collective and supportive actions strive to address expand beyond individuals and their interactions, they are no less concrete. On a larger scale, people identify specific issues as present and specific perpetrators to be held accountable. For example, individuals participating in the Black Lives Matter movement have 36 responded to and organized against racist practices, policies, and norms carried out by the state as an institution (Black Lives Matter, 2022; Howard University School of Law, 2022). Aim. Furthermore, the aim of collective and supportive actions is to bring about institutional change that reduces bias. Collective and supportive actions aim to demolish and/or transform the institutional structures that advantage certain groups over others (most successfully through identifying the issue to others and influencing public opinion; Burstein, 2003; Simon & Klandermans, 2001; Shuman et al., 2020; Thomas & Lewis, 2013; 2014; Wright, 2009b). Taken together, institutional actions such as engaging in collective movements are powerful responses to large-scale issues. Institutional reactive action involves both demanding and carrying out efforts to reduce society-level bias. While institutional reactive actions involve dismantling inequitable policies, practices, and norms, proactive actions at this level can create practices and norms that are equitable. Proactive Allyship Action at the Institutional Level: Inclusive Leadership Institutional proactive actions establish and maintain policies, practices, and norms that are beneficial to disadvantaged groups. Although these actions are targeted towards larger institutions (e.g., working towards inclusive organizations), they are often taken by individuals. For example, individuals can create or advocate for equitable practices, support programs that seek to empower communities that are structurally underprivileged or vote in favor for people or policies that attend to the interests of disadvantaged groups (Sue et al., 2019). Another example of institutional action is inclusive leadership, popularly discussed in organizational psychology scholarship. Precise definitions of inclusive leadership vary, but predominately center on how individuals, particularly those in positions of power, can embrace and value different perspectives (e.g., Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Nishii & Mayer, 2009; 37 Randel et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2011). The literature on inclusive leadership describes how these individuals work at both intrapersonal (e.g., seeking feedback on their leadership from people from diverse groups) and interpersonal levels (e.g., mentoring others; see Ferdman, 2014 and Gallegos, 2013). However, I review inclusive leadership as an action that those in positions of power can use to influence the larger cultural norms of an institution (Douglas et al., 2003). For example, leaders can signal norms for how people in the group behave through role modelling certain behaviors (Randel et al., 2018). Inclusive leaders also directly create policies and procedures that take place at an institutional level (Ferdman, 2014). Moreover, I recognize that leaders who strive for inclusivity can take institutional reactive action through addressing, challenging, and changing problematic aspects of their organization. However, by inclusive leadership here I specifically refer to leaders’ proactive creation and maintenance of policies, practices, and norms that foster equity, diversity, and inclusion. Timing. Why is inclusive leadership proactive, if an active intention to be inclusive could be considered a response to systematic underrepresentation and devaluing of certain identity groups within organizations? As explained in the introduction, efforts to make an organization inclusive could be considered reactive in a distal sense in that they are responding to a general concern for exclusion. However, in this context, inclusive leadership actions are often proactive in a proximal sense. Inclusive leadership actions are not taken in response to observed biases in existing policies and practices (i.e., its timing is not contingent on there being a specific issue at hand), rather they are the policies and procedures put in place to foster a diverse and inclusive organization. For example, leaders can take measures to ensure that practices (how the organization functions) and norms (how their team members are expected to interact with one 38 another) are oriented towards valuing diverse perspectives and backgrounds from the very beginning of the organization (not only after experiences of exclusion have occurred). Focus. Inclusive leadership as a form of institutional proactive action is focused on supporting and empowering those who are led (although leaders can certainly engage in institutional reactive action by challenging and changing problematic policies and norms). As described by Randel and colleagues (2018), the objective of inclusive leadership is to satisfy needs for belonging and individuality for those within the group. More generally, inclusive leadership is targeted towards “[benefiting] diverse teams through its focus on accepting women and minorities while simultaneously valuing all members for their unique attributes, perspectives, and contributions, ultimately leading to higher performance” (Randel et al., 2018, p.191). In this way, both disadvantaged and advantaged group members can benefit from inclusive leadership. However, one could argue that members of disadvantaged groups benefit more: without inclusive leadership, disadvantaged group members are at more risk of feeling excluded than those who identify with the organization’s cultural default. Aim. As inclusive leadership is focused on supporting those who are led, it follows that its proximal aim is proactive. First, the initiatives that inclusive leaders endorse can increase positive outcomes for members of disadvantaged groups in an organization. For example, leaders who successfully institute diversity initiatives (increasing numerical representation of different groups) can increase their team members’ ability to share, consider, and accept dissimilar opinions (Antonio et al., 2004; Phillips et al., 2011; Phillips, 2003; Philips et al., 2004; Phillips et al., 2009a; Phillips et al., 2009b; Phillips & Lount, 2007; Phillips & Loyd, 2006; Phillips et al., 2006; Sommers, 2006). 39 Second, inclusive leaders themselves can increase positive outcomes for those that they lead. For example, leaders who listen to and value diverse perspectives can increase psychological safety (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2010; Edmondson, 2004; Hirak et al., 2012; Javed et al., 2017; Nembhard & Edmonson, 2006), trust (Huo et al., 2005), and engagement (e.g., Mitchell et al. 2015; Sabharwal, 2014) amongst their group members. In the context of ethnic and cultural diversity, leaders who promote multicultural values are more successful in attracting and retaining people from diverse backgrounds (see Hebl & Avery, 2013) and can increase feelings of identity-safety for members of disadvantaged groups (Chaney et al., 2016; Dover et al., 2016; Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). For instance, inclusive leadership positively predicted organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., willingness to participate in the life of the organization, helping colleagues) among employees in Vietnam (Hanh Tran & Choi, 2019). In conclusion, institutional proactive actions establish and/or maintain policies, practices, and norms that engender equity, diversity, and inclusion for disadvantaged groups. Although occurring on a larger scale than intrapersonal and interpersonal level actions, individuals can be impactful in carrying out these changes (as demonstrated in the inclusive leadership literature). Comparing the Unique Benefits and Constraints of Reactive and Proactive Allyship Action Broadly Thus far, I have summarized how several distinct bodies of literature can be organized and integrated into a typology of action characterized by whether the action is reactive or proactive and is directed at influencing oneself, others, or the institutions where biases can and do occur. Each of these literatures provides some evidence that members of advantaged groups can be effective in addressing bias using these various actions. Below I return to broader 40 conceptions of reactive versus proactive forms of action to highlight points of commonality and difference in terms of costs and benefits across the different levels. Common Benefits and Constraints of Reactive Allyship Action Identifying and addressing bias when it occurs can be powerful in enacting change at all three levels of scope. Although discussions of reactive allyship most commonly conjure images of countering bias at the interpersonal level (in which confrontation evokes negative affect and motivates change), I have demonstrated that reactive action can also be framed as decreasing or counteracting one’s own problematic beliefs and associations towards disadvantaged groups and challenging inequitable institutional policies, practices, and ideologies. The literatures I reviewed reveal several benefits of reactive action. Most significantly, reactive action successfully creates change. Reactive action can successfully disrupt problematic patterns for individuals (e.g., Blair & Banaji, 1996; Blair et al., 2001; Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004; Monteith, 1993; Monteith & Mark, 2005; Stewart & Payne, 2008), discourage problematic behaviors from others (e.g., Chaney & Sanchez, 2018; Czopp et al., 2006; Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Mallett & Wagner, 2011), and put pressure on those in power to change inequitable, institutional conditions (e.g., Burstein 2003; Shuman et al., 2020; Simon & Klandermans, 2001; Lewis, 2009; Thomas & Lewis, 2013; Wright, 2009b). In this way, reactive action is a powerful tool for addressing systemic oppressions that impact certain identity groups. Another way in which reactive action is impactful is the unique impact advantaged group members have in comparison to disadvantaged group members. Advantaged group members can confront bias with less risk of being viewed as overreactive complainers (Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Kaiser & Miller, 2001, 2003; Rasinski & Czopp, 2010). Moreover, advantaged compared to disadvantaged 41 group members are often more influential in their reactive action because they are perceived as less self-interested (Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Drury & Kaiser, 2014; Rasinski & Czopp, 2010). Although impactful, reactive action does have constraints. Most notably, people hesitate to be confrontational (e.g., Ayres et al., 2009; Brinkman et al., 2011; Crosby & Wilson, 2015; Dickter, 2012; Dickter & Newton, 2013; Kawakami et al., 2009; Rasinski et al., 2013; Swim & Hyers, 1999; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001) because it risks penalization. People generally are motivated to uphold the status quo (Jost and Banaji, 1994; Jost & Hunyady, 2002) and therefore might punish those who are oppositional. For example, Czopp and colleagues (2006) found that confronters of expressions of prejudice are liked less than non-confronters. In light of the risk of backlash, merely anticipating risk can inhibit people’s reactive action (Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2008). People are less likely to confront others’ expressions of prejudice if they believe they will be disliked, anger the confronted, or lose professional opportunities (Good et al., 2012; Shelton & Stewart, 2004). Additionally, because social belonging is important (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and people are ostracized for breaking social norms (Schachter, 1951), advantaged group members may avoid confrontation to fit in with their own group. Breaking these social norms can lead one to become an outsider to their identity group (e.g., Cadieux & Chasteen, 2015). Nonetheless, these constraints of reactive action vary across contexts. In some situations, people are not penalized for reactive action and are sometimes even liked for speaking out against bias (e.g., Dickter et al., 2012; Woodzicka et al., 2015). Therefore, an advantaged group member who believes that their in-group members see bias as problematic may be more inclined to take reactive action (De Souza & Schmader, 2022). Another constraint to reactive action involves timing. As described in Ashburn-Nardo and colleagues’ (2008) Confronting Prejudice Responses (CPR) model, people must be able to detect 42 issues to address them and they are not always aware of what constitutes bias (even in themselves). Although bias might be clear when it is overt, people have difficulty identifying it when it is more subtle (Devine, 1989). Moreover, some forms of bias may be more difficult to detect than others; although people are able to detect prototypical forms of bias such as racism and sexism well, they struggle with detecting less prototypical forms, such as ageism and sizeism (Marti et al., 2000). Although centered on interpersonal confrontation, this first hurdle in the CPR model is applicable to reactive action generally. For example, Monteith and colleagues (2009) address this limitation in the context of intrapersonal action (specifically bias control), “…individuals need to recognize the potential for bias in the first place…” (p.219). At the institutional level, collective and supportive action involves getting advantaged group members to recognize that an institutional practice or norm is illegitimate (Thomas & Lewis, 2014). With these limitations of reactive action in mind, it is important to consider proactive actions as additional, alternative strategies which are not impeded by the need to successfully identify bias. Common Benefits and Constraints of Proactive Allyship Action Proactive action’s benefits are distinct from those of reactive action: in a world where the potential for bias always exists, proactive actions buffer targeted groups from these experiences and prevent nontargeted groups from perpetuating them. One benefit to proactive action is that, as a primary intervention rather than a damage control strategy, it might be more effective in signaling identity safety for members of disadvantaged groups. In part, proactive action’s greater impact for identity safety might be because reactive action always involves a negative event. However, proactive action may also be more conducive to identity safety because increasing one’s capacity to be supportive, developing relationships, and instituting equitable policy without being prompted by a negative event signals that disadvantaged group members’ experiences and 43 outcomes are a priority rather than an afterthought. This comparative benefit however remains an empirical question. A second key benefit of proactive action is that it may carry less risk of penalty. Compared to reactive action, proactive action is less confrontational, punitive, and avoidance-based and more centered on approach, growth, and inclusion. Proactive action’s aim and focus on fostering equity, diversity, or inclusion for members of disadvantaged groups (rather than reducing bias in perpetrating individuals or institutions) means that there could be less risk of backlash. Instead, people who engage in proactive action may incur more personal benefits than costs, especially given current interest in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The potential for smaller costs and larger benefits of proactive action might explain why people more strongly intend to enact proactive over reactive action (at least in the case of sexism in the workplace; De Souza & Schmader, 2022). Finally, because people do not have to wait to see bias to act, proactive action is more accessible in terms of its timing. People may also feel more self-efficacious in taking proactive action because they do not need to decide when something is or not bias (i.e., there is no obstacle of detection). For example, research demonstrates that having a regulatory focus (Higgins, 1998; 2012) that is promotion-oriented (e.g., focus on having a positive interracial interactions) is less cognitively depleting than attempting to control one’s own biases (Richeson & Shelton, 2007; Richeson & Trawalter, 2005; Trawalter & Richeson, 2006). Although there are many benefits of proactive action, there are also constraints. Below I suggest three that revolve around how good intentions can backfire and/or decenter disadvantage group members’ desires. Highlighting these three constraints is not to suggest that proactive efforts are inherently harmful to disadvantaged groups (I have exemplified multiple ways they 44 are beneficial above) or that disadvantaged group members do not desire them at all (in fact, they are central to disadvantage groups’ perceptions of “allies;” e.g., Cheng et al. 2019, Brown & Ostrove, 2013). Rather, I stress that proactive actions’ accessibility, flexibility, and presumed lower risk (to agents) should not imply that they can be taken haphazardly. First, although I argue above that proactive action may be less risky than reactive action in theory, it may not be less risky in practice. Some institutional proactive actions have engendered newsworthy backlash. For instance, right-wing politicians within the United States have actively attacked equity, inclusion, and diversity programs within schools by prohibiting spending on EDI initiatives and banning critical race and gender studies in curricula (Bump, 2023; Kumar, 2023; Meckler & Natanson, 2021). Brannon and colleagues (2018) suggest that backlash against EDI initiatives may reflect perceptions of restricted autonomy (e.g., concerns for “free speech”), preference for the status quo or colorblindness, or beliefs that society is equitable or that inequities are justified (also see Devine & Ash, 2022 for similar discussion on the limitations of diversity training initiatives). Taken together, although proactive actions aim for positive outcomes, they do not necessarily elicit positive responses. Another constraint is that proactive actions could be unsuccessful if they are not taken carefully. For example, at the intrapersonal level, perspective taking can increase stereotyping when the information about the outgroup member is limited and stereotype consistent (Skorinko & Sinclair, 2013). At the interpersonal level, inclusion efforts can become tokenism: a symbolic gesture where a single member of a disadvantaged group is included to signal benevolent intentions (APA, 2021). People who are tokenized (or solo status) can experience stereotype threat (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995) which hinders performance, increases anticipation of being stereotypically evaluated, and decreases engagement (e.g., Cohen & Swim, 1995; 45 Thompson & Sekaquaptewa, 2002; Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2002; Sekaquaptewa et al., 2007; Roberson et al., 2003). Additionally, advantaged group members’ intentions to become more conscientious through cross-group interactions can be uncomfortable for disadvantaged group members. For example, Vorauer et al. (2009) found that Indigenous individuals were less happy with White, lower-prejudice interaction partners when they attempted to perspective take rather than take a more objective orientation (on topics such as social issues, relationships, academic and social experiences). Moreover, engagement with disadvantaged group members (relevant to both intergroup contact and collective action) might increase social harmony, but also undermine conflict between groups that is necessary for recognizing, challenging, and reducing systemic inequalities and injustices (Saguy et al., 2009; Saguy & Chernyak-Hai, 2012; Wright & Lubensky, 2009). Finally, advantaged group members must be careful that their efforts align with the desires of those they wish to support. For example, although there are positive outcomes of intergroup friendships, members of disadvantaged groups may sometimes be more interested in establishing relationships with people from their own identity group. For instance, Black/African American university students report having more self-disclosure, intimacy, and close relationships with other Black students (Levin et al., 2003; Shelton et al., 2010). Paralleled in the mentorship literature, women and people of color see having an in-group mentor as important and more comfortable and satisfying (Allen et al., 2005; Blake-Beard et al., 2011; Bowman et al., 1999; Frierson et al., 1994; Gonzáles-Figueroa & Young, 2005; Ortiz-Walters & Gilson, 2005; Patton, 2009; Syed et al., 2011) 46 In sum, a constraint of proactive action is that well-intended efforts to include, respect, and empower can elicit reactance or backfire if misaligned with disadvantaged group members’ needs. Proactive actions might be flexible and accessible, but must be enacted conscientiously. Emerging Research Questions As I have emphasized, the goal of my typology is to bridge different bodies of research to make direct comparisons of the different types of action I have identified. As these direct comparisons have not yet been tested in the social psychological literature, this typology allows for several novel avenues to understand the perceptions and outcomes of action. Below I discuss a few possible areas for new research, specifically comparing effectiveness across contexts, motivation, and advantaged and disadvantaged groups’ perceptions and outcomes. Effectiveness Across Contexts My review demonstrates how allyship actions have impact but vary in their specific outcomes. Recognizing this variation in outcome, research could investigate when and where certain actions are most useful for certain equity, inclusion, and diversity goals. For example, one might be interested in what forms of action are most effective in increasing feelings of community in an organization with diverse membership. As proactive action can increase feelings of belonging and psychological safety, proactive action (particularly institutional proactive action, given the organizational context) may be a better strategy than other forms of action. However, if one strives to stop others’ problematic behaviors (e.g., put an end to a friend’s ableist jokes), it is likely that reactive action (specifically interpersonal reactive action) will more effectively dissuade people from repeating them compared to other actions. These hypotheses seem intuitive, however explicit comparisons of what actions are most helpful for certain goals are largely untested. Investigating how actions compare in effectiveness 47 (operationalized based on goals and context) is important not only for research but also in a practical sense. As described in my introduction, there is popular interest in what people can and should do to support disadvantaged groups. This research could provide an answer to these questions, with attention to what is most helpful when. As described above, allyship actions can take place both offline and online. Research demonstrates that online allyship actions share similar benefits as offline allyship actions. Online activism such as expressing one’s support for disadvantaged group members or writing posts challenging social inequality (which I would categorize as institutional proactive and reactive actions, respectively) can effectively spread information about social inequalities, encourage others to act, and motivate agents to take their actions offline (Greijdanus et al., 2020; also see Wilkins et al., 2019). In some ways, allyship actions may be more beneficial online than offline. In offline contexts, proactive actions that involve intergroup contact may be challenging for advantaged group members who live in less diverse areas. Online contexts, however, allow advantaged group members to meet and learn from those they do not regularly engage with and consequently develop capacity for other allyship actions both virtually and in-person (e.g., educating others, confronting problematic comments; Clark, 2019). Nevertheless, online allyship actions have been critiqued for performativity and “slacktivism,” successful in branding and satisfying impression-management motives, but not substantially advancing social causes (Kristofferson et al., 2013; Wellman, 2022; although see Lane & Dal Cin, 2018). Online actions, particularly institutional reactive efforts to challenge institutional bias, also risks increased surveillance and suppression (especially under non-democratic, repressive regimes; Greijdanus et al., 2020). Although existing research considers the effectiveness of online versus offline action, my typology can nuance this comparison: are certain allyship actions better suited to online 48 versus online contexts? Using the typology of allyship actions, researchers might expand their discussion what actions are effective or risk less backlash online versus offline. Motivation If actions vary in their effectiveness across contexts, it follows that different forms of allyship action are (potentially) uniquely necessary for certain goals. Therefore, people should theoretically take whatever action will be most impactful when needed. In practice however, people are arguably unlikely to take all actions equally, whenever they are called for. Motivation (or lack thereof) is therefore another area of research worth exploring: To what extent do people feel motivated or inhibited to take certain forms of action when they are needed? My own research demonstrates the significance of the reactive/proactive distinction in motivation to take action; men and women report being more likely to take proactive action compared to reactive action (both in the context of supporting women in workplaces, but each in distinct scenarios where the respective action is most appropriate; De Souza & Schmader, 2022). Future research should consider how context shapes differences in motivation. For example, my research demonstrates that public versus private contexts influences the extent to which people take reactive versus proactive action (De Souza & Schmader, 2022). Additionally, future research should continue to investigate allyship motivation through an intersectional lens. Which social inequalities and identities are salient influence which actions are preferable (e.g., Case et al., 2020; Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019; Szekeres & Čabarkapa, 2023). For example, whereas White men may hesitate enacting proactive action towards Black women in the workplace (fearing accusations of inappropriate behavior), White women may hesitate to take reactive actions against bias towards Black women (fearing endangering their own success; Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019). Providing tools to directly compare different forms of action, the 49 typology of allyship action is well-suited to extend the literature on what forms of allyship are preferable to whom, based on their different relations to power. Future research should also consider what increases motivation for taking reactive versus proactive action across levels. Given that the risks are different, I might expect that there are distinct methods to assuage perceived penalties of and increased motivation to take reactive versus proactive action. I might also expect that increasing self-efficacy will likewise increase motivation to take certain forms of action. For instance, people might feel less efficacious to take institutional reactive action, because they believe it is difficult to dismantle established procedures, change norms, or challenging societal practices. Relatedly, advantaged group members may be more motivated to take interpersonal forms of action, “staying out of the way” (p.364) of disadvantaged group members’ institutional efforts (Sumerau et al., 2021). Researchers might explore strategies for addressing risk, self-efficacy, and responsibility concerns specific to the six forms of action. Beyond individual concerns, researchers may also explore how individuals’ ideologies play a role in motivation. My definition of allyship applies only when advantaged group members are motivated by egalitarianism. However, recognizing that people can hold multiple ideologies, researchers might explore if other beliefs predict allyship intentions or preference for some forms of action over others. For example, people who identify as politically liberal report stronger intentions to engage in allyship actions in the workplace (Dang & Joshi, 2022). Additionally, men who endorse the concept of male privilege report stronger helping behaviors in their workplaces (Yoon et al., 2023). In contrast, men who endorsed zero-sum beliefs were less likely to support institutional efforts to address gender violence (e.g., signing petitions) compared to interpersonal efforts (e.g., sponsoring women to attend self-defense classes; Radke 50 et al., 2020; 2018). In the context of ethnic conflict (Turkish-Kurdish relations), majority group members who more strongly endorsed pro-minority conflict narratives more strongly supported pro-minority policies (Uluğ & Uysal, 2023). Extending this work, researchers can use the typology of allyship action to make more direct comparisons of how ideologies (including but certainly not limited to the examples above) shape different allyship intentions. Taken together, by investigating predictors of motivation, research can inform practical strategies for encouraging allyship actions of all forms. Comparing Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups’ Perceptions and Outcomes of Allyship Action The bodies of literature reviewed above have centered on members of advantaged groups taking action with intentions and goals to support members of disadvantaged groups. Although I have demonstrated the positive impact of these allyship actions, it is crucial to consider how advantaged group members’ actions must be mutually desired. Allyship actions risk being on behalf of but without the assent from those that they seek to support. As ineffective allyship can be harmful to members of disadvantaged groups (e.g., decreasing psychological safety and increasing anxiety; Collier-Spruel & Ryan, 2022), attention must be given to their perceptions of advantaged groups’ reactive and proactive strategies across levels. Generally, research has increasingly attended to perceptions of action from minoritized groups’ perspectives. For example, studies demonstrate that women and people of color perceive qualities I see as proactive (e.g., showing care and respect, advocacy, mentorship) and actions I see as reactive (e.g., activism, confrontation) as important for (what the authors characterize as) allies (Brown & Ostrove 2018; Cheng et al., 2018; Ostrove & Brown 2013). Nevertheless, research has not directly compared how members of disadvantaged groups perceive reactive 51 versus proactive actions at different levels. Several, yet to be tested hypotheses emerge from this research question. Given the potential for suspicion for non-targeted groups’ egalitarian motivations (Kunstman et al., 2016; LaCosse et al., 2015; Major et al., 2016), are there cases in which one allyship action is perceived as more suspicious and performative than another? Examining performativity is an important research direction, given its psychological consequences for disadvantaged group members (see Kutlaca & Radke, 2022 for review) and the importance of trustworthiness (from the perspective of disadvantaged group activists; Park et al., 2022). Given potential limitations of advantaged groups’ action in certain domains (e.g., undermining and pulling attention away from collective action efforts, being less desired as mentors, making minoritized group members feel tokenized), to what extent or in what circumstances is it better for advantaged group members to instead empower disadvantaged group members act and/or follow their lead? In addition to comparing groups’ perceptions of action, research should continue to explore differences in outcomes when advantaged versus disadvantaged group members take action. Distinct bodies of research suggest when advantaged groups (e.g., confrontation) and disadvantaged groups (e.g., collective action) might be better suited for specific forms of action. My typology can extend this research by offering a broader framework for comparison; rather than comparing advantaged versus disadvantaged groups’ effectiveness in taking very specific actions, researchers can use my typology to compare effectiveness for the broader umbrella categories that these specific actions fall under. Alternatively, my typology allows for specific actions under one umbrella category to be compared. Previous literature certainly provides insight into the impact of advantaged versus disadvantaged groups, but my typology allows for a comparison that encompasses several different forms at once. 52 Chapter 2 Conclusion As interest in taking action to reduce inequality continues to grow, so does the social psychological literature. From my various examples above, the diversity of research on these topics is diverse but contains several common themes. I believe that with expansion comes the need to organize and connect these themes. The proposed typology of allyship action can provide researchers with one method of doing so, informing new research questions about action in a broader sense. Chapter 3 exemplifies this use of the Typology of Allyship Action in empirical work. 53 Chapter 3: The Perceived Effectiveness of Reactive and Proactive Allyship Action My Typology of Allyship Action framework outlines novel conceptual distinctions between different forms of allyship actions. As described in Chapter 2, the typology provides new theoretical groundwork for understanding what actions can constitute an allyship practice and how they function to support disadvantaged group members. Beyond these theoretical contributions, the Typology of Allyship Action also motivates the creation of new tools, measures, and research questions. Although there are many possible directions to move this research from the theoretical to the empirical (as suggested in Chapter 2), my first research questions focus on comparing allyship actions’ effectiveness. I conceptualize effectiveness as positive outcomes for individuals from disadvantaged groups and/or the culture/environment in which they participate (Cornell Health, 2019). I focus on effectiveness over other possible comparisons as people have become increasingly concerned with how to enact effective allyship. In 2020, it was estimated that organizations in the United States alone invest an estimated $8 billion on diversity and inclusion training (Novacek, Lee, & Krentz, 2021). For example, Lean In’s (2023) “Allyship at Work” program strives to help employees “identify specific ways they can take action to make a meaningful impact” (emphasis added). Positive outcomes of course widely vary, allowing researchers (as I do in this chapter) to not only compare how well actions achieve one particular outcome, but also compare if certain actions achieve some goals better than other goals. One might operationalize effectiveness as objective indicators of change (e.g., how many cross-group friendships do people report having, how many policies have been changed or created). Objective indicators certainly provide important information, reflecting the material consequences of efforts to support disadvantaged groups. However, I conceptualize effectiveness 54 here as the subjective evaluations of these efforts with particular attention to members of disadvantaged groups. I focus on subjective evaluations given my definition of allyship: actions that are or would be recognized as supportive by those people seek to support. In other words, for actions to “count” towards one’s allyship practice, they must be seen as helpful. It would be problematic to assume that objective indicators necessarily reflect people’s (particularly disadvantaged group members’) beliefs that is helpful. For example, confronting another’s bias might curb a perpetrator’s behavior, but be perceived as patronizing rather than supportive from the person confrontation seeks to serve. Therefore, studying people’s perceptions and psychological experiences are crucial in understanding effectiveness of allyship actions. Previous literature has investigated perceptions of allyship effectiveness in general but has not yet examined the relative impact of different types of action. Research on allyship effectiveness typically collapses across forms of allyship or focuses on one specific allyship action at a time. For example, researchers surveying disadvantaged group members’ perceptions of effective allyship in the workplace discuss examples of both reactive and proactive action (e.g., Cheng et al., 2019; Collier-Spruel & Ryan, 2022; Sue et al., 2019). In fact, Cheng and colleagues explicitly refer to the reactive/proactive distinction in their analyses, “Consequentially, ally behaviors can be a reaction to some type of precipitating event or can be a proactive action the ally initiates himself” (p. 47). However, Cheng and colleagues (as well as Collier-Spruel & Ryan and Sue et al.) shift focus to alternative categories of action (e.g., advocacy, instrumental support, and emotional support) that collapse across allyship types (e.g., advocacy includes both confrontation and acknowledging women’s contributions). Grounded in my theoretical framework, I contribute to this work by operationalizing the reactive/proactive distinction that has been identified but is underdeveloped in previous research. 55 Moreover, despite alluding to the reactive/proactive distinction, researchers examining the range of allyship actions have examined effectiveness of allyship broadly, not comparatively. For example, Collier-Spruel and Ryan (2022) examine the relationship between disadvantaged group members’ outcomes (psychology safety, positive and negative affect, and anxiety) and experiences of allyship actions generally; although their allyship behavior questionnaire includes examples of both reactive and proactive behaviors, they do not examine if these relationships vary between different sets of behaviors. My work tests hypotheses on how reactive and proactive actions compare, informed by separate bodies of literature on allyship actions. As described in Chapter 2, both reactive and proactive action can be effective, albeit in different ways. For example, confrontation is effective in discouraging and preventing future problematic behavior from individuals (e.g., Blair & Banaji, 1996; Blair et al., 2001; Chaney & Sanchez, 2018; Czopp et al., 2006; Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004; Mallett & Wagner, 2011; Monteith, 1993; Monteith & Mark, 2005; Stewart & Payne, 2008) and collective action is effective in challenging institutional inequities (e.g., Burstein 2003; Shuman et al., 2020; Simon & Klandermans, 2001; Lewis, 2009; Thomas & Lewis, 2013; Wright, 2009b). Therefore, reactive actions may be beneficial in improving culture over time, specifically changing what behaviors or practices are considered acceptable in an environment. In contrast, proactive action may be uniquely effective in increasing feelings of fit and inclusion, as positive interpersonal interactions and inclusive leadership promotes identity safety (Carmeli et al., 2010; Edmondson, 2004; Hall et al., 2018; 2019; Hirak et al., 2012; Javed et al., 2017; Nembhard & Edmonson, 2006). Finally, research demonstrates that advantaged compared to disadvantaged group members are more impactful in confronting bias (Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Drury & 56 Kaiser, 2014; Kaiser & Miller, 2001, 2003; Rasinski & Czopp, 2010), suggesting that agent identity might play an important role in comparisons of allyship actions’ effectiveness. Taken together, reactive and proactive action may both be perceived as effective (evidenced by previous literature, collapsing across action types and considering them separately), however empirical research lacks direct comparison of their effectiveness. To fill this research gap, I not only directly compare allyship types but also operationalize effectiveness in several ways (e.g., investigating actions’ effectiveness in improving culture versus promoting social fit). Chapter 3 Overview In this chapter, I translate my work from the theoretical to the empirical; I describe the findings from four quantitative studies in which I hypothesized and empirically tested both definitional and outcome-related distinctions between reactive and proactive action. In these four studies, I focus on empirically distinguishing actions by type (i.e., reactive versus proactive). To reflect the multilevel nature of reactive and proactive action, I operationalized allyship type at several levels (e.g., perceptions of proactive action that reflect self-education, interpersonal contact, and inclusive policy). I include level to first and foremost represent variation in reactive and proactive action, allowing for comparisons of action types broadly. In all four studies, level comparisons are secondary; therefore, I focus on reporting results in this chapter that collapse across level.4 4 Following preregistered analytic plans, analyses presented below include level as a within-subjects factor along with testing the interaction of type of level. However, I only summarize and discuss main effects of type and (in some cases) other within-subjects variables of interest (e.g., comparing advantaged and disadvantaged group agents). Main effects and interactions involving level were complex and inconsistent, making it difficult to distill general patterns across the full set of studies. Therefore, full reports of results involving level are included in the appendix. 57 For the first three studies, I examined people’s reactions to a series of scenarios describing different allyship actions. Each of these studies used a pair of samples to replicate the methodology in the context of both gender (a) and race/ethnicity (b) to increase the generalizability of my findings. In Study 1a and b, I validated a set of 16 scenarios that represents actions within my typology (reflecting reactive and proactive action at two levels). Through factor analyses and testing scenarios with close-ended measures of perceived time, aim, and focus, I first sought to establish that these newly created scenarios are distinguishable by their variation in type. With these validated scenarios, I next developed and tested several hypotheses related to differences in actions’ perceived effectiveness. In Study 2a and b, I tested hypotheses regarding the perceived effectiveness of allyship actions’ impact on organizational climate, operationalized as the extent to which each action is seen as producing benefits to disadvantaged group members’ experience of social fit, an ability to belong, and social identity threat. As reactive (but not proactive) action scenarios inherently involve biased events however, measuring perceptions of workplace climate may not accurately reflect differences in perceived effectiveness. Therefore, in Study 3a and b, I addressed limitations in Study 2’s measure of workplace climate by measuring perceived effectiveness in several alternative ways. Specifically, I measure the perceived impact of each action on gender/racial equality in general and in bringing about either short-term or long-term improvements to workplace culture. In addition, I tested the extent to which advantaged compared to disadvantaged groups are perceived to be effective in improving workplace culture by carrying out each action. Extending Study 2, Study 3 reveals several comparative benefits of proactive over reactive action. Nonetheless, Study 3 also elucidates ways in which reactive action is just as or uniquely beneficial compared to proactive action. 58 To address the limitations of using scenario-based paradigms in Studies 1-3, Study 4 then aimed to replicate key findings in a survey of women’s real-world experience with allyship in their current STEM workplaces. More concretely, I investigate how the extent to which women in STEM experience or witness allyship predicts their feelings of inclusion and social identity threat in the workplace and commitment to their organizations. In this work, I compare not only the different forms of action but examine the role of men (versus women) in engendering positive workplace outcomes. Preregistrations and supplementary materials referenced for all four studies can be found at osf.io/vtusb/?view_only=54e826eb2c2346b19ffb99b6a33ae6af. Study 1 The primary goal of Study 1 was to validate stimuli to capture the conceptual distinctions between reactive and proactive action (i.e., differences in perceiving timing, aim, and focus). To do this, participants read and rated sixteen scenarios that varied by reactive or proactive type (at interpersonal and institutional levels).5 I conducted two parallel versions of Study 1, in which scenarios and measures concerned gender (Study 1a) or race/ethnicity (Study 1b). Although these involved two separate preregistered samples, I discuss them simultaneously as their hypotheses and methodology were identical. I preregistered exploratory (for Study 1a) and confirmatory factor analyses (for Study 1b) to examine if items in the 16-scenario measure cluster together. Assuming factorial validity, the primary preregistered hypotheses concerned main effects of action type. For timing, I predicted 5 The level dimension included only interpersonal and institutional, but not intrapersonal actions to avoid unfeasibly large factorial designs. I prioritized interpersonal and institutional levels as they represent efforts to create external rather than internal change, therefore stronger stimuli for comparing actions’ effectiveness on climate, equality, and culture in Studies 2 and 3. The intrapersonal level will be incorporated into future studies expanding this research (including Study 4 of this chapter). 59 that compared to reactive action, proactive action would be perceived as (1) more possible before bias occurs, (2) less contingent on bias occurring, and (3) less possible after bias occurs. For aim, I predicted that compared to reactive action, proactive action would be perceived as (1) more aimed at fostering/increasing feelings of inclusion and (2) less aimed at countering/decreasing existing gender bias in the workplace. For focus, I hypothesized that compared to reactive action, proactive action would be perceived as more focused on supporting people potentially affected by gender bias and (2) less focused on addressing perpetrators of gender bias. Method Participants and Procedure. I determined my preregistered sample sizes a priori using G*Power. Power analyses suggested a sample of 380 would achieve 80% power to detect an effect size n2p of .020 (the smallest effect for a Type x Level interaction that was found in an earlier pilot test of my scenarios; see the appendix for more information). Moreover, a sample size of over 300 is appropriate for conducting a confirmatory factor analysis that includes four indicators of each of four factors (MacCallum et al., 1999). I recruited participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk for both Study 1a and b. After preregistered exclusions (e.g., attention check questions), my final sample sizes were 384 participants (240 women and non-binary people, 144 men) for Study 1a and 348 participants (159 participants of color, 189 White/European-American participants) for Study 1b.6 I recruited participants from the United States or Canada (Study 1a: Mage = 44.86, SDage = 13.71; Study 1b: Mage = 41.71, SDage = 13.26). Although there were no demographic exclusion criteria, over half 6 This sample included participants who identified as Black-African American (n = 54), Latin-American or Hispanic (n = 32 Latin-American/Hispanic and 6 Latin-American/Hispanic + White/European-American), East-Asian (n = 20), Southeast Asian or Pacific Islander (n = 15), South Asian (n = 8), Indigenous or Indigenous with one or more other racial/ethnic identities (n = 8), Middle-eastern (n = 3), and those who identified with multiple racial/ethnic identities (n = 13; e.g., Black-African American and White/European-American, East-Asian and South-Asian). 60 of the samples had at least a two-year degree (Study 1a: 56%; Study 1b: 57%) and were employed full-time (Study 1a: 66%; Study 1b: 64%). Participants completed a demographics questionnaire and subsequently read 16 distinct scenarios in randomized order, each followed by outcome variables. These scenarios were created for the purposes of this study and described a realistic event in which a man (Study 1a) or White/European-American person (Study 1b) acts in support of women or people of color, respectively. Four scenarios were created for each cell of a 2 (Type: Reactive/Proactive) X 2 (Level: Interpersonal/Institutional) completely within design. The four scenarios per cell all took place in a workplace context and reflected four general themes: colleague interaction, recognizing voices, hiring, and mentorship (specific to proactive action) or confronting bias (specific to reactive action). See Table 3.1 for scenarios and appendix for full measures. 61 Table 3.1 Scenario Sets Reflecting Proactive and Reactive Action at Two Levels Proactive Reactive [Person] is starting a planning group to organize optional work dinners. Although social, these dinners will provide networking and collaboration opportunities. To ensure equity... • Interpersonal: once the event is planned, [Person] reaches out to [his female colleagues / their colleagues of color] and personally invites them to the dinners. • Institutional: [Person] ensures that the planning group has equal [gender / race/ethnicity] representation before proceeding with organizing the dinners. [Person] works in an office where important information is shared through casual conversation. [Person] sees that [women / people of color] in [his / their] office are actively left out of these conversations. • Interpersonal: When [Person] sees [male / White] colleagues actively exclude [women / people of color] from conversation, [he / they] openly disapproves and tell [his / their] colleagues that it is [sexist / racist]. • Institutional: [Person] identifies this as an issue during a relevant meeting. [Person] asks that HR formally documents and reprimands active [gender / racial] exclusion in the office. [Person’s] organization started a new program that gives out awards to high achieving members of the company. [Person] wants to make sure that awards are given out fairly. • Interpersonal: [Person] [nominates a few of his female colleagues / fills out nomination forms for a few of their colleagues of color] who [he believes / they believe] are deserving of the organization’s recognition. • Institutional: [Person] suggests a policy whereby there must be fair [gender / racial] representation in nominations and consideration for the award. [Person] notices that [women in his / people of color in their] office are spoken over and interrupted more often than [men / White people] are in team meetings. • Interpersonal: When [Person] notices [his male / their White] coworkers speak over [women / people of color] in meetings, [Person] tells them that they are interrupting and should give [his / their] colleagues their full attention. • Institutional: [Person] brings this pattern up during a relevant meeting and suggests formal meeting procedures to ensure [men / White people] are not speaking over or interrupting [women / people of color]. [Person] and [his / their] team are responsible for recruiting the new board of directors at [his / their] firm. The board of directors will have an influential role in the company. • Interpersonal: [Person] reaches out to a few [female colleagues he knows/ colleagues of color they know] are qualified. [Person] encourages them to apply for a position on the board, offering to be a reference. • Institutional: [Person] implements a policy in which [the board must have balanced gender representation / there must be balanced racial/ethnicity representation for the new board], Gender Context Fred serves on the hiring committee of his company. One of the most qualified candidates is a woman who recently had a child. • Interpersonal: A man on the committee expresses concerns that a woman who recently had children would make a poor candidate for the job, as he assumes these women will leave the job early. Fred responds to this man, stating that a candidate’s status as a mother is irrelevant to her qualifications for the position. • Institutional: Fred learns that the committee does not evaluate applications from women who report being married with children, as 62 hiring just as many qualified [women / people of color] as [men / White people]. the office assumes these women will leave the job early. In response, Fred files a formal complaint against this policy, stating it is an unfair practice. Race/Ethnicity Context Person K[L] serves on the hiring committee of their company. The hiring committee is looking for a person to represent the company at professional events, responsible for giving public presentations. One of the most qualified candidates is a person of color who has natural curly/kinky hair. • Interpersonal: A person on the committee expresses that this person should not be chosen, stating that their hairstyle is unprofessional. Person K responds, stating that a candidate’s natural hair style is irrelevant to their qualifications for the position. • Institutional: Person L learns that the committee will only hire this candidate if the person cuts or straightens their hair, based on company policies about “professional appearance.” In response, Person L files a formal complaint against this policy, stating it is an unfair practice. [Person] has worked in his department for a decade. One day, [Person] hears that early career [women / professionals of color] are hoping to move forward in the department, but are unsure how to do so. • Interpersonal: [Person] asks a few [of his female colleagues / colleagues of color] if they would like his insight into the company’s promotion practices. [Person] has coffee with those [women / colleagues of color] that are interested to discuss career goals and strategies. • Institutional: [Person] organizes a mentorship program that matches early career [female professionals / professionals of color] with senior leaders. The program’s goal is for mentors to provide career advancing opportunities. Gender Context Henry realizes men in his office call women certain names (such as baby, sexy, and sugar). Although this makes women in the office uncomfortable, men often make a joke of it rather than apologize. • Interpersonal: When Henry sees his male coworker call another woman baby, Henry confronts him and declares that it’s sexist. • Institutional: At a relevant meeting, Henry puts pressure on the organization to address this pattern, requesting sensitivity training for employees. Race/Ethnicity Context Person O[P] realizes White people in their office often call people of color by the wrong names. Although this makes people of color in the office uncomfortable, people often make a joke of it rather than apologize. • Interpersonal: When Person O sees a White coworker call a colleague of color by the wrong name, Person O confronts them and says that it’s racist. • Institutional: At a relevant meeting, Person P puts pressure on the organization to address this pattern, requesting sensitivity training for employees. 63 Measures. All measures were rated on scales ranging from 1 (Not at All) to 7 (Very Much). Measuring time relative to bias occurring, participants rated the extent to which each action could take place (1) “before [gender/racial] bias occurs,” (2) “after [gender/racial] bias occurs,” and (3) “contingent on bias occurring (i.e., [gender/racial] bias needs to happen for this action to take place).” For aim, participants reported the extent to which each action aims to (1) “foster/increase feelings of inclusion and participation” and (2) “counteract/decrease existing [gender/racial] bias” in the workplace. Measuring focus, participants rated the extent to which each action is focused on (1) “providing support to those who are potentially affected by [gender/racial] bias” and (2) “addressing people or policies that perpetuate [gender/racial] bias.” Results Creating Scenario Clusters. My first set of analyses were designed to establish whether ratings of scenarios clustered into two distinct factors: reactive and proactive (a secondary goal was to examine possible clustering into four distinct factors defined by crossing type with level). I preregistered conducting exploratory (EFA, Study 1a) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA, Study 1b) on each time, aim, and focus outcome variable to examine how the sixteen scenarios cluster together on each of these seven individual items. Exploratory factor analyses (Study 1a: Gender). In Study 1a, I conducted a maximum likelihood EFA with direct oblimin rotation for each outcome variable, extracting factors with an eigenvalue greater than one. As summarized in Table 3.2.1, this analysis yielded a two-factor solution for six out of seven outcome variables, with few cross-loadings greater than .32 (one standard for the minimal loading of an item in the social sciences; Costello & Osborne, 2005 citing Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). On all variables except focus on those potentially affected, items clustered based on my primary distinction between proactive and reaction action type. For 64 focus on those potentially affected, scenarios likely clustered onto a single factor because the item implied both direct (i.e., relevant to proactive scenarios) and indirect (i.e., relevant to reactive scenarios) support. 65 Table 3.2.1. Study 1a Exploratory Factor Analysis: Factor Loadings and Communalities Based on a Maximum Likelihood Analysis with Direct Oblimin Rotation for Scenario (S) Measures Action… Time: Before Time: After Time: Contingent Factor % of Variance Reactive 24.6% Proactive 24.5% Reactive 30.9% Proactive 24.3% Reactive 20.2% Proactive 31.6% Interpersonal Reactive S1 .77 .83 .69 Interpersonal Reactive S2 .74 .76 .72 Interpersonal Reactive S3 .57 .73 .54 Interpersonal Reactive S4 .76 .83 .64 Institutional Reactive S1 .72 .74 .67 Institutional Reactive S2 .64 .73 .60 Institutional Reactive S3 .66 .76 .60 Institutional Reactive S4 .71 .82 .59 Interpersonal Proactive S1 .66 .53 .74 Interpersonal Proactive S2 .67 .74 .76 Interpersonal Proactive S3 .73 .76 .82 Interpersonal Proactive S4 .60 .55 .76 Institutional Proactive S1 .75 .79 .75 Institutional Proactive S2 .70 .76 .79 Institutional Proactive S3 .75 .69 .80 Institutional Proactive S4 .66 .65 .82 Action… Aim: Increase Inclusion Aim: Decrease Bias Focus: Perpetrators Focus: Those Potentially Affected Reactive 20.3% Proactive 29% Reactive 26.4% Proactive 19.8% Reactive 24.9% Proactive 23.5% One Factor 42.4% Interpersonal Reactive S1 .66 .64 .71 .61 Interpersonal Reactive S2 .40 .41 .61 .67 .78 Interpersonal Reactive S3 .59 .64 .74 .65 Interpersonal Reactive S4 .59 .67 .69 .66 Institutional Reactive S1 .60 .79 .82 .66 Institutional Reactive S2 .36 .43 .77 .66 .72 Institutional Reactive S3 .79 .78 .73 .63 Institutional Reactive S4 .70 .75 .78 .66 Interpersonal Proactive S1 .73 .68 .69 .58 Interpersonal Proactive S2 .65 .69 .60 .62 Interpersonal Proactive S3 .66 .63 .78 .62 Interpersonal Proactive S4 .73 .67 .74 .52 Institutional Proactive S1 .78 .55 .73 .66 Institutional Proactive S2 .61 .55 .60 .68 Institutional Proactive S3 .60 .49 .48 .71 Institutional Proactive S4 .84 .64 .70 .60 66 Confirmatory factor analyses (Study 1b: Race/Ethnicity). In Study 1b, I preregistered conducting a confirmatory factor analysis on each outcome variable to test the viability of a two-factor (representing only the proactive/reactive distinction) as well as a four-factor model (reflecting Type x Level distinctions; see appendix Table A.1 for factor loadings). As summarized in Table 3.2.2, both models showed good fit. Although Chi-square tests of exact fit are significant, Comparative Fit and Tucker Lewis Indices (CFI/TFI) were higher than .90 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were below .08 indicating good to excellent fit. Exploratory factor analyses in Study 1a yielded stronger evidence for a two-factor solution, although the CFA in Study 2b also provided empirical justification for a multilevel operationalization of allyship action. In addition, Cronbach’s alphas for each condition (i.e., for the four scenarios for each Type x Level cell, for each outcome variable) were above .70 in all but one case (see appendix Figures A3.1-3.7). Thus, I created composite scores by averaging ratings to the same item across the four scenarios within each cell of the Type x Level factorial design. These analyses suggest these scenarios can be used in future research to capture distinctions in allyship both by type and level, even though here my primary analyses focus on distinctions by proactive vs. reactive type. Table 3.2.2. Study 1b Confirmatory Factor Analyses Two-Factor Four-Factor Outcome Variable χ2 (df) CFI TLI RMSEA χ2 (df) CFI TLI RMSEA Time: Before χ2 (103) = 233*** 0.935 0.924 0.060 χ2 (98) = 165*** 0.966 0.959 0.044 Time: After χ2 (103) = 173*** 0.973 0.968 0.044 χ2 (98) = 168*** 0.973 0.966 0.045 Time: Contingent χ2 (103) = 234*** 0.938 0.928 0.061 χ2 (98) = 209*** 0.948 0.936 0.057 Aim: Increase Inclusion χ2 (103) = 177*** 0.968 0.963 0.045 χ2 (98) = 166*** 0.971 0.964 0.045 Aim: Decrease Bias χ2 (103) = 181*** 0.966 0.960 0.047 χ2 (98) = 147*** 0.978 0.973 0.038 Focus: Perpetrators χ2 (103) = 297*** 0.911 0.897 0.074 χ2 (98) = 237*** 0.937 0.923 0.063 Focus: Those Potentially Affected χ2 (103) = 182*** 0.968 0.963 0.048 χ2 (98) = 169*** 0.972 0.965 0.046 ***indicates p < .001 67 Testing Hypothesized Distinctions in Time, Aim, and Focus. To test my primary hypotheses on these scenario composites, I conducted a 2 (Type: Reactive/Proactive) X 2 (Level: Interpersonal/Institutional) X 2 (Participant Identity: either Gender in Study 1a or Race/Ethnicity in Study 1b) Mixed ANOVA on each outcome variable. Focusing on the main effects of Type, descriptive statistics and results from this Mixed ANOVA can be found in Table 3.3.7 7 See appendix Tables A.2.1-2.3 for statistics involving level and participant identity. Table 3.3 Study 1a&b Descriptive Statistics and Main Effects of Action Type from Mixed ANOVA Analysis Study 1a: Gender Reactive Proactive Timing M (SD) M (SD) F(df) n2p p Before 3.32 (1.58) 5.43 (1.33) F(1,382) = 368.24 0.491 < .001 After 6.10 (1.06) 4.79 (1.54) F(1, 381) = 229.69 0.376 < .001 Contingent 5.55 (1.16) 3.26 (1.70) F(1, 382) = 457.70 0.545 < .001 Aim Decrease Bias 5.78 (1.10) 5.04 (1.26) F(1,382) = 132.35 0.257 < .001 Increase Inclusion 5.15 (1.21) 5.73 (1.10) F(1,382) = 96.17 0.201 < .001 Focus Perpetrators 5.91 (1.10) 4.42 (1.47) F(1,382) = 294.67 0.435 < .001 Those Potentially Affected 5.60 (1.17) 5.54 (1.13) F(1,382) = 0.85 0.002 .385 Study 1b: Race/Ethnicity Reactive Proactive Timing M (SD) M (SD) F(df) n2p p Before 3.36 (1.40) 5.23 (1.35) F(1,346) = 359.22 0.509 < .001 After 5.87 (1.06) 4.57 (1.49) F(1,346) = 260.69 0.430 < .001 Contingent 5.25 (1.16) 3.25 (1.52) F(1,346) = 393.92 0.532 < .001 Aim Decrease Bias 5.39 (1.32) 4.82 (1.27) F(1,346) = 66.30 0.161 < .001 Increase Inclusion 4.88 (1.29) 5.63 (1.12) F(1,346) = 184.87 0.348 < .001 Focus Perpetrators 5.52 (1.25) 4.18 (1.35) F(1, 346) = 246.58 0.416 < .001 Those Potentially Affected 5.21 (1.34) 5.40 (1.20) F(1, 346) = 12.13 0.034 < .001 68 Significant main effects of Type demonstrate support for most of my preregistered hypotheses concerning time, aim, and focus. For time ratings, proactive action was perceived as more possible before bias occurs (dGender = 1.45, dRace/Ethnicity = 1.36) and less contingent on bias occurring (dGender = 1.58, dRace/Ethnicity = 1.48) compared to reactive action. In contrast, reactive action was perceived to be more possible after bias occurs compared to proactive action (dGender = 0.98, dRace/Ethnicity = 0.99). For aim, reactive action was more strongly perceived to be aimed at decreasing bias compared to proactive action (dGender = 0.63, dRace/Ethnicity = 0.44), whereas proactive action was more strongly perceived to be aimed at increasing inclusion (dGender = 0.50, dRace/Ethnicity = 0.61). Finally, for focus, participants perceived reactive action to be more focused on perpetrators of bias compared to proactive action (dGender = 1.14, dRace/Ethnicity = 1.03). Only in the context of race/ethnicity (but not for gender) did I find that proactive action was more strongly believed to be focused on those potentially affected by bias than reactive action (dRace/Ethnicity = 0.15). Given this inconsistent pattern with focus on those potentially affected by bias, I conducted an additional analysis (exploratory in Study 1a, preregistered in Study 1b) including the two Focus variables (addressing perpetrators of bias versus supporting those potentially affected by bias) as an additional within-subjects factor. This analysis allowed us to ask whether proactive action is more focused on those potentially affected than on perpetrators, whereas reactive action shows the reverse pattern of focus. Both studies yielded a significant two-way interaction between Type and Focus Item, FGender(1, 382) = 223.00, p < .001; η2p = 0.369; FRace/Ethnicity(1, 346) = 255.14, p < .001; η2p = 0.424; Reactive action was perceived to be more focused on perpetrators of bias than focused on those potentially affected (dGender = 0.27, pGender 69 < .001; dRace/Ethnicity = 0.24, pRace/Ethnicity < .001). The reverse was true for proactive action (dGender = 0.84, pGender < .001; dRace/Ethnicity = 0.95, pRace/Ethnicity < .001). In other words, when comparing relative differences in perceived focus, I found evidence that supports my conceptual distinction between proactive and reactive action. Study 1 Discussion Studies 1a and b provide support that my sixteen scenarios adequately capture conceptually meaningful distinctions between reactive and proactive actions. In addition, speaking to the generalizability of these scenarios, nearly all preregistered effects replicated across both gender and race/ethnicity contexts. As hypothesized, reactive actions compared to proactive actions were perceived as being more possible after or contingent on bias occurring. In contrast, proactive action was perceived to be possible before bias occurs. These predicted effects on the timing of action are nearly definitional to the distinction of proactive and reactive action. However, I also found support for conceptual distinctions on aim and focus of these actions. Proactive actions were perceived to be aimed at increasing feelings of inclusion, whereas reactive actions were aimed at decreasing existing bias. In addition, proactive actions were perceived as relatively more focused on those potentially affected by bias than on perpetrators, whereas the reverse was perceived to be the case for reactive actions. Interestingly, and counter to my hypotheses, proactive and reactive actions are both seen as focused on supporting those potentially affected by bias. However, reactive action is viewed as being more focused on perpetrators of bias compared to proactive action. Having validated that these scenarios represent actions classified as either proactive or reactive (at multiple levels) as defined in my typology, I next sought to use these stimuli to investigate the perceived efficacy of each form of action in creating change. As in Study 1, I 70 carried out parallel studies to test perceived effectiveness of these actions in improving the climate for both women and people of color. Study 2 Having validated this set of sixteen scenarios as capturing action of different types (and across levels) from my conceptual typology, I next sought to examine how proactive and reaction action might be seen as changing organizational climate. My hypothesis was that proactive action would be more effective than reactive action for signaling an inclusive climate. I presented two distinct samples of participants with the gender (Study 2a) or race/ethnicity oriented (Study 2b) versions of the sixteen scenarios and asked them to imagine providing guidance to a woman friend or a friend of color who has gotten a job opportunity at this workplace, one year after the event took place. I chose to examine future rather than immediate climate to mitigate the potential confound of reactive action scenarios necessarily involving negative events; the question then becomes, does an action in the past have implications for the perceived culture of the organization one year later. For each scenario, participants rated the extent to which they would suggest to their friend that they would experience social fit, social identity threat, and be as successful as their men or White colleagues if they were to join this organization. I preregistered the following hypotheses. First, I predicted that people would imagine a more supportive environment for women and people of color (i.e., more social fit and ability to be successful, and less social identity threat) in workplaces in which proactive, compared to reactive action had occurred one year previously. I believed that proactive actions would be perceived as relatively more impactful in engendering a positive climate because of the effects identified in Study 1: compared with reactive actions, proactive actions can happen at any time, 71 are aimed at inclusion, and are relatively more focused on benefits for the targets’ (rather than perpetrators’ actions). Method Participants and Procedure. As with my previous studies, sample sizes were determined a priori and based on power analyses via G*Power. The target sample size for each iteration of Study 2 was 380, adequate to detect (80% power) my smallest Type X Level interaction effect (n2p = .020) found in my previous studies. After preregistered exclusions, final sample sizes were 371 (156 men, 215 women and non-binary people) and 367 (219 participants of color, 145 White/European-American participants, 3 prefer not to say)8 participants recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Given the increased focused on workplace dynamics in this study, I only included (as preregistered) participants who reported being employed. Most participants in these samples were employed full-time (Study 2a: 77%; Study 2b: 80%), with the rest reporting part-time employment (Study 2a: 23%; Study 2b: 20%). Although not an exclusion criterion, slightly more than half of the samples (Study 2a: 55%; Study 2b: 56.3%) had a two-year degree at least. Samples were recruited from the United States and Canada (Study 2a: Mage = 40.99; SDage = 12.49; Study 2b: Mage = 37.10; SDage = 10.27) After completing the demographics questionnaire, participants read the sixteen scenarios, emphasizing that each take place in a different workplace, in random order. For each scenario, participants imagined they heard this story about a workplace about a year ago and, for the questions that followed each story, that they are presently providing advice to a female friend 8 Participants of color included people who identified as Black/African-American (85), East Asian (20), Latinx/Hispanic (27) or Latinx/Hispanic and White/European-American (21), Middle Eastern (4), South Asian (7), Southeast Asian/Pacific Islander (14), Indigenous (1) or Indigenous with one or multiple other race/ethnic identities (5), West Indian (1), Central Asian (1), and multiple racial/ethnic identities or “biracial” (33). 72 (Study 2a) or a friend of color (Study 2b) who has gotten a job opportunity at this workplace. I inserted this imagined time delay to allow for the impression that the action taken could have changed the climate since the event took place. Scenarios were identical to those of Study 1, related to gender or race/ethnicity issues. See appendix for full scenarios and measures. Measures. After each scenario, participants were asked: Given this event you heard about a year ago and the time that has passed, to what extent would you tell [a female friend/a friend of color] of yours…they would feel valued and respected in this workplace (Social Fit; Schmader & Sedikides, 2018); they would be able to be as successful as their [male/White] colleagues in this workplace (Ability to Be Successful); they would feel negatively judged by others in this workplace because of [her gender/their race/ethnicity] (Social Identity Threat, Hall et al., 2015). All three measures were rated on scales from 1 (Not at All) to 7 (Very Much). Descriptive statistics for these measures are reported in Table 3.4. Cronbach alphas for scenario composites comprising four categories of action in the Type x Level framework showed acceptable reliability with all but one being .70 or greater. Results Focused on the effects of type, I conducted a 2 (Action Type: Reactive/Proactive) X 2 (Level: Interpersonal/Institutional) X 2 (Participant Identity: either Gender in Study 2a or Race/Ethnicity in Study 2b) Mixed ANOVA on each dependent variable. As in Study 1, effects involving level and participant identity (although the latter are predominately null) are presented in the appendix. Table 3.4 summarizes the effect of type which are of primary interest. 73 For both gender and race/ethnicity, I found hypothesized main effects of type for all three outcome variables. Compared with reactive action, proactive action was perceived to be more conducive to fostering social fit (dGender = 2.08, dRace/Ethnicity = 2.21); to facilitate greater success for women and people of color (dGender = 1.84, dRace/Ethnicity = 1.82); and to lead to less social identity threat (dGender = 1.95, dRace/Ethnicity = 2.03). Although consistent with my hypotheses, the large effect sizes also suggest that the clearer indication of bias having occurred (even if over a year ago) in the reactive scenarios might be still driving these effects. I try to address this limitation in Study 3. Discussion In Study 2, I supported my core hypotheses that proactive action is anticipated to bring about a more positive workplace culture for women and people of color compared to reactive action. People perceived that women and people of color would experience more social fit and be able to be as successful as their men/White colleagues in workplaces in which proactive (compared to reactive) forms of action took place. In contrast, workplaces in which reactive action took place were perceived to be more identity threatening than those in which proactive action occurred. One clear alternative explanation for these effects is that the explicit presence of bias in the reactive scenarios is what is driving these effects rather than the presence of allyship action. I Table 3.4 Study 2a&b Descriptive Statistics and Main Effects of Action Type from Mixed ANOVA Analysis 1a: Gender Reactive Proactive α M (SD) α M (SD) F(df) n2p p Social Fit 0.85 3.57 (1.16) 0.84 5.66 (0.81) F(1,363) = 924.49 0.718 < .001 Ability to Be Successful 0.86 3.77 (1.15) 0.86 5.64 (0.84) F(1,365) = 841.91 0.698 < .001 Social Identity Threat 0.84 4.25 (1.33) 0.87 2.18 (0.99) F(1,363) = 880.23 0.708 < .001 1b: Race/Ethnicity Reactive Proactive α M (SD) α M (SD) F(df) n2p p Social Fit 0.84 3.32 (1.14) 0.85 5.59 (0.89) F(1,357) = 953.41 0.728 < .001 Ability to Be Successful 0.87 3.52 (1.24) 0.88 5.55 (0.96) F(1,358) = 804.56 0.693 < .001 Social Identity Threat 0.82 4.56 (1.12) 0.85 2.37 (1.04) F(1,350) = 835.10 0.705 < .001 74 attempted to mitigate this confound by framing my scenarios as past events so that it would be possible to imagine that this was either an isolated incident from the past, or one that the reaction action has since rectified. In that context, it is interesting that such strong negative impressions of the climate persist despite the presence of reactive allyship. However, because it remains possible that reactive scenarios may have signaled less positive climates simply because they necessarily involve evidence of bias, it is important to examine alternative operationalizations of “effectiveness” that sidestep this potential confound. Using my framework and stimuli, Study 3 reveals that actions aimed to support women and people of color can have disparate impact on climate. Nonetheless, given the potential confound of reactive action involving confrontation of problematic behavior, I strived to consider alternative operationalizations of effectiveness in Study 3. Study 3 As in Study 2, the goal of Study 3 was to examine perceptions of proactive and reactive actions’ effectiveness. However, I opted to use alternative operationalizations of effectiveness given the constraints of defining it as impact on workplace climate. Rather than focusing on climate, Study 3 investigated the extent to which different actions are perceived to: (1) increase [gender/racial] equality generally and (2) improve workplace culture over different time spans. Additionally, Study 3 was designed to examine if (3) advantaged group members’ allyship actions9 are perceived as more effective than when the same behaviors are carried out by another member of the targeted disadvantaged group. As with my previous studies, I used the scenarios that were validated in Study 1 to vary in type across levels (and included participant identity as a 9 Based on my definition of allyship, “allyship actions” uniquely describe action taken by members of the non-targeted, advantaged group (e.g., men confronting sexism, White people confronting racism). 75 between-subjects factor). Again, I conducted this study in the context of gender (Study 3a) and race/ethnicity (Study 3b). As in Study 2, I predicted main effects of type: I hypothesized that proactive (versus reactive) would be more strongly perceived as effective in increasing gender and racial equality in the workplace and improving workplace culture for women and people of color in the long-term. Paralleling my rationale for Study 2, I believed that proactive actions would be perceived as relatively more effective in these ways because they can be enacted at any time and aimed at establishing an inclusive culture for members of disadvantaged groups. I did not hypothesize differences between actions for short-term impact however, given that reactive action (as confrontation) is found to be effective for in-the-moment change in previous research (e.g., Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Rasinksi & Czopp, 2010). Study 3 aimed to also uncover the effectiveness of actions dependent on the agent of change. In Study 3, I compared actions’ effectiveness in improving workplace culture when enacted by a man/White person (allyship action) versus a woman/person of color. These analyses for the gender context (Study 3a) were exploratory given my predominant focus on the proactive/reactive comparison, but hypotheses were preregistered for the race/ethnicity context (Study 3b; based on effects found in Study 3a). Prior work demonstrates that disadvantaged compared to advantaged group members’ confrontations are less impactful (e.g., Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Rasinksi & Czopp, 2010). Therefore, I predicted that people of color (relative to a White agent) would be perceived as least effective at improving culture by addressing bias (i.e., less effective than a White person’s reactive action, less effective than when they promote inclusion). However, I did not hypothesize that disadvantaged group members would be less 76 effective in promoting inclusion, as disadvantaged group members’ inclusion efforts can be particularly impactful (e.g., mentorship; Ortiz-Walters & Gilson, 2005). Study 3 Methods Participants and Procedure. I set sample sizes a priori based on G*Power calculations. A sample size of 380 for each version is adequate to detect (80% power) the smallest effect found for my smallest Type x Level interaction (n2p = .020) for my paradigm. Given the number of participants who were excluded based on preregistered attention check questions and failure to finish key measures in my previous studies, approximately 10% on average, I oversampled to reach this target number (N = 460 for each version). After exclusions, total sample sizes were 389 (156 men, 233 women and non-binary participants) and 385 (170 participants of color, 213 White participants, 2 prefer not to say)10 participants recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Although there were no demographic exclusions, over half of the samples were employed full time (Study 3a: 63%; Study 3b: 53%) and held at least a two-year degree (Study 3a: 55%; Study 3b: 61%). I recruited participants located either in the United States or Canada (Study 3a: Mage = 40.45; SDage = 13.39; Study 3b: Mage = 39.93; SDage = 13.62). Like Study 1, Study 3 participants provided their third-party perceptions of actions taken in scenarios but completed new measures of perceived effectiveness. Additionally, I randomly assigned participants to only one scenario out of the possible four scenarios, per condition (rather than having participants rate all sixteen scenarios); this was to ensure that the study was a manageable length for participants. Scenarios were identical to those of Studies 1-2, with Study 10 This sample included participants who identified as Black-African American (n = 43), Latin-American or Hispanic (n = 26) and Latin-American/Hispanic + White/European-American (n = 14), East-Asian (n = 25), Southeast Asian or Pacific Islander (n = 6), South Asian (n = 15), Indigenous or Indigenous with one or more other racial/ethnic identities (n = 10), Middle-eastern (n = 2), and those who identified with multiple racial/ethnic identities (n = 28). 77 3a and Study 3b concerning gender and race/ethnicity issues, respectively. See appendix for full scenarios and measures. Measures. Participants completed five new measures related to effectiveness (one item each). Participants rated the extent to which they believe actions are effective in (1) increasing [gender/racial] equality in the workplace and (2) improving workplace culture for [women/people of color] in the short-term versus (3) the long-term. Participants also reported the extent to which they believe that actions are effective in (4) improving workplace culture for [women/people of color] when enacted by a [man / White person] versus (5) a [woman / person of color]. All measures were on a scale from 1 (Not at All) to 7 (Very Much). Study 3 Results Relevant statistics from the Mixed ANOVA analyses and p-values for pairwise comparisons are reported in the main text. Effects reported did not vary across participant identity groups (i.e., comparing men versus women participants, White participants versus participants of color’s responses).11 Descriptive statistics and effect sizes for preregistered pairwise comparisons comparing reactive to proactive types for Study 3 are reported in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. 11 See appendix Tables A.5-6 for the full models, including statistics involving level and participant identity. 78 Figure 2.1. Study 3a Mean and (Standard Deviations) for Impact for Gender Equality Outcome Variables and Pairwise Comparisons from Mixed ANOVA 4.97(1.38) 4.84(1.41) 4.70(1.58)5.32(1.49)4.58(1.50)4.94(1.45) 4.72(1.46)4.80(1.54)5.06(1.51) 4.88(1.50)1234567Increasing Gender Equality Short-term Impact Long-term Impact Men's Impact Women's ImpactReactive Proactived = 0.03• d = 0.09 d = 0.07• d = 0.18*** d = 0.12 d = 0.20** d = 0.50*** **p < .01 ***p < .001 † preregistered hypothesis supported • preregistered hypothesis not supported 79 Figure 2.2. Study 3b Mean and (Standard Deviations) for Impact for Racial/Ethnic Equality Outcome Variables and Pairwise Comparisons from Mixed ANOVA 4.60(1.57)4.61(1.57) 4.24(1.70)4.79(1.72) 4.44(1.61)4.95(1.48) 4.74(1.47)4.76(1.56)4.98(1.53) 4.83(1.45)1234567Increasing Racial Equality Short-term Impact Long-term Impact White People's Impact People of Color's ImpactReactive Proactived = 0.24***† d = 0.08 d = 0.33***† d = 0.11 d = 0.10 d = 0.25***† d = 0.21***† **p < .01 ***p < .001 † preregistered hypothesis supported • preregistered hypothesis not supported 80 Increasing Equality in the Workplace. For increasing equality, I ran a 2 (Type) X 2 (Level) X 2 (Participant Identity) analysis. For race/ethnicity and as hypothesized, there was a main effect of type, F(1, 379) = 18.84; p < .001, η2p = 0.047; proactive action was perceived as more effective at increasing racial equality in the workplace. For gender, perceptions of reactive and proactive action did not differ, F(1, 383) = 0.67; p = .415, η2p = 0.002. Improving Culture in the Short and Long-Term. I ran a 2 (Type) X 2 (Level) X 2 (Participant Identity) x Time (Long Term, Short Term) analysis to directly contrast perceptions of actions’ effectiveness over short and long-time spans. There were Type by Time interactions in both the context of gender, F(1, 383) = 9.95 p = .002, η2p = 0.025, and race/ethnicity, F(1, 379) = 33.98, p < .001, η2p = .082. I supported my hypothesis that proactive action is viewed as a more impactful long-term strategy than reactive action in the context of race/ethnicity (p < .001) but not gender (p > .99). Reactive and proactive action were perceived as equally impactful in the short-term in both contexts (pgender = 0.256, prace/ethnicity < .99). Advantaged and Disadvantaged Group Agents’ Impact on Workplace Culture. I ran a 2 (Type) X 2 (Level) X 2 (Participant Identity) x Agent (Advantaged, Disadvantaged) analysis to directly contrast perceptions of actions’ effectiveness across agents. There were Type by Agent interactions in both the context of gender, F(1, 383) = 50.99, p < .001, η2p = 0.118, and race/ethnicity, F(1, 379) = 6.29, p = .013, η2p = 0.016. Between-agent comparisons revealed that advantaged (compared to disadvantaged) group members were perceived as more effective in taking reactive (ps < .001) but not proactive (pgender = .082; prace/ethnicity = .364) action. Within-agent comparisons revealed that in both contexts, disadvantaged group members were perceived as less impactful in their confrontation compared to inclusion-based proactive action (ps < .001). Conversely, men were perceived as less impactful in enacting proactive 81 compared to reactive action (p < .001); however, this effect did not replicate for perceptions of White agents’ allyship action (p = .357). Study 3 Discussion As reactive actions such as confrontation have received more attention in the social psychological literature, this study provides insight into proactive efforts to improve workplace equality and culture. In Study 3, I operationalized effectiveness in three new ways to better understand the relative benefits of actions in my typology. First, I measured the extent to which actions are perceived to increase gender or racial equality. Although reactive and proactive action were both perceived as equally effective increasing gender equality, proactive action emerged as particularly impactful in promoting racial equality. Despite the perceived benefits of reactive action differing by group, what is novel and important about this finding is the clear evidence that members of both advantaged and disadvantaged group members see the benefits of proactive forms of action (in promoting racial equality). However, in the social psychological literature, reactive actions such as confrontation have received more attention. Second, I examined the extent to which these actions are effective in the short versus long-term. In the context of gender, reactive and proactive actions were perceived as equally beneficial as both short and long-term strategies for improving workplace culture. Nevertheless, in the context of race/ethnicity, proactive action was perceived as more impactful in improving culture in the long-term compared to reactive action. Why might have these effects appeared only the race/ethnicity context? Descriptively, perceived effectiveness of reactive action (both for equality and long-term impact) is lower in the context of race/ethnicity than gender whereas proactive perceptions are equivalent. In other words, perceptions that proactive action is more effective appears driven by the perception that reactive action is decidedly less effective 82 (nonetheless these beliefs were still above mid-point, nearing “Moderately” effective). There are several reasons why reactive action might be perceived as less effective when taken in the context of racism compared to sexism. For example, people might perceive announcing a behavior/policy as racist (versus sexist) as more likely to cause defensiveness or backlash, thus hindering goals for equality or improving culture long-term. Exploring how reactive action is perceived to function differently when addressing distinct issues is a worthy area of future research. Third, I investigated how the agents’ identity may impact how effective actions are perceived to be in improving workplace culture. In both the gender and race contexts, advantaged group members were perceived to be more impactful when carrying out reactive action. Notably, I see these effects in a context where a woman or person of color is reacting to bias targeted not at themselves but at another member of their group. Again, a broader point in this work is to demonstrate that while perceptions of advantaged and disadvantaged group members’ confrontation-based behaviors might differ, both groups are perceived as effective in other efforts to improve workplace culture. Taken together, these first three studies provide insight into relative differences between reactive and proactive actions and do so using experimentally controlled scenarios that provide some degree of control and consistency to better compare across gender and race. However, the reliance on scenarios is both a strength and a limitation. The question remains as to whether the distinction between proactive and reactive action predicts different outcomes in an actual workplace setting. 83 Study 4 Moving beyond hypothetical scenarios, in Study 4, I operationalized effectiveness as the extent to which women’s actual experiences of allyship predict their overall feelings of inclusivity, threat, and commitment in their present workplaces. As with Studies 1-3, my hypotheses center on distinctions between reactive and proactive actions across levels. As proactive actions are geared towards women’s inclusion, I predicted that women’s experiences of proactive action would positively predict feelings of social fit and negatively predict social identity threat in their workplaces. Given the explicit presence of bias in situations where reactive action occurs, I predicted reverse patterns for reactive action: women’s experiences of reactive action would negatively predict feelings of social fit and positively predict social identity threat. Recognizing that presence of reactive action might be confounded with the presence of bias (as suggested in Study 2), I included measures capturing the broader effects of action on workplace culture. I explored how reactive action predicts feelings of workplace inclusivity and workplace commitment. As reactive action might signal that gender bias is being taken seriously in an organization, I did not hypothesize that reactive action would negatively predict these outcomes as they would with women’s personal feelings of inclusion. Given proactive actions’ focus on benefitting members of disadvantaged groups, I did however hypothesize that proactive action would positively predict workplace inclusivity and commitment. Study 3 demonstrated that the identity of who acts influences perceived effectiveness. Therefore, I preregistered examining the role of agent identity in predicting lived allyship effectiveness (e.g., are men’s reactive allyship actions more predictive of women’s workplace outcomes compared to similar actions performed by other women?). 84 Study 4 Methods Participants and Procedure. Interested in the impact of allyship in male-dominated workplace settings, I specifically recruited women self-identified as working part or full-time in an occupation in or related to science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM). I set sample size to 100 a priori based on G*Power calculations. A sample size of 100 is adequate to detect (95% power) a correlation coefficient of 0.35. I chose this effect size based on a previous, similar correlational study which examined the relationship between men’s allyship frequency and women’s (STEM professionals) social identity threat in the workplace (Dennehy et al., 2018). To account for exclusions (preregistered attention check questions and failure to finish key measures), I oversampled to reach this target number (N = 150). The final sample size after exclusions was 149 participants (Mage = 37.87; SDage = 10.50) who self-identified as women (145 cisgender women, 3 transgender women, 1 prefer not to say) recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk.12 Participants completed a demographics questionnaire to determine eligibility for the study. Afterwards, participants read that the research team is interested in their “experiences and perceptions of allyship action in STEM: behaviors that intend to support people in STEM who are from identity groups that are underrepresented and often marginalized.” Provided with a definition of gender bias, participants read descriptions of all six forms of allyship action as strategies for addressing gender bias.13 Action descriptions appeared one at a time in a random 12 Recruiting from participants in the United States and Canada, the sample was predominately White/European-American (n = 110, including 3 Latin-American/Hispanic). However, participants also identified as Black/African-American (14), Latin American or Hispanic (8), Mixed Race or Ethnicity (8), East Asian (6), South Asian (2), and Southeast Asian/Pacific Islander (1). 13 Study 4 newly includes intrapersonal level actions. As I preregistered collapsing across level, I was less concerned that the inclusion of intrapersonal action would overcomplicate my design. Instead, including intrapersonal actions as scale items contributes to the reactive and proactive composite scores. 85 order alongside perception measures (i.e., a fully within-subjects design). After reading all action descriptions and completing perception measures, participants answered questions about their own workplace experiences and perceptions of gender bias. See appendix for full descriptions and measures. Measures. All measures were rated on scales ranging from 1 (Not at All) to 5 (Very Much). Understanding. Participants rated the extent to which they understood what each of the six actions were based on the description provided. On average, participants reported moderately to very much understanding each of the six action types based on the descriptions (Mrange = 4.21- 4.38, SDrange = 0.78 - 0.90). Action frequency (Predictor Variables). I measured action frequency of the six allyship actions by examining both prevalence and dispersion of action (amongst men and women separately) in participants’ workplaces (Campbell & Brauer, 2021). For prevalence, participants rated the extent to which they experience/witness men and women take each action in their workplace. For dispersion, participants rated the proportion of men and women who at least occasionally engage in action in their workplace. Prevalence and dispersion ratings were highly correlated for both targets across action type (Proactive: α = 0.89; Reactive: α = 0.90). Therefore, I created one action frequency score for each type of action. Action frequency was used to predict the following four outcome variables. Social Fit. Participants answered five questions about their feelings of social fit in their workplace (Aday et al., 2023; e.g., When I am around other employees, I feel like I can act natural). 86 Workplace Inclusion. Beyond individual feelings of inclusion, participants reported how much they perceive their workplace culture as inclusive (3 items, Dennehy et al., 2018; e.g., My workplace has a culture that values contributions that women make in the workplace). Social Identity Threat. Participants reported the degree to which they feel very aware of their gender and concerned that their gender influences the way others interact with them (Hall, 2015). These two items did not strongly correlate (r = 0.12, p = 0.13), and therefore I did not collapse them into one social identity threat measure. Given that concern for gender-based judgment is more relevant to action effectiveness than general awareness of gender, I only include the latter item in my analyses. Analyses on social identity threat as awareness of gender can be found in the appendix. Workplace Commitment. Participants answered four questions about their commitment to their workplace (Dennehy et al., 2018; e.g., I often think about quitting (R), I feel “emotionally attached” to my workplace). Items were collapsed into one composite score (α = 0.78). Perceptions of Gender Bias (Covariate). Participants reported the extent to which they believe that gender bias is generally a problem in STEM fields (1 item). I included this measure to account for differences in women’s beliefs that action needs to be taken at all. Study 4 Results and Discussion Considering Agent. I used linear regression to explore the comparative effects of experiencing men and women’s action on workplace outcomes. Unlike the findings of Study 3, there was no consistent evidence to suggest that men’s allyship action is more predictive of women’s workplace outcomes (see appendix Table A.11). As there were main effects of action frequency however, I collapsed across agent to conduct the following preregistered analyses. 87 Collapsing Across Agent. As preregistered, I used linear regression to test my hypotheses: regressing social fit, workplace inclusivity, workplace commitment, and social identity threat on frequency of reactive and proactive allyship action, simultaneously. Frequency of reactive and proactive action were correlated with one another (r = .60, p < .001) but neither variable reached threshold (Kim, 2019) for multicollinearity (VIFproactive = 1.56; VIFreactive = 1.58; tolerances = 0.64). Analyses were conducted with and without controlling for perceptions of gender bias, as per my preregistration. As perceptions of gender bias significantly predicted all outcome variables, I discuss analyses where it was included as a covariate (Step 2). Regression analyses are summarized in Table 3.5. Descriptive statistics can be found in Table 3.6 and 3.7. 88 Table 3.5. Study 4. Outcome Variables Regressed on Proactive Action Frequency, Controlling for Perceptions of Gender Bias Step 1 Step 2 Social Fit β SE t p β SE t p Proactive .43 .10 4.47 < .001 .41 .10 4.28 < .001 Reactive -.11 .10 -1.18 .240 -.08 .10 -0.88 .380 Gender Bias -.17 .08 -2.24 .026 R2 F(2,145) p R2 F(3, 144) p .14 11.66 < .001 0.17 9.66 < .001 Step 1 Step 2 Workplace Inclusivity β SE t p β SE t p Proactive .55 .09 6.00 < .001 .53 .09 5.83 < .001 Reactive -.26 .09 -2.77 .006 -.23 .09 -2.47 .015 Gender Bias -.17 .07 -2.29 .023 R2 F(2,145) p R2 F(3, 144) p .20 18.50 < .001 .23 14.40 .023 Step 1 Step 2 Workplace Commitment β SE t p β SE t p Proactive .35 .10 3.50 < .001 .32 .10 3.30 .001 Reactive -.20 .10 -2.03 .044 -.17 .10 -1.72 .088 Gender Bias -.19 .08 -2.43 .016 R2 F(2, 145) p R2 F(3, 144) p .08 6.14 .003 .11 6.19 < .001 Step 1 Step 2 Social Identity Threat β SE t p β SE t p Proactive -.19 .10 -1.85 .067 -.15 .10 -1.55 .123 Reactive .30 .10 2.99 .003 .25 .10 2.59 .011 Gender Bias 0.29 .08 3.70 < .001 R2 F(2,145) p R2 F(3, 144) p .06 4.47 .013 .14 7.79 < .001 Table 3.6. Study 4. Correlation Matrix Reflecting Action Frequency and Outcome Variables Proactive Reactive Social Fit Inclusivity Commitment SI Threat Gender Bias Proactive — Reactive 0.60*** — SocialFit 0.36*** 0.14 — Inclusivity 0.35*** -0.01 0.58*** — Commitment 0.23** 0.01 0.46*** 0.56*** — SI Threat -0.01 0.19* -0.37*** -0.39*** -0.41*** — GenderBias -0.02 0.10 -0.19* -0.17* -0.22** 0.32*** — Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 89 Table 3.7. Study 4. Descriptive statistics Action Frequency M SD Reactive All 2.63 0.79 Men 2.36 0.84 Women 2.89 0.91 Proactive All 3.18 0.78 Men 2.92 0.90 Women 3.32 0.84 Men’s Action (All) 2.64 0.80 Women’s Action (All) 3.16 0.78 All 2.90 0.70 Workplace Outcomes Social Fit 3.53 0.93 Workplace Inclusivity 3.80 1.02 Workplace Commitment 3.34 1.09 Social Identity Threat 2.87 1.31 Perceptions of Gender Bias 3.85 1.07 As hypothesized, the frequency of proactive actions in women’s workplaces predicted stronger feelings of inclusivity, both in terms of their personal fit to the workplace (β = .41) and perceptions of their workplace’s culture (β = .53). Also as hypothesized, women who experience more proactive action are more likely to feel committed to their organizations (β = .32). Contrary to my hypothesis however, the presence of proactive action was not related to social identity threat (β = -.15). As predicted, the extent to which women experience reactive action positively predicted their concern about gender-based judgments in the workplace (β = 0.25). Although not hypothesized, reactive action negatively predicted workplace inclusivity (β = -0.23). As suggested in Study 2, this may be due to the contexts in which reactive action occurs, where bias is necessarily present. However, women’s experiences with reactive action did not always predict negative outcomes. Contrary to my hypothesis, experiencing or witnessing reactive action in the workplace was unrelated to women’s feelings of social fit (β = -.08) and workplace commitment 90 (β = -.17). In these ways, reactive action is less beneficial (than proactive action) but not detrimental to women’s personal feelings of social fit and commitment. Action frequency variables provide insight into women’s actual experiences with allyship in their workplaces. Therefore, as a preregistered exploratory analysis, I conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Type x Agent) to compare mean levels of action frequency. A main effect of action type, F(1, 148) = 90.06; p < .001, η2p = 0.378, revealed that women more frequently experience proactive compared to reactive action in their workplaces (d = 0.78). Moreover, a main effect of agent, F(1, 148) = 78.42; p < .001, η2p = 0.346, revealed that women experience more action (generally) from women than from men (d = 0.73). General Discussion Applying the typology of allyship action, I operationalized and directly compared reactive and proactive action across four studies. In Study 1, I developed a set of 16 scenarios that capture theoretical distinctions in reactive and proactive actions’ timing, aim, and focus. I confirmed that these scenarios reflect reactive and proactive action in contexts where gender and racial bias issues are salient. In so doing, Study 1 provides a set of methodological tools for research beyond these individual studies. The scenario set and measures of timing, aim, and focus can be used to answer various research questions concerning allyship, for example advantaged group members’ motivation or disadvantaged group members’ perceptions of performativity. Moreover, these scenarios were validated for allyship actions in response to both gender and race/ethnicity issues, suggesting they are adaptable across contexts. Future research might use this scenario set to operationalize allyship where other issues are salient (e.g., classism, ageism, ableism). 91 Studies 2-3 used this scenario set to investigate differences in actions’ (perceived) effectiveness, revealing advantages of both proactive and reactive action. First and replicating research on confrontation, I found that reactive action was perceived as a more effective strategy when used by advantaged group members. Second and beyond replication, I newly demonstrated that proactive action is perceived to be particularly well-suited to improve members of disadvantaged groups’ experiences compared to reactive action. Supporting literature on the positive impact of social inclusion for women in STEM (e.g., Hall et al., 2018a; 2019), proactive action was perceived as relatively more conducive to disadvantaged group members’ social fit and success, and less conducive to social identity threat. Third, this work revealed how reactive and proactive action might be equivalently impactful, viewed as equally effective in improving workplace equality and culture (although dependent on context). Understanding how people think proactive and reactive action are more, less, and equally effective is important; these perceptions likely influence people’s motivation to take certain forms of action over others (although this is an open empirical question for future research). Nevertheless, Studies 2-3 do not uncover reactive and proactive actions’ actual effectiveness in improving disadvantaged group members’ outcomes. Therefore, in Study 4, I investigated how experiencing reactive and proactive actions in the workplace predict feelings of inclusion, threat, and organizational commitment for women in STEM. Women who experienced proactive action reported stronger beliefs that their workplaces are inclusive and feelings of personal fit in and commitment to their organizations, even when controlling for the more general perception of gender bias in STEM. In contrast, reactive action uniquely predicted more social identity threat and less workplace inclusivity. It is not the case that reactive action is never effective; analysis without accounting for proactive action frequency showed that reactive action 92 positively predicts social fit. Nevertheless, the diminished effect of reactive action when accounting for proactive action demonstrates that the latter more strongly relates to women’s experiences of fit. Finally, the lack of consistent agent gender effects complicates the conclusion (of Study 3 as well as my opening definition) that advantaged group members are uniquely suited to enact reactive action. Although men’s reactive action may be perceived as more impactful in improving workplace culture for women, Study 4 suggests that women’s action can likewise be effective in promoting inclusion for women in male-dominated fields. This work is the first to apply an overarching theoretical framework to operationalize and compare multiple forms of allyship at once. In addition to these theoretical contributions, this work can practically inform individuals who are interested in beginning or improving their allyship practices. Moreover, these findings can contribute to the development of organizational allyship training. I provide a toolkit of actions that are possible in the workplace with empirically supported suggestions of when they might be best implemented. Limitations A limitation to this research is the challenge of accurately measuring outcomes of reactive action. Studies 2 and 4 demonstrated that reactive action might elicit social identity threat. One speculation is that these patterns reflect the presence of bias in situations where reactive action occurs, not negative consequences of reactive action itself. However, in Study 4, a positive relationship between reactive action and social identity threat remained when controlling for perceptions of gender bias as a problem. An alternative perspective is that reactive action does cue social identity threat, as interventions can inadvertently remind members of disadvantaged groups that people see them through biased lenses (Pietri et al, 2019). Future research might examine more closely if and how reactive action might play a role in mitigating 93 (instead of eliciting) social identity threat, for example through stronger measurements of long-term impact, stronger than setting scenarios a year in the past. Alternatively, researchers might consider the net impact of reactive action (e.g., it engenders social identity threat but has several positive outcomes that could qualify this concern). Nevertheless, this research is the first to demonstrate the comparative advantage of proactive action in eliciting positive outcomes without cueing concerns for identity-based judgment. My focus on workplace contexts allowed for consistency between scenarios and across gender and race/ethnicity contexts. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that focusing on workplace interactions constrains the extent to which findings are generalizable to other contexts. Workplaces are formal spaces with clear status hierarchies, therefore reactive and proactive actions likely function differently in more casual contexts. For example, benefits of advantaged group members’ reactive action may be less relevant in friendship groups where individuals have more similar status. Future research might adapt these scenarios to non-workplace contexts and investigate if these relative benefits and constraints are context dependent. Moreover, these scenarios focus on singular dimensions of identity, whereas social identity issues are multifaceted and involve multiple identities at once. For example, Afro-Diasporic women experience greater negative stereotyping compared to Afro-Diasporic men and racialized sexism (misogynoir) compared to White women (see Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019 for review). With nuanced experiences of bias, I should likewise expect nuances in experiences of allyship. Investigating allyship one salient identity issue at a time was helpful for laying the groundwork for my paradigm, but risks ignoring nuances for those holding multiple subordinated identities (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Future research should consider how reactive and 94 proactive actions might differ in effectiveness where multiple social identity issues are simultaneously salient. Finally, there are limitations to the paradigms used to test theoretical assumptions about the impact of allyship action. Although Study 4 advances beyond a scenario-based paradigm, the relationship between women’s self-reported experiences of allyship and workplace outcomes are correlational rather than causal. Therefore, one cannot infer from these data that experiencing proactive action results in feelings of inclusion and commitment. An equally likely explanation is that women who feel more included and committed to their workplaces are more likely to report that their colleagues engage in proactive action. Additionally, I acknowledge that these four studies reflected simulated or recalled experiences. It is possible that in these paradigms, people’s expectations about how allyship should function (rather than actually functions) shape their self-reported outcomes. This is not to suggest that studying people’s expectations is unimportant, as expectations might reflect what actions disadvantaged group members’ desire to see or predict advantaged group members’ motivation for future action (although these are empirical questions to be tested in future research). Nevertheless, future studies might use alternative methods (e.g., in-person, experimental paradigms) to investigate how the presence of reactive and proactive allyship positively impacts cultural climate or personal psychological outcomes in real time. Chapter 3 Conclusion My research is the first to use an overarching theoretical framework to operationalize and compare multiple forms of action at once. By highlighting both reactive and proactive forms of action (the former of which has historically received more attention from social psychologists), I can better understand what actions constitute an allyship practice and when they might be more 95 useful in supporting members of disadvantaged groups. Providing a starting point for these comparisons, future research could apply these tools to understand other important outcome variables such as those described above. Researchers might also consider applying these tools to behavioral paradigms, bringing scenarios to life and examining how experiences of allyship actions impact people in real time. Nevertheless, there are limitations to quantitative approaches; these methods constrain the extent to which I can understand how allyship actions function in the “real world.” Therefore, in Chapter 4, I present a qualitative study focusing on the lived experiences of those who stand to benefit from allyship. 96 Chapter 4: Complementing and Complicating the Typology of Allyship Through an Interpretive Paradigm My research thus far provides theoretical and empirical insight into how allyship actions compare across different types and when enacted by different people. However, this theoretical framework and the quantitative methods to validate it do not provide perspective into people’s lived experiences—those that impact perceptions of actions’ benefits and constraints. For this reason, I next explore allyship through an alternative lens: using an interpretivist paradigm to collect and analyze qualitative data. Given the importance of locating participants in their social contexts in interpretivist work, I narrow my attention on women’s experiences with allyship in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). I chose to focus on this context as allyship continues to be a hot topic within STEM organizations (De Souza & Schmader, 2022) but lacks investigation from an interpretivist perspective. Research Context Despite beliefs that gender equality has improved over the past 20 years (Ipsos & Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, 2019; Pew Research Center, 2019), gender biases remain in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. First, women are still highly underrepresented in STEM fields, most notably engineering (representing 15% of the workforce; Pew Research Center, 2021). According to Pew Research Center, although the gender pay gap has narrowed since 2016, women still earn 74% of their male colleagues’ median earnings. Gender inequities appear not only at the institutional level, but are also reflected in women’s interpersonal experiences in the workplace. In a survey of employees in the natural and applied sciences, approximately 30% of women reported experiencing inappropriate sexualized behavior in the workplace (compared to approximately 10% of men; Statistics Canada, 2021). Although 97 certainly a prevalent issue, not all experiences of gender bias involve sexual harassment. In a survey of STEM women, 20% reported experiencing repeated, small slights and 11% reported feeling isolated in their workplaces (Pew Research, 2018). Although occurring on a more micro-level, experiencing gender bias at interpersonal levels (compared to institutional levels) is no less consequential. Interpersonal gender bias (as active discrimination or lack of inclusion) can decrease women’s performance, engagement, and satisfaction with their jobs (AAUW, 2015; Hall et al., 2015; 2018; Logel et al., 2009; Moss-Racusin et al., 2018). Over the past decade, STEM organizations have stressed the importance of addressing these issues, including allyship as a strategy for promoting change. For example, Engineers Canada’s 30 by 30 initiative (to increase the percentage of newly licensed engineers by 30% by 2030) emphasizes that “men need to become active supporters for women’s empowerment, mobilizing resources and institutional and cultural clout to ensure women are given equal access to success in engineering” (Engineers Canada, n.d.). With this interest in allyship, organizations have invested time and resources into equity, diversity, and inclusion training for their employees; for instance, Canadian STEM organizations such as the National Research Council of Canada have partnered with Engendering Success in STEM: Project RISE (2023) which provides workshops on allyship to its employees. Social psychological research suggests that the presence of allyship can improve experiences for women in contexts where they are underrepresented. Perceived allyship increases university women’s feelings of belonging in STEM fields (Johnson et al., 2019). Similarly, amongst working STEM professionals, the perceived presence of male allies14 positively predicts women’s organizational commitment and negatively predicts social identity threat (Bergsieker et 14 Although I avoid using the word allies in my own work given my allyship-as-practice (rather than allyship-as-identity) orientation, I include the term when used by the referenced author. 98 al., in prep). Perceived allyship can likewise shape perceptions of the environment; in contexts where women are underrepresented, women are less likely to expect workplace hostility and isolation when there is a male ally present, anticipating more respect amongst coworkers (Moser & Branscombe, 2022). Although these quantitative/experimental approaches to understanding allyship are insightful, they do not investigate women’s experiences with allyship in their own words and situated in lived experiences. Some scholars have used qualitative approaches to investigate allyship (e.g., Casey & Ohler, 2012; Cheng et al., 2019; Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Madsen et al., 2019; Patton & Bondi, 2015; Sumerau et al, 2021; Warren & Bordoloi, 2021). However, qualitative studies investigating allyship towards women in STEM specifically are limited (and often focused on the problem of gender bias in STEM but not allyship as a means to address it; e.g., Amon, 2017; Dunn et al., 2022; Prieto-Rodriquez et al., 2022). One recent paper begins to discuss allyship towards women in STEM within a qualitative paradigm; Kim and Meister (2023) demonstrate the power of allies to mitigate the effect of microaggressions amongst women in STEM. Nevertheless, Kim and Meister’s work is first and foremost centered on identifying types of microaggressions that women in STEM experience, rather than providing theoretical insight into allyship as a broader concept. My aim is to address this gap in the literature, approaching the topic of allyship towards women in STEM workplaces through this alternative lens. I strive to better “crystalize” (Ellingson, 2009) the concept of allyship. A marker of credibility (within qualitative research paradigms), crystallization involves using multiple types of data, methods, and paradigms to “open up a more complex, in-depth, but still thoroughly partial, understanding of the issue” (Tracy, 2010, p. 844). 99 Research Goals My research has four goals. First, I consider women’s general perceptions of the term, “allyship,” what qualities they perceive allyship to have (or not have). Second, I investigate what allyship actions women have seen or desire to see in their workplaces. I explore if/how women discuss reactive and proactive actions and their impact in their workplaces (spontaneously and when prompted). Third, I investigate if women conceptualize certain identity groups as more responsible for or impactful when engaging in allyship actions. I take a more inductive approach to answer these questions, focusing on women’s articulated experiences as a starting point for analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) rather than establishing a priori hypotheses. An inductive approach allows me to not only center women’s perspectives, but also reach my fourth research goal: Consider how women’s lived experiences complement or complicate my previous theoretical and empirical work. For example, I ask how do women’s theories of allyship compare or contrast with my own? Do their conceptions of effective allyship (mis)align with my empirical findings? My previous approach reflected post-positivism, deductively developing theories and testing hypotheses derived from them. However, a post-positivist approach is less appropriate for my research goals to understand how women in their contexts make sense of allyship. Therefore, I adopt an interpretivist paradigm, looking at individual cases to trace the development of allyship as a construct (Moon & Blackman, 2014; Crotty 1998). Although a paradigm shift within a dissertation may be unusual, it is not problematic. Instead, it reflects the philosophical perspective guiding my research: pragmatism. As a pragmatist, I value inquiry from multiple philosophical perspectives and believe that a diversity of approaches should be used to understand a given problem (selected based on the research goals; Cresswell, 2009; Moon & 100 Blackman, 2014). Including an interpretivist study to meet these research goals ultimately engenders a more well-rounded investigation of allyship. Researcher Positionality Integral to interpretivism is explicit acknowledgement of the researchers’ perspectives that shape data collection and analysis (Moon & Blackman, 2014; citing Patton, 2002). Therefore, I include the philosophical orientations and my relevant experiences affecting this project. Philosophical Orientations: Ontology, Epistemology, And Theoretical Perspective. Ontologically, I take a critical realist perspective that women’s experiences reflect a shared reality, although representations of this reality are mediated through interpretation. Epistemologically, I take a constructionist perspective; knowledge about allyship in this work is co-created through discussion of lived experiences amongst participants who share similar contexts (in this case professionals in or involved with STEM workplaces). I see myself as a participant in this co-creation, as someone who chooses the research questions, facilitates group conversations, and analyzes and interprets the data. Within an interpretive paradigm, I am less interested in understanding fundamental laws that explain why allyship occurs and more interested in how people make sense of allyship through their lived experiences in their specific contexts. Recognizing (and hoping for) diversity in perspectives, I am not looking for one, valid conception of allyship but rather a nuanced and multi-faceted picture. Again, this aim warrants a more inductive approach. I say “more” inductive as a purely inductive approach is unrealistic— this project is an extension of several post-positivist studies on allyship, and I cannot miraculously discard their conclusions from my thinking. However, I can approach my new research with an open mind, cognizant that my 101 previous work will likely be challenged and transformed based on this study. It is necessary for me to refrain from implicitly looking to validate predictions or discard “inferior” explanations for allyship when analyzing my data. For this reason, I used reflexive thematic analysis; I engaged in reflective practices throughout collection and analysis, considering how I am engaging in and reacting (both in terms of research decisions and emotionally) to the research. Relationship to Research Topic and Participants. I am undoubtedly interested in social inequities and how to address them because I am a Black queer woman. Despite early interest in STEM, my personal experiences being undermined and devalued drove me away from pursuing these fields. However, these experiences ultimately drove me towards studying women’s exclusion from STEM and what action against it might look like. As a member of communities who bear the brunt of certain social inequities and advantaged individuals’ attempts to address them, I was drawn to understanding this topic through empirical research. Believing that empirical research conducted within an R1 institution garners more attention and support from the public and policymakers, I saw focusing on social inequities (predominately sexism) and allyship as a meaningful way to elucidate problems that are otherwise ignored. Finally, it is important to recognize that although I am an insider to participants in some ways (sharing experiences of exclusion as a woman of color, allowing me to empathize with their frustration and desire for change), I am a social psychologist who has never worked in STEM. I reflect on the power that I hold in representing these women’s experiences in a profession tasked to produce knowledge. Acknowledging this privilege, I strive to reflect women’s views authentically and in context. Method Data Collection 102 Focus groups elucidate collective views of phenomena, with attention to people’s realities in their own words, complexities of experiences, and divergent perspectives (all of which are negotiated through group discussion; Liamputtong, 2011). Given my research goals, I collected data through online group interviews following best practices (Liamputtong, 2011). I facilitated three sessions (three to six participants per session) using videoconferencing and with technical assistance from an undergraduate research assistant. Sessions lasted between 80 and 104 minutes (Mminutes = 91.33). In each, I asked participants for their beliefs about and experiences with allyship generally, reactive and proactive allyship action specifically, and men’s roles in allyship (interview protocol and questions are available in the appendix). I structured my focus groups using the funneling technique (Casey & Krueger, 2019), starting with broader open-ended questions to explore women’s spontaneous impressions of allyship and ending with more narrowly focused questions related to my theoretical framework (although still open-ended and striving to be non-leading). Participants received $50 total in gift cards as renumeration, $10 for completing a pre-session survey and $40 for attending the focus group session. Analytic Strategy Videoconferencing software recorded and transcribed the audio from each group interview. I reviewed audio and transcriptions twice, ensuring that audio was transcribed verbatim, including repetitions, hesitations, pauses, partial and filler words (Montgomery, 2019). However, quotations below exclude repetitions and filler words for clarity. Any omissions to quotations are indicated […], but only when omissions do not change the quotation’s meaning. Names have been changed and any identifying information (e.g., specific job titles) have been omitted to protect participants’ confidentiality. 103 I analyzed group interview data using reflexive thematic analysis (TA; Braun & Clarke, 2022). The six phases of reflexive TA guided my interpretations; after familiarizing myself with the data (reading, listening, and taking notes on each dataset at least twice), I coded transcripts to identify specific meanings that are relevant to my research question. My coding was predominately data-driven and focused on overt meanings (semantic). I subsequently clustered codes based on “central organizing concepts” (Braun & Clark, 2019; 2022) and refined these preliminary themes though the process of summarizing them and integrating them into a larger analytic story. Throughout theme creation, I returned to my codes and the larger dataset to ensure consistency. I used NVivo software to organize, annotate, and code my data. Essential to reflexive TA, I viewed myself as an instrument (Xu et al., 2012), where findings are actively produced through my systematic engagement with the dataset (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Throughout the data collection and analytic process, I engaged in reflexive practices (e.g., journaling, debriefings with a research assistant) to interrogate my interpretations of data. Participants I recruited participants through convenience sampling; I distributed a virtual letter through the online mailing lists of (1) Canadian STEM organizations connected to the Engineering Success in STEM Consortium (ESS) and (2) past participants of ESS research who expressed interest in follow up information.15 In the latter case, potential participants (n = 99) had taken part in a randomized control trial testing the efficacy of an inclusive innovation workshop (compared to a leadership control topic) in promoting allyship behavior toward 15 Engineering Success in STEM: Project RISE is a research consortium that works closely with Canadian science and engineering organizations. ESS: Project RISE facilitates workshops for partnered organizations, applying social psychological methods to promote more positive workplace cultures. Personally, I was involved in the design of the workshops (specifically a dialogue intervention activity), conducted qualitative analysis on data, and attended one workshop in early 2020 (assisting with logistical tasks). 104 women in STEM. Recruiting through established ESS connections was not only convenient, but appropriate given my targeted demographic of professionals who are interested in discussing allyship in STEM. Participants read the purpose of the study is to gain a “deeper understanding of attitudes towards how people can support and empower those that are underrepresented in STEM and how to best foster inclusive workplace climates across identity groups.” Although recruitment was gender-inclusive, this study reflects my first wave of data: interviews with self-identified women.16 Fifteen self-identified women participated in a focus group; six additional women consented but were not schedulable. Participants (Mage = 39.17) represented professionals in industry (private and public sectors), higher education, and non-profit organizations across Canada. Of those who self-reported their ethnic/racial identity (n = 12), women identified as White/European-American (50%) or Middle Eastern, South Asian, Southeast Asian/Pacific Islander and/or East Asian.17 Although I did not have any pre-established connections with individual participants, some women (at least two, as apparent in interview data) were familiar with ESS’ work and its social psychological orientation towards gender issues. Whereas some women were well-versed in social psychological research and its terminology (e.g., implicit bias, social identity threat), others expressed frustration with intervention research (e.g., publishing reports with no subsequent change). Therefore, this dataset reflects a diversity of opinions within women involved in STEM. Although discussing these individual variations is out of scope for 16 I focus on focus group interviews with women in this chapter as my first wave of data collection prioritized those whom allyship most directly affects. Moreover, only two out of the three (minimum) focus groups could be conducted in the time frame of this dissertation. Future directions for this second wave of data are included in the discussion. 17 I do not report the specific percentages of other racial/ethnic identity groups, as doing so may jeopardize participant confidentiality. 105 this paper, as reflexive thematic analysis focuses on patterns of meanings across participants, I was attentive to women’s contexts while interpreting their stories. Three sessions took place over Zoom between September and October 2022. I based this number of sessions on information power (Malterud, Siersma, & Guassora, 2016), a reflection of the quality of and variability in the data and how deeply research questions are addressed. After the first three sessions (considered the minimum number to address research questions; Morgan, 1997), I reviewed the data to examine the extent which they are relevant to the research questions (i.e., speak to the questions asked), high quality, and demonstrated variability that provides new information (which could either confirm or challenge my existing framework). Given the richness of the group interviews, it was clear that data from three sessions adequately addressed my research questions. Analysis Below, I expand on the three themes summarized in Table 4.1. Table 4.1. Summary of Themes Theme Description Allyship as consistent action Women conceptualized allyship as on-going rather than behaviors enacted once or irregularly. The importance of consistency was apparent in women’s discussions of trust (engaging in allyship over time and across contexts), outcomes of having or lacking consistency, and differentiations between genuine and performative allyship. Distinguishing allyship agents by dis/advantaged status, rather than identity: Women viewed allyship as involving people who hold relatively more power in a specific context and interaction. Rather than limiting allyship to any one identity group, women were attentive to the multidimensionality of identity and power (e.g., how women with more power can support women with less power). Women perceived allyship from people with advantaged status as impactful, particularly for reactive forms of action (e.g., less risky, more effective). 106 Allyship as a spectrum of action Women perceived allyship as extending beyond expressions of support, involving concrete steps to address issues. Women described a diversity of actions addressing social inequalities at several levels, most prominently: - Shifting from a competitive to collectivistic mindset (R) - Addressing others’ bias (R) - Challenging institutional inequities (R) - Recognizing privileges and women’s hardships (P) - Increasing women’s visibility (P) - Initiatives to increase and maintain women’s representation in STEM (P) What is Allyship? Allyship as Consistent Action Referring to allyship as a “commitment” (Elizabeth), “practice” (Ariel), and “life’s mission” (Alexa), women emphasized consistent action over irregular or one-time behaviors. Although beliefs about how intensely one should dedicate themselves to allyship varied (e.g., compare “life’s mission” to “practice”), women shared views that allyship is an enduring project without a particular end goal. When asked about the desired frequency of allyship in the workplace for example, Sam shared, “I think allyship, good allyship is ongoing, it's really hard to assign a timeline to it...” Why did women perceive consistency as an essential feature of allyship? Women expressed that regularly enacted actions signal trustworthiness, which differentiates allyship action from generally amicable behaviors. Likewise answering my question about the desired frequency of action, Elena expressed: I think that in terms of frequency, sometimes someone doing smaller things consistently can feel more like allyship or feel like more support, just because you always know what you're gonna get with that person or you can rely on them to at least do X thing in a supportive way or an allied way versus having someone that maybe does a big thing one time but then acts inconsistently and you wouldn't have the same trust there or wouldn't be able to feel like you would know what was gonna happen if you approach them for X more times. So I appreciate people who are consistently supporting me, even if those ways are not in really big flashy ways. Paralleling Rempel and colleagues’ (1985) conception of trust, women perceived allyship to involve predictability (allyship is perceived as consistent and stable based on past experiences with the person), dependability (allyship is from someone who can be counted on), and faith 107 (feeling assured that someone will enact allyship in the future). Trust is also conceptualized as an implicit gauge of the strength of someone’s commitment (in interpersonal relationships; Wieselquist et al., 1999). In the context of allyship, women stressed the importance of commitment to taking action and to them interpersonally. For example, in describing whom in the workplace she would approach for support, Jacqueline stressed having a “pre-existing relationship, like trust. Trust has to be there to know whether I would be comfortable going to someone else and trust doesn’t just exist…” Women’s emphasis on trust implies that actions are not inherently allyship but are rather categorized as such within a broader understanding of what someone has done and can be predicted to do; this implies a temporal quality of allyship, a course of action that occurs over time. The importance of consistency was also apparent in women’s descriptions of support towards other groups. Also reflecting on what differentiates allyship from generally amicable behaviors, Alexa expressed that she is attentive to how people treat others in the workplace (i.e., are they looking out for people who are doing service work in the office or only other professionals). Similarly, Dara reflected on an experience with someone who was supportive towards her, but not other disadvantaged groups, In my eighteen years in [industry], I've probably met that one person who's spoken up behind my back who, when other people are speaking about me in a negative way, he stands up for me. He's gone above and beyond for me to get a raise which didn't happen. So, when I wasn’t there, I wasn't even aware that all of that was happening. I would call that an ally. But again, on some other fronts, like again as an immigrant, I've heard him talking about immigrants in certain ways, so I don't know if that trust can be fully built. Here, women imply that consistency in allyship refers to time and context. People whose behaviors are inconsistent across different groups of people (e.g., higher compared to lower-ranking employees) or social inequalities (e.g., treatment of women in STEM compared to immigrants) are not viewed as truly supportive or trustworthy. These views align with theories of 108 identity cue transfers (Sanchez et al., 2016; Chaney et al., 2016); a person’s bias towards one group can cue an overarching social dominance orientation (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001) which may trigger threat for people in another stigmatized group. The theory of identity cue transfer is applicable in understanding the importance of consistency for allyship; one’s action is perceived as questionable if they are inconsistently supportive towards other disadvantaged groups. The significance of consistency was apparent in women’s descriptions of outcomes of having (or lacking) consistent and trustworthy allyship in their workplaces. For example, Francesca called her male supervisor a fantastic ally for enacting little day-to-day things that “helps set the standards so that you know this is kind of what everybody does and it's fostered a better work environment, the best one that I've ever worked in…” Conversely, Alexa explained that lacking consistency and trust in others can be psychologically harmful “…Trust is thrown away. It's just not really taking it as seriously as when you would need it, and yearning for it and you can't get it, and it's just almost destroying your psyche because you’re kind of looking for it...” Consistency Distinguishing Between Genuine and Performative Action. In all focus groups, women discussed performative allyship, defined as professing support for those who are disadvantaged in a way that is unhelpful or even harmful to the cause (Kalina, 2020). Women differed in their perceptions of how prevalent, intentional, and adverse performativity is. Despite these individual differences in perceptions however, all distinguished performativity from “genuine” allyship with consistency as the predominant differentiating characteristic. For example, Dara shared that performative action is occasionally making symbolic efforts: Well, there is true allyship and there is performative allyship, and I think a lot of the allyship we see these days is performative, whether it’s one day they’re wearing orange and pretending that we know everything when you know people have been crying about this for a long time, or you know the one-offs here and there, photos of the black square. 109 Additionally, women emphasized the importance of consistency when action becomes more challenging. More concretely, women expressed that those with advantaged status engage in “true” allyship when they continue to act even if their status is threatened: … [Somebody that is not part of the marginalized group] actually sometimes have to show tremendous strength to be there. They have to show tremendous character. They have to stand up to bullying and other things in order to be there for you, and have to put the other person that they are an ally for, put their needs and their advancement, or whatever is the situation, put it first and are not afraid to speak up, and are not afraid to take a hit too for speaking up, because often people, as Dara was saying, people say things because it's the right thing to say, or “this is the flavor of the month, so let's just jump on the bandwagon,” and everybody else says, “Oh, this is really good” but you know who are really, who is really there when the going gets tough, and when you know, like everything is just coming to a halt, and things are falling apart, who puts through. (Alexa) … I could see in some cases a man being willing to be an ally until there's a personal or professional cost to them, and then there's men that truly do believe that there are going to be bold moves and/or sacrifices made to get the organization to where there is more women in senior leadership positions … (Jacqueline) Women’s emphasis on cost mirrors criticism of performative allyship as described by Kutlaca & Radke (2022; citing Kalina, 2020 & Phillips, 2020); “true allyship” involves continuing to act even when sacrifices must be made (e.g., time, energy, other advantages), whereas performative action requires less commitment. In sum, allyship was characterized as consistent action. The importance of consistency was evident in their explicit descriptions of consistency and trust, their perceptions of people who act (in)consistently across contexts, their experiences having (or lacking) consistency, and their distinctions between genuine and performative allyship. Who Engages in Allyship? Distinguishing Allyship Agents by Dis/advantaged Status, Rather Than Identity 110 Grounded in my theoretical framework and reflected in my research and interview questions, I entered focus groups with an assumption that participants would be adamant about men’s unique role in enacting allyship. However, participants were not resolute that allyship exclusively involves men— in fact, some challenged the idea that men are exceptionally responsible. Beliefs about what specific identity groups are responsible for allyship varied across women and even among individual women as the focus group session developed. Nevertheless, underlying this range of responses was consistent attention to relative power and privilege (rather than identity) in characterizing agents and their impact. Allyship Agents Have Advantaged Status. When asked for immediate thoughts about allyship, women commonly described people who are not a part of the relevant disadvantaged group: And for me, ally is someone who shows up for a marginalized, equity deserving group. Like if you're a woman and it’s a woman's cause, the males show up. If I’m going out there protesting for women in another country…someone like a White person shows up. Stuff like that. So, I think it is towards the group that is not within your marginalized group. (Dara) For me when I hear the term ally, my brain immediately assumes you're talking about somebody external in terms of allyship, which it doesn't have to be but I guess my brain has some sort of different word for other women within the sciences … (Sam) Consistent with previous definitions of allyship (e.g., Reason et al., 2005; Craig et al., 2020; Washington & Evans, 1991) and my original theoretical conception of allyship, women initially described allyship as involving non-disadvantaged group members, those “external” to the identity group targeted by the salient social issue. As I expected and exemplified above, women initially referred to men’s action in the context of gender bias in STEM. Nevertheless, as focus groups progressed, women shifted attention to relative power and privilege rather than social 111 identity. For instance, women shared the ways in which women can also occupy positions of power and use their privilege to enact allyship: …As someone who's been here since grade twelve, I stand up for the newcomers. And a man who has it easier than me in engineering stands up for me as a woman. So, we all stand up for each other…Believe people, consistently be there for them, again as a man or as someone in a position of privilege, accept your privilege and accept your place— everyone’s worked hard, but some of us have privilege over the other person. Again, I’m privileged that I went to grade twelve here; somebody who came here with a university degree and could not practice their engineering here has to jump through hoops and loops to get to where they are. I understand my privilege here. (Dara) And I think it's also very important for the small number of women who have made it into those very high-level positions to recognize that perhaps some of them had advantages that most women don't and that they also pay it forward. I mean as much as I said at the beginning of that I tend to view an ally as an external person, I mean there are some women in some of these leadership positions, and sometimes you feel that for at least a couple of them, they imagine their experience to be universal and it's not even close right, like every woman lives her own life and has her own experience … (Sam) Here, women claim that women can engage in allyship. Despite sharing gender identity, women can be more advantaged in other ways (e.g., immigration status, educational background, rank within an organization) and use their power to support women with less status. Women’s descriptions of how allyship is not identity-specific aligns with critiques of a “binary vision of allyship where people are separated into dominant and subordinated groups” (p.78) which “relies upon the assumption that White people only benefit from a system of privilege” (p.81; Patel, 2011). Rather than focusing on a specific identity group, women construed allyship as involving people who hold relatively more power in a specific context and interaction. For example, Josephine discussed: I’m one of those people that believes that everyone can be an ally, depends on the situation. But in my ideal world I would expect that other women would be an ally for me, and I would be an ally for other women. I wouldn’t expect only the men to be allies… 112 This perspective aligns well with intersectional frameworks, which stresses the multidimensionality of people’s experiences based on their several and intersecting social locations (Crenshaw, 1989; see Case et al., 2012 for review) which might afford people more “advantaged status” in some contexts but less in others (women included). Women pushed back on the idea that only men enact allyship with this intersectional framework in mind: For allyship, when sometimes I hear the question of “Oh, can women be allies? Can men?” I think everyone brings a good point around where some of the frustrations can be when a woman isn't, and I think it speaks to again that fact that everybody can be. In my practice I think what I found effective is separating it from identity, that everyone can be an ally in every space, because there's so many levels to us as humans and so many intersectionalities… (Ariel) Women’s attention to the multidimensionality of identity and relations to power suggests a need to reconceptualize the advantaged/disadvantaged distinction. Rather than conceptualizing agents as part of an advantaged group, agents can be described in terms of their advantaged status, specific to the circumstance in which allyship is occurring. Agents with Advantaged Status as Distinctly Impactful. Women shared that although allyship is not exclusive to men, the power they are afforded from being in the numerical majority allows them to be more effective in their efforts. For example, Elizabeth and Josephine discuss how men are more persuasive and consequentially impactful because of their (real or perceived) proximity to power in STEM contexts: [Men are] in the majority group, so their acceptance means a lot and they're likely to be in more of a position, whether it's structural power or just informal power to open doors for us to get people's attention to advance our cause, advance our project, advance our success in more general ways when we have them on our team. Maybe there's almost an assumption that all the women have to be on each other's team so maybe it doesn't quite mean as much, or the women that are in those workplaces don't necessarily have the same influence. (Elizabeth)18 18 Elizabeth, familiar with my previous research, brought up our previous findings that men are uniquely impactful in decreasing social identity threat for women in STEM (Dennehy et al., 2018) and explains why this might be the case. 113 I agree with Elizabeth. And in addition to the men having the power, or most likely to be having the power. Even if men don't necessarily have the power in the room or in the group, there's the perception that they do because of the environment. And so, it's always valuable to have those who are in power or who have or are perceived to have power on one side. (Josephine) Women perceived one’s relation to power as influencing which forms of action one might be more effective in taking. Broadly, Ariel expressed, When I think of allyship, I think everyone, and really everyone has some part to play. I'm thinking of kind of the relationship to power as well. So the more power you have, the more you should strive for kind of being more of an active ally but for people that don't have much power positionally…they can still be an ally but in different capacities, whether that's supporting their co-worker or-- I think in situations of discrimination, harassment at work, for example, it doesn't always mean like stepping up and speaking up, and being outwardly— stopping that or addressing that, although that's kind of great. But sometimes that there's maybe safety consideration. There's so much nuance to it that even just going to the person is saying, “Hey, I'm here for you. Do you want to talk or not? This is not okay.” Ariel’s conception of allyship does not preclude those with relatively less power from engaging in allyship, however she suggests that people who hold more advantaged status might engage riskier behaviors (in her view, reactive forms of action). This perception parallels previous work demonstrating that confronters from targeted groups do incur backlash (Czopp et al., 2006; Kaiser & Miller, 2001, 2003). Similarly, Kayla suggested that men’s position affords them the ability to dismantle obstacles more effectively for women in STEM (likewise reflecting reactive action): In my definition, I feel like I have a very general view that allies are female already; if you're a female working in science, you're my ally. But to achieve allyship, I think it's mostly about men, because I work in a very male dominant field and so when I think about allyship, I think about men helping to kind of like clear the bullshit out of the way for women to advance…so that we can walk normally and not have to kick all this stuff out of the way. 114 Taken together, women did not simply allocate responsibility for allyship to one specific gender identity group. Instead, women characterized “allies” as people who support those with less power relative to themselves in a given context (which is not gender exclusive). Nevertheless, women acknowledged that most STEM contexts are male-dominated. Therefore, they discussed how men are frequently afforded more power and therefore more effective, particularly for reactive forms of behavior. The Importance of Women’s Engagement in Allyship. Many participants’ concrete experiences of allyship involved men supporting women. However, suggesting that allyship is not exclusive to one identity group, women emphasized the importance of women’s action in the workplace. First, women shared concrete ways in which they themselves have engaged in allyship. Women shared stories of their own mindset shifts, calling out a lack of diversity in their offices, entering schools to role model to girls, employing inclusive language in hiring materials, amplifying their own voices in meetings, demanding equal pay for equal experience, lobbying for change within organizations, sharing their own stories, and confronting biased comments on behalf of themselves and others. Women underscored their own and other women’s action so strongly that by the end of one focus group, Tatiana shifted her view of who engages in allyship: I think for me a big takeaway is that women are also allies too…I think anybody can be an ally at any stage of their career, any gender. I am an ally, so I think that's a huge takeaway for me. The second way participants emphasized the importance of women’s action was in their surprise and disappointment with women who do not engage in allyship (implying expectations that women are or should be agents). Participants described women who “aren’t allies” as “more frustrating than men who [aren’t] allies,” and that it “almost feels worse” when they are not. Women viewed other women who do not engage in allyship as harmful, doing a “disservice to 115 everyone” by feeding into stereotypes of women as unable to get along and negatively impact the “cultural change that we’re trying to build for inclusiveness and equity in the workplace.” Here, women suggest the importance of women’s allyship rather than engaging in behaviors that reflect the “Queen Bee phenomenon” where women (in positions of power) perpetuate negative organizational culture for other women in male-dominated settings (see Derks et al., 2010 for review). What Does Allyship Involve? Allyship as a Spectrum of Action Providing initial views about allyship, Jacqueline described someone “willing to acknowledge and not ignore [barriers to certain groups’ career development] and then where it makes sense, make some accommodations so that change can actually occur.” Jacqueline’s perceptions exemplify the sentiment amongst women that allyship extends beyond expressions of support. Involving people who “exert some effort” (Naomi) “show up” (Dara), and “actually take action” (Sam), women perceived allyship as recognizing issues that women face and taking concrete measures to address them. Viewing allyship as action-oriented is consistent with previous work; disadvantaged group members view allyship as taking initiative (informed action; Brown & Ostrove, 2015) and failing to act as ineffective allyship (Collier-Spruel & Ryan, 2022). For instance, Ariel explicitly endorses an action-oriented definition while problematizing advantaged group members’ tendency to standby: I think there's a…spectrum of allyship and really what comes to mind to me is if everybody has a role to play and what I find is that when it's framed this way, in the context where I work, it really invites a lot of people in that don't see themselves in having this role to play. And I think when we talk about like gender equity in STEM, sometimes there are some men that say, “Well, I’ll step back and kind of let women do what they need to do.” And it's like, “No, you need to be part of fixing that this problem, like step up” is what I think about as well for allyship. It's not necessarily about taking a back seat. There's an active component and what that active piece looks like for each person can look different. 116 As was the case with consistency, action-oriented was a key characteristic that women used to distinguish genuine from performative allyship. Women often shared concerns for action that are taken because it is “cool” (Serena) or “the flavor of the month” (Alexa) rather than engage in change-oriented efforts over time. This reflects concerns about slacktivism and trends that make agents look supportive but fail to substantially change conditions for less advantaged groups (Kristofferson et al., 2014; Wellman, 2022). Women perceived allyship as action oriented, but what do these actions look like specifically? Supporting research on the variety of ways allyship appears (e.g., Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Cheng et al., 2019; Ostrove & Brown, 2018), women’s experiences reflected (what Ariel calls above) a spectrum of action. Below, I report six forms of action within this spectrum that I interpret as encapsulating women’s descriptions and experiences of allyship. After providing their initial thoughts about and experiences with allyship broadly, I prompted women to reflect on reactive and proactive forms of action. Both types of action are therefore represented at all three levels of analysis (although level was not explicitly prompted).19 Reactive Action. Characterizing reactive action, women described efforts to respond to and mitigate bias: shifting from a competitive to collectivistic mindset, addressing other’s gender biased behavior, and challenging institutional inequities. Shifting from a Competitive to Collectivistic Mindset. Public press (e.g., Kiner, 2020; Marcus, 2016) and, to a lesser extent, social psychologists (e.g., Williams et al., 2016) have identified the pressure for women to compete with other women in male-dominated workplaces. Women discussed this issue in STEM across all focus groups, specifically tendencies to 19 As discussed above, women’s stories and perceptions also challenged assumptions that allyship specifically involves advantaged groups. Reflecting Ariel’s perception that everyone has a role to play, allyship actions included both men and women as agents. 117 differentiate themselves from other women, feeling “tempted to throw each other under the bus,” (Elizabeth), perceiving “other women as less than” (Francesca), and interacting with women who are “not getting it” (Alexa) when it comes to gender issues. Participants predominately focused on women’s need to challenge their mindsets, reflecting action in response to a form of internalized sexism: competition for ostensibly limited resources such as positions, regard, and worth (Bearman et al., 2009 citing Eckert, 1990 & Guendouzi, 2001). Attributing competition amongst women to larger structures, Kayla expressed, And I find that [the patriarchal system] through my experience to be the main key thing that kept female competing with each other. It's not because we dislike the other person. It's like we've been in this system for so long, like what Vicky said, these things take a long time, but we've been conditioned to be operating in such a manner that it's hard to break out of. But then, when you start supporting everyone and realize like no one has anything to lose…we've been placed in this rat race for so long, this maze, that we just need to at some point realize it doesn't have to be the structure. And those are going to take some time. So I find it's a proximity to male or a proximity to whiteness that creates that disassociation, and then that disassociation in turns make us compete with one another rather than uplifting each other. Research demonstrates that despite recognizing their marginality, women in STEM fields may adopt individualistic and meritocratic beliefs where “success is up to the individual and her willingness to persist in the face of whatever challenges come along” (Seron et al., 2018; p.144). Social psychologists have also discovered that in male-dominated contexts, women in power may oppose rather than support women with less power, legitimizing their disadvantaged position (Derks et al., 2010). Attuned to these issues, women implied shifting to more collectivistic mindsets. Broadly, Dara voiced the need to keep other women’s best interests in mind rather than fearing one’s own losses, “We can all bring each other up instead of being afraid that our job is going to be taken or we’re going to have any less value just because we are bringing someone else up.” 118 Women also emphasized caring for the diversity of needs amongst women in the workplace instead of narrowly focusing on issues affecting them personally. For example, Francesca emphasized supporting flexible work policies for women with children even if most women in senior positions (herself included) do not have children. Although I describe instituting policies as institutional proactive action, Francesca highlighted the internal change necessary to do so, “having those women [without children] be allies and recognize that just because they decided not to have families doesn’t mean that that should inhibit anyone else who does. I don’t know, it’s tough but it’s a mentality shift in both men and women.” Women discussed how changing their problematic views towards women in STEM consequentially allows women to uplift each other. In this way, mindset shifts were perceived as a first step in moving from individualistic coping strategies (ingroup hostility and focus on individual mobility) to a group-level coping strategy (working for the group’s welfare) against gender bias in STEM (Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998). Addressing Others’ Bias. Given the popularity (and in some institutions, mandatory implementation) of bystander training (Mujal et al., 2021), it is unsurprising that women’s conceptions of allyship involved intervention. For example, Jacqueline shared: I don't know if you guys of all are familiar with or heard of bystander intervention or bystander awareness training? That's how I think about allyship, it's like a bystander doesn't just see something and walk away from it. An ally, sees something, and makes a intentional choice to take action, whether it's confronting the person that's causing the problem or the person that's experiencing the problem, but making sure that that is not just witnessed and ignored. Although bystander intervention typically refers to intervening against sexual assault, women discussed the importance of being an active rather than passive observer of bias. Consistent with Collier-Spruel and Ryan (2022)’s findings that ineffective allyship is ignoring 119 opportunities to respond to bias, women stressed taking concrete measures to challenge problematic behavior when one sees it. Women’s stories all involved reacting to another individuals’ problematic behavior, however they varied in what and how bias was addressed. Some women’s experiences involved addressing more explicit forms of bias, where behavior was more deliberate (Dovidio et al., 2002). Women recalled instances where they or others spoke up against egregious behavior, harassment and comments such as “Are we hiring diversity or talent” (Kayla) and “Women don’t belong in [industry]. You’re just a distraction for my guys” (Francesca). Other experiences involved addressing less outward but nonetheless problematic behaviors. Women shared stories of challenging microaggressions, non-gender inclusive language, and disregarding (but not explicitly diminishing) women’s expertise. For example, Elizabeth shared a story where she noticed a woman consistently assigned to a stereotypically feminine task: I had a bit of an active allyship with a client team I was working with. It was with a team of engineers, one woman on the team, and I noticed that she had been taking the notes the entire time we were meeting weekly for a series of months, and I actually intervened and said, “You know. I think it'd be a great idea if someone else takes the notes,” and I just didn't really make a big deal of it. But I really knew that it was important that she not be the only one doing the housework… Moreover, women’s experiences ranged in how they or others addressed bias. Signals of condemnation varied in directness (akin to variation found in lab studies; Swim & Hyers, 1999; Woodzicka & Good, 2020; Woodzicka et al., 2020). In some cases, addressing bias was direct, stating that a behavior made them uncomfortable or calling out someone’s “bullshit.” In other cases, addressing bias involved making sure the behavior was flagged without explicitly calling it biased. For example, in describing a time where she addressed a man being disruptive (yawning, stretching, wrinkling paper) during her presentations, Josephine shared: 120 …Finally, one day I said to him after a meeting, I said, “Oh, like, are you really really tired?” It was one of those days where he was stretching his arms and yawning, “Are you really really tired?” So he said, “No.” So I said, “Well, I just noticed that you're yawning a lot and stretching a lot in the meeting.” Although women explained how they addressed bias themselves, they shared the positive outcomes of someone else’s reactive action. Reflecting on a previous job where she confronted her supervisor for problematic comments, Francesca shared: Francesca: …But it certainly would have helped, there would have been immense benefit had I had an ally to help back me up in that so that I wasn't on my own. Lucy: And could you maybe expand of what that benefit of another person, having them do it on your behalf would be? Francesca: Yeah well because then you’re just not “the whiny little bitch” right? Then you've got somebody who's seeing it from outside eyes and it's not just a one-on-one confrontation, it's a “Oh, hey, so and so is noticing this as well, like maybe you need to tone it down a little.” In this way, women perceived reactive action as addressing others’ biases, as an effective strategy to flag behaviors as inappropriate. Although capable of acting themselves, women noted that others’ action can boost the signal that a behavior is problematic, paralleling research demonstrating that perpetrators’ behaviors are viewed as more biased when advantaged (versus disadvantaged) group members confront them (Rasinski & Czopp, 2010). Francesca’s thoughts also exemplify how others’ confrontations of bias can be validating, confirming their reality (Sue et al., 2019) that bias indeed occurred. For example, Josephine reflected on her own confrontation of bias and shared that others' (those with more seniority) confrontations would have made her “feel, first of all, that someone else is noticing, secondly, that someone else realizes that this is not appropriate behavior for a meeting…” 121 Women not only construed feeling supported as an outcome of reactive action, but a form of reactive action itself. Jacqueline shared an experience where an employee disrespected her response to his request and emailed her higher-ups, referring to them as “gents:” I talked to my manager and my manager acted as an ally in that example because he took my feelings and concerns seriously and thought that “Yeah that's not really appropriate,” not only not engaging with me directly but going to my boss and then deliberately like saying “gents.” Like, it was kind of “let's handle this among men” is the message that I got, and he agreed that was problematic and he acted as an ally, he facilitated a conversation that was totally resolved in a productive positive manner. I felt like I ended up having a conversation with the person that said “Hey, gents” and they— it didn't even occur to them that what they were doing could be viewed as like offensive, or whatever it was and it wasn't intended that way. But I felt like I got to say how I perceived it, and so he got that message. But an ally, my ally in that case facilitated that conversation and didn't just tell me to suck it up or just move on. So that was important to me. Jacqueline’s experience parallels previous research finding that disadvantaged group members believe allyship involves proposing ways to deal with situation (where racism has occurred) and helping those affected do so (Brown & Ostrove, 2013). Support after bias also exemplifies how reactive actions may have proactive qualities; rather than confronting bias themselves, members of advantaged groups can provide validation and opportunities for women to address the issue on their own behalf (reflecting a proactive focus and aim). Nonetheless, actions like these are in response to a specific bias event. In short, women underscored the importance of addressing bias when it occurs, in various forms. Challenging Institutional Inequities. Although allyship is often discussed on the level of individuals and the interactions between them (Ro et al., 2023), women expressed concern about focusing on individuals’ behavior, attitudes, and biases, rather than changing systems. Therefore, women underscored challenging institutional inequities. Some women’s perceptions and experiences aligned with my theoretical argument that individuals can work towards making institutional change (also see Jones et al., 2021 for review of institutional efforts taken on by 122 individuals). Broadly, Kayla discussed how allyship involves men “kicking” barriers out of the way for women in STEM (roadblocks that have traditionally held women back, such as gender socialization). More specifically, Sam expressed that individual leaders are responsible for checking lower-level leaderships’ actions (in addition to promoting their supportive actions), “[The dean should be] able to interpret when the chair wasn’t necessarily an ally. I mean they sort of got a double pronged because they have to be able to accept the allyship but also overrule the lack of allyship when that happens…” Beyond individuals addressing institutional level bias, women stressed that institutions (employers and governments) should drive change for women in STEM. For instance, Kayla suggested that organizations could redistribute power (creating a “web as opposed to a very top-heavy structure”), enabling women to create space for themselves. Women shared that only when institutions also push for change in these ways will efforts to improve women’s status in STEM be effective: …That kind of triggers me into some things that may not necessarily be about allyship but what Vicky just said about shifting the needle and stuff. For me it's not only about individuals. It's sometimes about governments, employers, organizations. It’s about everybody has to come together… So I’m just saying, it’s not just individual and one person as an ally that makes a difference. It's a community… (Alexa)20 Taken together, women perceive challenging institutional bias as consequential but differentiate between individuals’ action (allyship) from that of the larger organization in terms of impact. In either case, women expressed that organizations that fail to change prompt women to leave, leading them to “lag behind” companies that are making efforts to address inequities. Proactive Action. Women expressed the importance of several inclusion-oriented behaviors. As with reactive action, proactive actions represented inclusive action at the three 20 Here, Alexa distinguishes organizational action from allyship, not only definitionally but in terms of widespread impact. Although this point is out of the scope of this paper, it is returned to briefly in the discussion. 123 levels of analysis: recognizing privileges and women’s hardships, elevating women, and initiatives to increase and maintain women’s representation in STEM. Recognizing Privileges and Women’s Hardships. Women expressed that allyship involves recognition of one’s privileges, a willingness and ability to “acknowledge that they’ve had advantages to get where they are so far” (Jacqueline). Beyond identifying one’s privilege, women suggested that advantaged group members should strive to understand what it is like for those with less privilege. For example, Dara stressed that people should listen to marginalized individuals’ stories, “…Believe people, consistently be there for them, again as a man or as someone in a position of privilege, accept your privilege and accept your place.” Similarly, and speaking from her position in a dual-career partnership, Serena expressed the importance of understanding the “mental load that one gender tends to take on” and the “additional unseen amount work and stress” that women disproportionately navigate while similarly trying to move up in their careers. Women’s attention to recognizing privilege and women’s hardships reflects theoretical frameworks of allyship development, where “allies” have a thorough understanding of oppression and privilege (Reason et al., 2005) and their position in relation to power (Case, 2012). The recognition of one’s own privilege and understanding the experiences of those who are less privileged reflects an intrapersonal form of action, as it is focused on allies developing their own perspectives to become more inclusive. However, descriptions of the need for men to understand their privilege were typically followed by externally oriented actions. For instance, Tatiana shares: I think it's when for example, a male colleague, or I like how Jacqueline said the word privilege, someone who maybe hasn't had to overcome some of those barriers is bringing up your name in a room that you're not in. So kind of that concept of sponsorship, or taking younger women who are just starting their careers, taking them under their wing, 124 and kind of showing them the ropes, knowing that there are systems in place where these things sort of naturally happen for most White men but they don't always happen for underrepresented groups. So kind of recognizing that those barriers exist and then taking the initiative [emphasis added] to sponsor or mentor or bring up that person's name for opportunities. Recognition of privilege and women’s hardships followed by taking initiative suggests that men’s efforts to improve themselves is important but should be followed up with action that will create outward change (either interpersonally or organizationally). In other words, intrapersonal (proactive) action perceived as distinct from interpersonal and organization action but perhaps not sufficient on its own. This conception aligns with previous work on allyship and activism (in the context of racism), which expands beyond awareness and self-regulation (Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Smith & Redington, 2010). Like intrapersonal reactive action as shifting mindsets, women perceived recognition of privilege and women’s hardship as the first (but not only) step to effectively enact change. Increasing Women’s Visibility. Past research has investigated women’s experiences of a “chilly climate” in STEM workplaces, where women are not necessarily overtly excluded but nonetheless feel unwelcomed in the environment (Flam 1991; see Walton et al., 2015 for review). Reflecting this potential for exclusion, women’s conceptions of allyship involved men’s efforts to ensure that their presence, ideas, and voices are acknowledged. More concretely, women shared stories of when people looped them into work discussions and credited them for their ideas in meetings. In one focus group, Josephine explicitly identified (and advocated for) a strategy of increasing women’s visibility: amplification, the “public endorsement of another person’s contribution, with attribution to the original voicer” (Bain et al., 2021, p.1289). Responding to Josephine and previously unfamiliar with the term, Naomi noted how she 125 appreciates these efforts to increase women’s visibility as they effectively prevent women from being disregarded: …There is one man that I do work with, another [occupation]. He is excellent at reiterating other people's ideas by giving them credit, so I don't know if he feels like it'll be more listened to if he actually repeats it, but he never repeats it and takes it as himself, and I always— I just sort of realized now that he does that actually, as I was listening to your story. I've never really thought about it. I was like, “Oh, yeah, he's really good at that” So, it kind of made me appreciate that and I’m going to look at him a little bit more differently, but it is important— it is, I think, that happens a lot right that we might not say things as authoritatively or as forcefully and so sometimes they get overlooked until someone brings it up in another context. Beyond crediting women, participants viewed allyship as providing opportunities for women to speak on their own behalf, going “out of their way to make sure that you're the one that gets to present it if you're the one that did the work” (Francesca). This way of increasing women’s visibility was often discussed in the context of men’s need to step down so that women can step up: I think another kind of characteristic of an ally is sometimes as an ally you need to step aside or miss out on an opportunity or a promotion or something because you recognize that somebody else in an underrepresented group is maybe more suitable or needs to be in that opportunity. So you kind of step aside and just help to elevate them rather than making it about yourself or getting the credit … And I think when senior people are in those positions of power where they can influence people's careers, they do need to be able to step aside and really support those people rather than kind of taking the credit or the opportunities for themselves. (Tatiana) Although women discussed advantaged group members’ sacrificing their own power, not all examples of providing women opportunities necessarily involved personal cost; women described experiences where people advocated for their promotion, encouraged them to apply for senior leadership positions, and got them onto committees and councils. Increasing women’s visibility (their presence, ideas, and voices) more frequently exemplified proactive action, where there was not a specific exclusion event. Nevertheless, some women described efforts to increase their visibility after being explicitly ignored (e.g., having ideas appropriated by a man, being 126 continually disregarded by clients). These examples of increasing women’s visibility after specific exclusionary cues reflect the importance of context, where a proactive action becomes more reactive. Across its forms, women shared several outcomes of increasing women’s visibility. First, women described these efforts as having affective outcomes. Women expressed feeling appreciative (as exemplified above) and empowered when people ensure they are seen and heard. Second, women described material benefits of these efforts. Efforts ensure that one’s “contributions [are] recognized as valuable” (Josephine) helps women move forward in their careers as “the person who gets the promotion is the person with the track record that [people know of]” (Sam). Women also described efforts to increase women’s visibility as making work easier for women: …I have a lot of clients that are in their seventies, they have fifty years of engineering experience, and it takes a really long time to build that trust and build that relationship and prove to these guys like, “Hey I do know what I'm doing. I know my stuff, I'm organized, I'm confident.” I think if you have kind of a senior guy that comes to the first couple of meetings with you and says, “This is Tatiana. She knows what she's doing. She's really competent. I've worked with her before I can vouch with her.” then when you walk into the project, everyone knows that you're competent, and I think that it's a lot easier to build that relationship. It doesn't take quite as long when you have that introduction. And I've been lucky enough in my career at the firm that I've been at for the last six years that I've worked with a senior project manager and he's been very good at taking me into meetings, introducing me to his clients and then just kind of handing me those projects and saying, “This is your client. This is your work. You want it. You earned it. Go deliver it. I'm here to support you but I’m going to step back” and so he'll go to the first meeting or two and just make sure that their relationship is established because I think it takes a lot longer when you have to do that on your own. (Tatiana) Finally, women emphasized that increasing women’s visibility can foster better workplace environments, by addressing the “assumptions that people bring into the room” (Josephine) that might otherwise perpetuate and empowering women to improve the culture when promoted to positions of leadership. 127 Initiatives to Increase and Maintain Women’s Representation in STEM. Familiar with the lack of diversity in STEM fields (Government of Canada, 2023), women stressed the importance of increasing and sustaining underrepresented groups’ participation in STEM. First, women discussed initiatives to improve hiring, sharing their experiences using or advocating for blind resumes, evaluating job postings to ensure they are gender inclusive, and diversifying hiring committees (paralleling research discussing hiring bias against women in STEM and strategies for circumventing it (e.g., Blair-Loy et al., 2022; Kazmi et al., 2022; Sheltzer & Smith, 2014). Jacqueline also suggested the need to reevaluate what criteria people are looking for: …It's this idea of what makes the best candidate, that's a very subjective bar, so it's not really fair when people make the argument about, “Well, are we supposed to lower the standards to let women in?” No, it's not either/or, it’s and. And it's looking at and valuing different experience or levels of experience, because yes, some men will have a longer experience base or more broad experience base or experience doing more senior level stuff because of their advantages that they've had so far, whereas a woman may have less experience, been in the industry shorter, which is typical of people in science and engineering type roles. So it's just re-branding or reconsidering what best is and not really— valuing the unique things that other people can bring to the table instead of just their work experience, or where they went to school, or how well they did in school. However, women noted that increasing women’s representation in STEM goes “beyond just the hiring process; it’s encouraging women to get into those careers and broaden that pool so that there is more selection” (Francesca). Initiatives to increase women’s representation in STEM involved action at the beginning of the “leaky pipeline” (Pell, 1996). For example, Sam shared that allies are needed amongst high school guidance counselors to encourage girls to take math and sciences. Cognizant of issues at the end of the pipeline, women stressed the need to retain women in STEM fields by ensuring they are reaching and supported in positions of power. Reflecting on the need for better recruitment and retention, Tatiana shared: You guys probably saw I had my baby on the screen for a little bit. I'm on maternity leave right now, it's my first child, so I’m just working through what does that look like when I go back to work and how is that going to change the trajectory of my career. These are 128 things that men don't even have to think about. So I think they need to be aware of it when those kind of people are getting to the intermediate level of their career and then look at how do we support these people, and how do we help to advance them and promote them so that those diversity candidates are still here fifteen, twenty years into their career. I don't think they're doing a good job of retaining. Maybe the rainbow flags and stuff are recruiting a little bit, but to me I think it's just marketing. Like Tatiana, women discussed how leadership should implement supportive policies, specifically flexible work-from-home policies that reflect employee’s needs. For instance, Elena shared frustration with her current supervisor’s policies, feeling “like he could have been a better ally” if he had based work-from-home policies based on people’s day-to-day responsibilities rather than title (which afforded men better work-from-home policies). Similarly, but reflecting on how her boss has enacted allyship, Serena shared that her supervisor allows her to work from home given her childcare responsibilities and a travelling partner. Altogether, women expressed the role that individuals have in instituting and advocating for women’s participation from the beginning to end of their career paths. Doing so, women expressed, is beneficial both for individual women and the organization. Organizations that strive for equal representation were described as a healthier environment, more attractive to prospective woman employees, and generally more likely to succeed. Women’s perceptions of the benefits of these institutional proactive efforts reflect findings that diversity can improve organizations’ performance (e.g., Dezsö & Ross, 2012; also see Phillips, Kim-Jun, & Shim, 2010 for review). Discussion Women’s willingness to share their experiences in STEM-related fields allowed for rich discussions on what and whom allyship involves. Listening to women’s stories was both affirming and challenging as a researcher, requiring humility to recognize not only how my allyship framework is useful but also how it warrants adjustment. Addressing my research goal 129 to complement and complicate my theoretical model, I describe how our discussions inform the typology of allyship action and where future research might address remaining questions. What is Allyship? In Chapter 1, I define allyship as a custom comprised of several actions rather than one action alone. Aligning with this definition of allyship, women conceptualized allyship as on-going (some using words akin to custom such as “commitment” or “mission”) rather than singular behaviors. Demonstrating that it is a core characteristic of allyship, regularity differentiated genuine from performative allyship for women. Women’s perspectives also extended understanding of this allyship characteristic. Their emphasis on consistency and trust suggests a temporal quality of allyship; a person who engages in allyship demonstrates that they have, are, and will be committed to allyship. Additionally, their views suggest that allyship requires consistent action across contexts. Women lacked trust in those who actively support one social group but not others; this suggests that allyship involves addressing multiple, not a specific set of disadvantaged group members. Although emphasis on consistency might imply a practice (versus identity) oriented definition of allyship, women did not exclusively use practice-oriented language. Throughout the focus groups, women used the term “allies” and described specific qualities of people who they see as fitting the title. Nevertheless, identity-oriented descriptions of allyship do not undermine an emphasis on consistency. For example, Alexa described allies as having “that inherent DNA, that character trait that they are carrying, and the values again, coming back to the values, they’re carrying them wherever they go…” In this way, ally qualities lead people to act consistently over time and across contexts. Therefore, it cannot be argued that emphasis on consistency implies that a practice-oriented perspective is more appropriate. Future research might explicitly 130 investigate the perceptions of practice versus identity orientations towards allyship and its implications. For example, do people believe that one orientation should be emphasized over the other? Which orientation is more motivating to those who seek to enact allyship? Which view of allyship do people believe is more accessible (do people believe allyship should be more accessible or should there be higher standards for allyship)? Who Engages in Allyship? The typology of allyship action distinguishes between those who are advantaged and disadvantaged in the context of a specific social issue. When women pushed back against the idea that men are exclusively responsible for allyship, I originally perceived conflict between my definition and their perspectives; how could men not be most responsible for action given how much power they have? As the focus groups and my analysis progressed however, I saw their perspectives not as conflicting but providing a more encompassing view of who engages in allyship. Women did differentiate between those who are more and less advantaged in their discussions of who engages allyship, who is effective, and what consequences allyship has. Paralleling my quantitative work, women perceived people who are advantaged as most effective in addressing bias when it occurs (taking reactive action). However, women were attentive to relative status rather than social group identity, within the context of the specific interaction rather than the broader social issue. Focusing on advantaged status rather than group membership more accurately reflects the multidimensionality of identity and relations to power, where members of “disadvantaged groups” may hold advantages in other domains. It also reflects women’s desires for women’s allyship, particularly from those who have the power to uplift those with less power. Using a more inclusive conception of who enacts allyship, future research can make more 131 nuanced comparisons of allyship effectiveness. For example, one might investigate the impacts that men versus women with high status (afforded to them due to their other group memberships and/or ranking within an organization) can have when enacting allyship. What Does Allyship Involve? Supporting my argument that “people do allyship,” women conceptualized allyship as action-oriented and involving concrete measures to support people with less power. Likewise supporting the typology of allyship action, women shared desires for or experiences with both reactive and proactive forms of action, addressing issues at intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional levels. Some women’s examples involved both reactive and proactive qualities (e.g., providing support to a woman after gender bias has occurred), although this is not problematic. As described in Chapter 1, the reactive/proactive distinction is relative rather than dichotomous; women’s experiences reflected this nature of action type and how timing remains the key definitional distinction between actions. Although women did not explicitly compare the effectiveness of reactive and proactive forms of action, they did suggest the unique benefits that specific actions have for women in STEM workplaces (e.g., confrontation signals/confirms that bias occurred, recognizing women’s voices feels empowering). Future research might take inspiration from women’s stories to compare the outcomes of different actions more directly (e.g., develop measures based on the outcomes that women experienced). Although level is a secondary dimension of interest, interviews highlighted the significance of actions’ scope. First, women’s discussions of intrapersonal actions were often followed by interpersonal and institutional level actions. Previous work suggests that effective allyship is viewed to be action beyond addressing oneself (e.g., self-regulation; Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Smith & Redington, 2010). Therefore, this pattern amongst women possibly 132 reflects a similar sentiment, that intrapersonal forms of action alone are not enough. However, as women did not discuss the limitations of intrapersonal actions, this remains an empirical question for future research. Second and focusing on agents at different levels, women expressed concern that allyship as individuals (versus organizations) acting “can only do so much to advance the interests of women” (Jacqueline). Although out of the scope of this paper, future research might investigate the limitations of allyship than organization-driven initiatives might better address. For example, future studies might explore professionals’ desires for change driven by institutions compared to employees (e.g., who do they believe carries the responsibility for improving conditions in the workplace?). Research might also explore if actions initiated by organizations are more impactful than those driven by employees. Strengths and Limitations The strength of this research is that it meets criteria for (what Tracy, 2010 defines as) qualitative research quality. First, this research is timely and transferable. As described in Chapter 1 and the introduction to this study, allyship and gender bias in STEM are (each on their own) hot topics. To my knowledge, this study is one of the first within social psychology to address both topics using a qualitative paradigm. As I focused on the lived experiences of working women, this research can contribute discussions of how allyship appears (or should appear) in workplaces beyond participants’ specific organizations. How well women’s stories speak to allyship research in other contexts (e.g., allyship against racial bias) speaks to their transferability. Given its timeliness and transferability, this work makes significant contributions to our understandings of allyship. This research is practically significant as it generates new knowledge about allyship as a strategy to address bias within organizations (both gender bias in STEM 133 specifically and social identity issues in workplaces more broadly). As findings are anchored in women’s lived experiences, they can and should inform efforts from both individuals interested in engaging in allyship and organizations that strive to foster more equitable workplaces. This research is additionally theoretically significant, as it examines how my existing theory of allyship makes sense in a new, specific context (Tracy, 2010). As I strive to build a theoretical model that is applicable across contexts, it was necessary to see if my framework speaks to people’s concrete experiences. Moreover, my work “extends [and] problematizes current theoretical assumptions” (Tracy, 2010, p.846). By taking an inductive approach (interpreting women’s spontaneous impressions of allyship) and asking women to provide insight on my theoretical assumptions (through open-ended, yet focused questioning), I was able to see the strengths and limitations of my framework and modify it based on these findings. I was able to extend my theoretical framework through the prioritization of multivocality, a marker of credibility (Tracy, 2010). The participant sample reflects a diversity of women involved in STEM (e.g., industry, ethnic/racial diversity, career stage. Moreover, women varied in their orientation towards allyship (e.g., varying optimism towards allyship as a strategy for change, attitudes towards people engaging in performative or unhelpful allyship). Although my analytic strategy focuses on common patterns amongst participants, I represented and was attentive to differences in these varied voices when selecting data excerpts. Similarly, I actively facilitated focus group sessions in a way where women could express viewpoints that diverge with that of others or me, the researcher. The diversity within the sample and attentiveness to varying viewpoints provided a rich and intricate dataset, allowing for a more rigorous analysis. Nonetheless, there are limitations of this research that future studies might address. First, alternative methods (within a qualitative paradigm) may allow for a deeper investigation into 134 women’s lived experiences with allyship. One-time virtual interviews are divorced from the social context in which allyship is experienced (within the workplace). As social context is important in interpretivist work, future research might opt to study women’s experiences in their workplaces using longitudinal methods and in-person observation. Moreover, as qualitative paradigms emphasize researcher-as-instrument, immersion in a workplace culture is more conductive to thick description, an in-depth illustration of allyship in context (Tracy, 2010). Second, although the sample for this study was convenient, appropriate, and diverse, it does reflect the perspectives of women who are interested (if not already actively engaged) in discussions about gender bias in STEM. Perspectives of women who are relatively well-equipped to discuss the issue, even familiar with social psychology frameworks, might differ from those who are not as involved in these conversations. Future research might consider sampling from a broader pool of women in STEM, expanding beyond those who are looped into ongoing conversations. Research should also explore if these conceptions of allyship vary across different workplace contexts. For example, how do perspectives on allyship differ in other male-dominated industries such as finance or blue-collar careers (e.g., construction; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020)? Third and finally, this sample reflects the perspectives and experiences of only one gender group in STEM. As described above, on-going research investigates perceptions of allyship amongst men in STEM. More specifically, I explore if men’s conceptions of allyship differ (e.g., Do they also view allyship as consistent and action oriented? Do they differ in their perceptions of what actions allyship involves? Do they believe they play a unique role or do they also believe women have a responsibility to enact allyship)? In addition to comparing men’s perceptions to those described in this study, I investigate how often men enact allyship in their 135 workplaces and what barriers stand in the way of them from doing so. Informed by my analysis of women’s interviews but nonetheless still using an inductive approach, unpacking men’s perspectives will portray allyship from a significantly different point of view. Chapter 4 Conclusion Taken together, this study illuminates how professional women perceive allyship, anchored in lived experiences in or involved with STEM. Approaching the typology of allyship from a different research paradigm allowed me to support my previous theoretical and empirical work. More importantly, it demonstrated where my typology should be expanded to better reflect the realities of those who stand to benefit from allyship. 136 Chapter 5: Conclusion Dissertation Overview Although by no means a new phenomenon, allyship has skyrocketed in popularity over the past decade (Dictionary.com, 2021). For this reason, comprehensive social psychological frameworks are needed to reflect how people conceptualize and engage in allyship. Addressing this gap, my dissertation contributes theoretical and empirical insight into allyship as a phenomenon. As prefaced in Chapter 1, this dissertation reflects my progression of understanding allyship as a concept, each chapter contributing to the development of the Typology of Allyship action. In Chapter 1, I advocate for a practice-oriented definition of allyship that prioritizes perspectives from disadvantaged group members. I distinguish practice- from identity-oriented definitions to explain the lens through which I study allyship, highlighting a definitional distinction not yet explicitly discussed in social psychological research. Moreover, I provide a definition of allyship that requires consideration of disadvantaged group members’ views, contributing to the growing body of work centering the experiences of people whom allyship most directly affects. As activist Tarana Burke has expressed (discussing women of color’s experiences being overlooked in the #MeToo movement; Grinberg, 2017), “If we don’t center the voices of marginalized people, we’re doing the wrong work…” Calls to center marginalized people’s voices should inform work in not only the public sphere, but also in academic research. In Chapter 2, I extend my definition of allyship by introducing the Typology of Allyship Action. In this work, I integrate large but disparate bodies of work to conceptually map what I name allyship actions, behaviors that constitute an allyship practice. I describe allyship actions at various levels of scope, distinguishing actions that address bias when it occurs (reactive) from 137 actions that promote inclusion without needing bias to occur (proactive). The Typology of Allyship Action is not only theoretically novel, addressing the need for more extensive allyship frameworks, but also has practical implications. It is a tool that can inspire new research questions, measures, and hypotheses comparing the outcomes of various strategies for change. In Chapter 3, I use the Typology of Allyship Action to compare reactive and proactive actions’ relative effectiveness, defined as subjective evaluations of actions’ impact on personal feelings of inclusion and workplace culture. Altogether, this set of empirical studies reveals there are meaningful differences in perceptions of reactive versus proactive actions. I validated a scenario-based paradigm operationalizing reactive and proactive action in two contexts (i.e., addressing gender and racial issues). Recognizing the limitations of scenario-based paradigms however, I also tested hypotheses about how the frequency of action predicts professional women’s workplace experiences. Across paradigms, I supported several hypotheses that proactive action is particularly advantageous in increasing feelings of social fit and perceived workplace inclusivity. Underscoring the importance of context, proactive action was also viewed as more effective in promoting equality and long-term change in the context of racial, but not gender issues. Although reactive action may be disadvantageous in that it cues social identity threat (as hypothesized), this work also supports previous literature that reactive action is viewed as a relatively more effective strategy when enacted by members of advantaged groups. However, this finding was limited to the scenario-based paradigm as men’s reactive action did not uniquely predict women (in STEM)’s workplace outcomes. This inconsistency across paradigms suggests a difference between expected versus actual outcomes of reactive action, a discrepancy worth exploring in future research given its implications for how we operationalize allyship. Beyond methodological implications however, Study 4 was the first to imply the need 138 for a more encompassing definition of who enacts allyship. Women in STEM reported that women do engage in both proactive and reactive behaviors (to a greater extent than men, in fact) and women’s actions were generally just as predictive of positive outcomes as were men’s actions. Retrospectively, these findings are even more noteworthy in the context of Chapter 4, where women actively pushed back on the idea that men are exclusively responsible for and consequential in their allyship. Recognizing the limitations of experimental methods, I dove deeper into disadvantaged group members’ evaluations of allyship by focusing on lived, contextualized experiences. In Chapter 4, I interviewed professional women working in STEM fields and used an interpretive paradigm to explore how well the Typology of Allyship Action aligns with their perspectives. In some ways, women’s views complemented the Typology of Allyship Action; women perceived allyship as on-going behavior, involving reactive and proactive actions at various levels, with outcomes paralleling those described in Chapter 3 (e.g., perceiving those with advantaged status as particularly impactful in reactive action). In other ways, women’s perceptions complicated and improved the Typology of Allyship Action. Most notably, women’s emphasis on advantaged status rather than identity shifted my theoretical perspective on who engages in allyship; agents hold relatively higher status within a particular context. Beyond developing my theoretical framework, this expansion of who engages in allyship has practical implications. Research (in leadership and role-modelling) demonstrates that disadvantaged group members occupying high-ranking positions can positively impact in-group members with less status (for review, Dickens et al., 2021; Drury et al., 2011). For example, seeing Black women professors in STEM fosters feelings of belonging in the discipline for Black woman students (Johnson et al., 2019; also see Herrmann et al., 2016; Stout et al., 2011; Van Camp et al., 2019; Young et al., 2013). As this 139 literature is largely centered on exposure to leaders and role models, the Typology of Allyship Action can be used to investigate the significance of leaders and role-models’ actions to support less advantaged in-group members. For instance, and reflecting discussions in Chapter 4, future studies could investigate to what extent women in higher ranking positions are (perceived to be) responsible for and impactful in allyship towards early-career women in STEM organizations. Refining the Typology of Allyship Action Before discussing implications for future research, I will briefly summarize how the Typology of Allyship Action has been reinforced and refined as a result of my empirical work. First, my conception of allyship as action-oriented and ongoing strongly aligned with STEM women’s own perceptions of what allyship is and is not. Nevertheless, it is important to note that women did not consistently take a practice-oriented view of allyship, as some women labelled particular individuals as “allies.” I maintain that, pragmatically, a practice-oriented definition might better prevent advantaged group members from self-defining their allyship. However, my interviews with women revealed that an identity-oriented perspective may not be as problematic and distinct from a practice-oriented perspective as I originally proposed. Women had high expectations for someone who is labeled an ally, requiring consistent action to receive and maintain one’s title (i.e., practice was central to the ally identity). Therefore, discussing ally as a fluid label that is difficult to gain and easy to lose could likewise motivate members of advantaged groups to consistently engage in action. Second, I originally argued that allyship is conceptually distinct from other forms of action (e.g., solidarity, collective action) because it involves individuals from advantaged groups. However, my quantitative (Chapter 3: Study 4) and qualitative (Chapter 4) studies of STEM women’s lived experiences reveal that allyship should not be limited to particular social identity 140 groups. The advantaged/disadvantaged distinction is certainly still relevant to women’s lived experiences of who has most impact when carrying out such actions. Thus, I shift my definition from advantaged/disadvantaged groups to having advantaged social status, the “relative prestige, authority, and privilege of an individual…that can be determined by any number of factors” including non-identity based factors such as occupation, rank, authority, level of education (American Psychological Association, n.d.). Within work hierarchies for example, women in leadership can engage in allyship behaviors towards women in lower rank positions, even though they are members of the disadvantaged gender group more generally. Consequentially, differentiating allyship from other forms of action involves deeper consideration of the context in which action occurs and the positionalities of and dynamics between those involved. Reflections for Future Research Intersectionality Women’s focus on relative status rather than specific identity groups reflects intersectional thinking (McCormick-Huhn et al., 2019); women’s conceptions of allyship involved a multidimensional view of people and the various social positions of power they occupy across contexts. In this way, Chapter 4 demonstrates how focusing on single-axis social group memberships and deprioritizing participants’ contexts (McCormick-Huhn et al., 2019) is problematic. Studying one identity at a time and controlling for context may be considered good practice within mainstream social psychology (which prioritizes parsimonious models; Cole, 2009). However, doing so risks developing an oversimplified picture of a complex phenomenon, such as my original, more rigid conception of who enacts allyship which did not reflect women’s lived experiences. Moreover, lacking an intersectional framework risks erasing the experiences of those who occupy multiple marginalized positions (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). For 141 example, Chapter 3 could reflect perceptions of allyship towards White women and men of color (but not women of color) given people’s ethnocentric and androcentric tendencies, respectively (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Future allyship research will greatly benefit from adopting an intersectional framework, incorporating alternative paradigms (e.g., interpretivism) that reflect its values (contextualized representation of people’s experiences) and address the constraints of using traditional social psychological approaches to study social inequalities (Settles et al., 2020). Across these paradigms, attentiveness to whose experiences are represented in participant samples is crucial. Although participants sampled in these studies reside in North America and are predominately employed full-time, these samples are not representative of the wider population of working professionals. Future research should recruit more diverse samples (including but not limited to professionals of various racial/ethnic backgrounds, gender identities, sexualities) to better reflect different voices within workplace contexts. As the Typology of Allyship Action framework seeks to describe allyship across various contexts, future studies should also consider the perspectives and experiences of people from a diversity of cultural, national, and social class backgrounds. Considering the Level Dimension Viewing action type as the primary dimension in the Typology of Allyship Action, I have focused on comparisons of reactive and proactive action throughout this dissertation. Although secondary, action level is nonetheless an important dimension of allyship worth investigating, particularly in research on allyship effectiveness. More specifically, my empirical work suggests that institutional level action is (perceived as) particularly beneficial for systemic change; secondary and exploratory analyses in Chapter 3 suggest that institutional action is perceived as 142 more effective at increasing equality and making long-term impact (see appendix). In Chapter 4, professional women emphasized the need for addressing organizational-level issues (e.g., equal pay, maternity leave, and recruitment and retention efforts), some challenging a predominant focus on individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. Likewise, scholars have critiqued a focus on addressing bias at intrapersonal and interpersonal levels but not institutional levels, limiting the extent to which change can be achieved (Grzanka & Cole, 2021). Certainly, social psychologists have begun to integrate institutional-level action in their theoretical frameworks of allyship (e.g., Craig et al., 2020; Radke et al., 2020). However, research should go further to directly compare institutional-level versus intrapersonal and interpersonal-level action. Extending my empirical work, future research could explore differences in institutional-level versus intra/interpersonal-level actions’ effectiveness and (as discussed in Chapter 1) people’s likelihood of, self-efficacy in, and perceived responsibility for engaging in larger-scale action. Barriers to Allyship Actions With new insight into what people perceive or have experienced to be impactful action, future research should consider what may motivate or inhibit people with advantaged group status from engaging in different forms of allyship. In my past work (De Souza & Schmader, 2022), I found that men are particularly hesitant to enact reactive action, operationalized as confrontation of another man’s gender bias. The Typology of Allyship Action can be used to extend this line of research, investigating the unique barriers to reactive action compared to proactive forms of action. For example, and as described in Chapter 1, the risk of backlash may prevent those with advantaged status from engaging in reactive action whereas the inability to recognize opportunities for support may inhibit proactive action. Future studies should likewise approach this research question from multiple angles (e.g., quantitative survey-based and 143 interview-based methods), grounded in the theoretical and practical tools that I provide in this dissertation. Applications Social psychology has a long history of applying research to address issues in real-world settings (e.g., Paluck & Green, 2009; Ross, Lepper, & Ward, 2010). In this spirit, the Typology of Allyship Action should not only be considered a theoretical tool, but also a practical one. First, the Typology of Allyship Action is a useful starting place for individuals who are unsure where to begin their allyship practice, providing several starting points for action. Likewise, by familiarizing themselves with the Typology of Allyship Action, individuals may consider action beyond what is typically considered allyship (i.e., interpersonal reactive action, specifically confrontation). Introducing proactive action to individuals may encourage allyship action from those who struggle to speak out against bias for various reasons (e.g., not yet able to identify opportunities to act or equipped to confront bias; Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2008). Furthermore, provided with a framework to compare potential forms of actions, individuals may reflect on what forms of actions will be most impactful and when. Given the potential to encourage action amongst individuals, organizational leaders who seek to cultivate inclusive workplace cultures can distribute the Typology of Allyship Action amongst their employees. More specifically, organizational leaders might integrate the Typology of Allyship Action in their professional development programming and diversity, inclusion, and equity initiatives (as is already the case with several Canadian STEM organizations; Engendering Success in STEM: Project RISE, 2023). The Typology of Allyship is an accessible and adaptable tool, and importantly seeks to encourage action within organizations that prioritizes the desires of those whom these initiatives should first and foremost seek to serve. 144 Concluding Remarks In this dissertation, my aim is to provide answers to the question, “What is Allyship?” Certainly, a strength of this dissertation is that it accomplishes this task; amalgamating past research, I developed a novel conceptual framework and tools to understand what people think allyship is (not). Nevertheless, this dissertation’s greatest strength is the systematic and multi-method approach in tackling this broad question. I answered my research questions by engaging in theory-based hypothesis testing (Ross, Lepper, & Ward, 2010), developing a theory of allyship and subsequently deriving falsifiable hypotheses from it. Moreover, I pushed my work further by moving beyond an experimental paradigm. Through more inductive, interpretivist research, I could see where my theory of allyship succeeds and falls flat in representing actual realities and expand it accordingly. As described in their respective chapters, there are constraints to this work that should be addressed in future research (e.g., do the disadvantages of reactive action reflect qualities of the action or the presence of bias? Are interpretations of professional women’s stories transferable to experiences of people in non-white collar contexts?) Nevertheless, I see these limitations as opportunities for future research. By continuing to develop my theoretical and empirical work, both post-positivist and interpretivist, I strive to provide a completer picture of what allyship is and how it might serve those who stand to benefit most from it. 145 Bibliography AAUW. (2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. https://www.aauw.org/research/solving -the-equation/ About Black Lives Matter. (n.d.). Black Lives Matter. Retrieved March 29, 2022, from https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/ Aday, A. E., Guo, Y., Mehta, S., Chen, S., Goetz, F., Hall, W., Sedikides, C., & Schmader, T. (2023). The SAFE model: State authenticity as a function of three types of fit [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia. Allen, T., Day, R., & Lentz, E. (2005). The role of interpersonal comfort in mentoring relationships. Journal of Career Development, 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10871-004-2224-3 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Social status. In APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved September 18, 2023, from https://dictionary.apa.org/social-status. Amodio, D. M., Devine, P. G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2007). A dynamic model of guilt: Implications for motivation and self-regulation in the context of prejudice. Psychological Science, 18(6), 524–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01933.x Amodio, D. M., Devine, P. G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). Individual differences in the regulation of intergroup bias: The role of conflict monitoring and neural signals for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.60 Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Devine, P. G. (2003). Individual differences in the activation and control of affective race bias as assessed by startle eyeblink response and self-report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.738 Amon, M. J. (2017). Looking through the glass ceiling: A qualitative study of STEM women’s career narratives. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00236 Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15(8), 507–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00710.x Ashburn-Nardo, L., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2008). The Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 332–342. Atcheson, S. (2018, November 30). Allyship—the key to unlocking the power of diversity. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/shereeatcheson/2018/11/30/allyship-the-key-to-unlocking-the-power-of-diversity/ Atcheson, S. (2021, December 9). Allyship is Dictionary.com’s word of the year. So, what does it really mean? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/shereeatcheson/2021/12/09/allyship-is-dictionarycoms-word-of-the-year-so-what-does-it-really-mean/ Ayres, M. M., Friedman, C. K., & Leaper, C. (2009). Individual and situational factors related to young women’s likelihood of confronting sexism in their everyday lives. Sex Roles, 61(7–8), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9635-3 Bain, K., Kreps, T. A., Meikle, N. L., & Tenney, E. R. (2021). Amplifying voice in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1288-1312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0621 Bargh, J. A. (1999). The cognitive monster: The case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In S. Chaiken & Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 361–382). The Guilford Press. Barlow, F. K., Louis, W. R., & Hewstone, M. (2009). Rejected! Cognitions of rejection and intergroup anxiety as mediators of the impact of cross-group friendships on prejudice. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X387089 Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297237008 146 Batson, C., Lishner, D., Carpenter, A., Dulin, L., Harjusola-Webb, S., Stocks, E., Gale, S., Hassan, O., & Sampat, B. (2003). “... As you would have them do unto you”: Does imagining yourself in the other’s place stimulate moral action? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1190–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254600 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 Bearman, S., Korobov, N., & Thorne, A. (2009). The fabric of internalized sexism. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, 1(1), 10-47. Becker, J. C. (2012). Virtual special issue on theory and research on collective action in the European Journal of Social Psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1839 Becker, J. C., & Barreto, M. (2014). Ways to go: Men’s and women’s support for aggressive and nonaggressive confrontation of sexism as a function of gender identification. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 668–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12085 Becker, J. C., & Tausch, N. (2015). A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: Psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 43–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1094265 Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615 Bergsieker, H., Hall, W., Trickey, J., Dennehy, T., Aday, A., Denney, G., De Souza, L., He, J., Kang, S., Schmader, T. (2023). Project RISE: Testing the effectiveness of an intervention to Realize Identity Safe Environments by boosting allyship. Manuscript in preparation. Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Maquil, A., Demoulin, S., & Leyens, J.-P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856. Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1142–1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1142 Blair, I. V., Ma, J. E., & Lenton, A. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 828–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.828 Blair, I. V., Soc, P., Rev, P., & Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 242–261. Blair-Loy, M., Mayorova, O. V., Cosman, P. C., & Fraley, S. I. (2022). Can rubrics combat gender bias in faculty hiring?. Science, 377(6601), 35-37. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm2329 Blake-Beard, S., Bayne, M. L., Crosby, F. J., & Muller, C. B. (2011). Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the prize. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 622–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01717.x Blanchard, F. A., Lilly, T., & Vaughn, L. A. (1991). Reducing the expression of racial prejudice. Psychological Science, 2(2), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00108.x Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.253 Bowman, S. R., Kite, M. E., Branscombe, N. R., & Williams, S. (1999). Developmental relationships of Black Americans in the academy. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships Within Multicultural Organizations (pp. 19–42). Psychology Press. Brannon, T. N., Carter, E. R., Murdock‐Perriera, L. A., & Higginbotham, G. D. (2018). From backlash to inclusion for all: Instituting diversity efforts to maximize benefits across group lines. Social Issues and Policy review, 12(1), 57-90. 147 Branscombe, N. R., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group-based discrimination: Individualistic versus group-level strategies. In Swim, J. K., & Stangor, C. (Eds.), Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective (pp. 243-266). Elsevier. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications. Brinkman, B. G., Garcia, K., & Rickard, K. M. (2011). “What I wanted to do was…” Discrepancies between college women’s desired and reported responses to gender prejudice. Sex Roles, 65(5–6), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0020-7 Broido, E. M. (2000). Ways of being an ally to lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Toward Acceptance: Sexual Orientation Issues on Campus, 345–369. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513 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 Bump, P. (2023, February 24). Diversity, equity and inclusion is the new CRT. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/24/diversity-white-america-desantis-crt/ Burson, E., & Godfrey, E. B. (2020). Intraminority solidarity: The role of critical consciousness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1362–1377. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2679 Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600103 Cadieux, J., & Chasteen, A. L. (2015). You gay, bro? Social costs faced by male confronters of antigay prejudice. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(4), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000134 Çakal, H., Halabi, S., Cazan, A. M., & Eller, A. (2021). Intergroup contact and endorsement of social change motivations: The mediating role of intergroup trust, perspective-taking, and intergroup anxiety among three advantaged groups in Northern Cyprus, Romania, and Israel. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(1), 48-67. Campbell, M. R., & Brauer, M. (2021). Is discrimination widespread? Testing assumptions about bias on a university campus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(4), 756. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000983 Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654 Case, K. A., Iuzzini, J., & Hopkins, M. (2012). Systems of privilege: Intersections, awareness, and applications. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404560.2011.01732.x Casey, C. & Krueger, M. [UMN_MCH] (2019, July 15). Focus group session 2 – developing questions [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSOgLWdm5B8&ab_channel=UMN_MCH Casey, E. A., & Ohler, K. (2012). Being a positive bystander: Male antiviolence allies’ experiences of “stepping up.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511416479 Case, K. A., Rios, D., Lucas, A., Braun, K., & Enriquez, C. (2020). Intersectional patterns of prejudice confrontation by White, heterosexual, and cisgender allies. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 899-920. Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2021). Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM. Science Advances, 7(3). https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abe0933 Chaney, K. E., & Sanchez, D. T. (2018). The endurance of interpersonal confrontations as a prejudice reduction strategy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741344 148 Chaney, K. E., & Sanchez, D. T. (2021). Prejudice confrontation styles: A validated and reliable measure of how people confront prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211005841 Chaney, K. E., Sanchez, D. T., & Remedios, J. D. (2016). Organizational identity safety cue transfers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(11), 1564–1576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216665096 Chen, J. M., Joel, S., & Castro Lingl, D. (2023). Antecedents and consequences of LGBT individuals’ perceptions of straight allyship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000422 Cheng, S., Ng, L., Traylor, A., & King, E. (2019). Helping or hurting?: understanding women’s perceptions of male allies. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 5(2), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2019.02.006 Cheng, S., Ng, L., Trump-Steele, R. C. E., Corrington, A., & Hebl, M. (2018). Calling on male allies to promote gender equity in I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.88 Cheryan, S., & Markus, H. R. (2020). Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1022–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000209 Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239 Cihangir, S., Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2014). Men as allies against sexism: The positive effects of a suggestion of sexism by male (vs. female) sources. SAGE Open, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014539168 Clark, M. D. (2019). White folks’ work: Digital allyship praxis in the #BlackLivesMatter movement. Social Movement Studies, 18(5), 519-534. Cohen, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men: Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 876–884. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564 Collier-Spruel, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2022). Are all allyship attempts helpful? An investigation of effective and ineffective allyship. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-26. Cornell Health. (2019, September). Ally up! Practice effective allyship. https://health.cornell.edu/sites/health/files/pdf-library/ally-up.pdf Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868 Craig, M. A., Badaan, V., & Brown, R. M. (2020). Acting for whom, against what? Group membership and multiple paths to engagement in social change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.002 Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139-167. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Crosby, J. R., & Wilson, J. (2015). Let’s not, and say we would: Imagined and actual responses to witnessing homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(7), 957–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1008284 Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage Publications, Inc. Cunningham, W. A., Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Chris Gatenby, J., Gore, J. C., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychological Science, 15(12), 806–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00760.x 149 Czopp, A. M., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2012). Interpersonal confrontations of prejudice. In D. W. Russell & C. A. Russell (Eds.), The Psychology of Prejudice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Contemporary Issues (pp. 175–202). Nova Science. Czopp, A. M., & Monteith, M. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250923 Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 784–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784 Dang, C. T., & Joshi, A. (2022). On the plurality and politics of ally work: Liberalism and self, relational, and organizational ally work. Academy of Management Journal, 1. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.0999 Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 642–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003 Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103 Davies, K., Wright, S. C., & Aron, A. (2011). Cross-group friendships: How interpersonal connections encourage positive intergroup attitudes. In L. R. Tropp & R. K. Mallett (Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 119–138). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12319-006 De Souza, L., & Schmader, T. (2022). The misjudgment of men: Does pluralistic ignorance inhibit allyship? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(2), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000362 Dennehy, T. C., Bergsieker, H. B., & Schmader, T., (2018). RISE workplace culture survey. Engineering Success in STEM. https://successinstem.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/RISEWorkplace-Culture-Survey-General-Report.pdf?x91758 Derks, B., Ellemers, N., Van Laar, C., & De Groot, K. (2011). Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 519-535. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X525280 Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5 Devine, P. G., & Ash, T. L. (2022). Diversity training goals, limitations, and promise: A review of the multidisciplinary literature. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 403-429. Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003 Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Cox, W. T. L., Kaatz, A., Sheridan, J., & Carnes, M. (2017). A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in stemm departments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.002 Devine, P. G., & Monteith, M. J. (1999). Automaticity and control in stereotyping. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 339–360). The Guilford Press. Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.835 Dezsö, C. L., & Ross, D. G. (2012). Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1072-1089. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1955 150 Dickens, D., Ellis, V., & Hall, N. M. (2021). Changing the face of STEM: Review of literature on the role of mentors in the success of undergraduate black women in STEM education. Journal of Research Initiatives, 5(3). Dickter, C. L. (2012). Confronting hate: Heterosexuals’ responses to anti-gay comments. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(8), 1113–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2012.712817 Dickter, C. L., Kittel, J. A., & Gyurovski, I. I. (2012). Perceptions of non-target confronters in response to racist and heterosexist remarks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.855 Dickter, C. L., & Newton, V. A. (2013). To confront or not to confront: Non‐targets’ evaluations of and responses to racist comments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(2), 262-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12022 Dictionary.com’s 2021 Word Of The Year Is... (2021, December 6). Dictionary.com. Retrieved March 28, 2022, from https://www.dictionary.com/e/word-of-the-year/ Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Stevenson, C., & Çakal, H. (2016). From prejudice reduction to collective action. In C. G. Sibley & F. K. Barlow (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 481–499). Cambridge University Press. Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Relational inequality, collective action, and social change revisited. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 451-466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001550 Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Buckley, M. R., & Gundlach, M. J. (2003). organizational and social influences on leader-membership exchange processes: Implication for the management of diversity. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity (pp. 59–90). IAP. Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.006 Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1993). Stereotypes and evaluative intergroup bias. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 167–193). Academic Press. Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, & P. Glick (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 3–28). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200919 Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.62 Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510–540. Droogendyk, L., Louis, W. R., & Wright, S. C. (2016a). Renewed promise for positive cross-group contact: the role of supportive contact in empowering collective action. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 48(4), 317–327. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1037/cbs0000058 Droogendyk, L., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M., & Louis, W. R. (2016b). Acting in solidarity: Cross-group contact between disadvantaged group members and advantaged group allies. Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12168 Drury, B. J., & Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting sexism: allies against sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12083 Drury, J., Evripidou, A., & van Zomeren, M. (2015). Empowerment: The intersection of identity and power in collective action. In D. Sindic, M. Barreto, & R. Costa-Lopes (Eds.), Power and identity (pp. 94–116). Psychology Press. Dunn, M., Gregor, M., Robinson, S., Ferrer, A., Campbell-Halfaker, D., & Martin-Fernandez, J. (2022). Academia during the time of COVID-19: Examining the voices of untenured female professors in STEM. Journal of Career Assessment, 30(3), 573-589. 151 https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211057441 Dwertmann, D. J. G., Park, H., & Latu, I. (2018). the nature of lmx differentiation and diversity climate. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), 10391. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.103 Dys-Steenbergen, O., Wright, S. C., & Aron, A. (2016). Self-expansion motivation improves cross-group interactions and enhances self-growth. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215583517 Eckert, P. (1990). Cooperative competition in adolescent “girl talk.” Discourse Processes, 13(1), 91-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539009544748 Edmondson, A. C. (2004). psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239–272). Russell Sage Foundation. Eliezer, D., & Major, B. (2012). It’s not your fault: The social costs of claiming discrimination on behalf of someone else. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(4), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211432894 Ellingson, L. L. (2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research: An introduction. Sage. Engendering Success in STEM: Project RISE. (2023). Project RISE: Realizing identity-safe environments. https://successinstem.ca/projects/rise/ Erskine, S. E., & Bilimoria, D. (2019). White allyship of Afro-Diasporic women in the workplace: A transformative strategy for organizational change. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(3), 319-338. Estevan-Reina, L., de Lemus, S., Megías, J. L., Kutlaca, M., Belmonte-García, M., & Becker, J. (2021). Allies against sexism: the impact of men’s egalitarian versus paternalistic confrontation on women’s empowerment and well-being. Sex Roles, 84(9), 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01184-4 Ferdman, B. M. (2014). The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations: Toward a systemic and inclusive framework. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 3–54). Jossey-Bass/Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch1 Flam, F. (1991). Still a" chilly climate" for women? Women in astronomy and physics say they face not so much overt discrimination as a pattern of" micro-inequalities." The remedy: more women. Science, 252(5013), 1604-1606. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.252.5013.1604 Fletcher, L., & Marvell, R. (2022). Furthering transgender inclusion in the workplace: advancing a new model of allyship intentions and perceptions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(9), 1726-1756. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.2023895 Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1720–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02464.x Frierson, H. T., Hargrove, B. K., & Lewis, N. R. (1994). Black summer research students’ perceptions related to research mentors’ race and gender. Journal of College Student Development, 35(6), 475–480. Gallegos, P. V. (2013). The work of inclusive leadership. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Dean (Eds.), Diversity at work: the practice of inclusion (pp. 177–202). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch6 Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493 Gonzáles-Figueroa, E., & Young, A. M. (2005). Ethnic identity and mentoring among Latinas in professional roles. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11(3), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.11.3.213 Gonzalez, K. A., Riggle, E. D. B., & Rostosky, S. S. (2015). Cultivating positive feelings and attitudes: A path to prejudice reduction and ally behavior. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000049 Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659 152 Google trends: what is allyship. (n.d.). Google trends. Retrieved August 10, 2022, from https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=what%20is%20allyship Government of Canada (2023, May 26). Women in STEM. https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/women-in-stem.cfm Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4 Greijdanus, H., de Matos Fernandes, C. A., Turner-Zwinkels, F., Honari, A., Roos, C. A., Rosenbusch, H., & Postmes, T. (2020). The psychology of online activism and social movements: Relations between online and offline collective action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 49-54. Grinberg, E. (2017, November 10). The next step for #MeToo Creator isn’t a Hashtag. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/tarana-burke-metoo-whats-next/index.html Grzanka, P. R., & Cole, E. R. (2021). An argument for bad psychology: Disciplinary disruption, public engagement, and social transformation. American Psychologist, 76(8), 1334–1345. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000853 Guendouzi, J. (2001). You'll think we're always bitching': the functions of cooperativity and competition in women's gossip. Discourse Studies, 3(1), 29-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003001002 Hall, W., Schmader, T., Aday, A., & Croft, E. (2019). Decoding the dynamics of social identity threat in the workplace: A within-person analysis of women’s and men’s interactions in stem. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618772582 Hall, W. M., Schmader, T., & Croft, E. (2015). Engineering exchanges: Daily social identity threat predicts burnout among female engineers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 528–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615572637 Hall, W., Schmader, T., Aday, A., Inness, M., & Croft, E. (2018). Climate control: The relationship between social identity threat and cues to an identity-safe culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000137 Hanh Tran, T., & Choi, S. (2019). Effects of inclusive leadership on organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating roles of organizational justice and learning culture. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 13(17). Hebl, M. R., & Avery, D. R. (2013). Diversity in organizations. In N. W. Schmitt, S. Highhouse, & Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 677–697). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends” intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224007 Herrmann, S. D., Adelman, R. M., Bodford, J. E., Graudejus, O., Okun, M. A., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2016). The effects of a female role model on academic performance and persistence of women in STEM courses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(5), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1209757 Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0 Higgins, E. T. (2012). Regulatory focus theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 483–504). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n24 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(6), 1318–1333. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2692 Hirak, R., Peng, A. C., Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2012). Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.009 Howard University School of Law. (2022). Black Lives Matter Movement. Howard University Law Library. https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/BLM 153 Hugenberg, K., Blusiewicz, R. L., & Sacco, D. F. (2010). On malleable and immalleable subtypes: Stereotype malleability in one subtype does not spill over to other prominent subtypes. Social Psychology, 41(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000018 Huo, Y. J., Molina, L. E., Sawahata, R., & Deang, J. M. (2005). Leadership and the management of conflicts in diverse groups: Why acknowledging versus neglecting subgroup identity matters. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 237–254. Influs, M., Pratt, M., Masalha, S., Zagoory-Sharon, O., & Feldman, R. (2019). A social neuroscience approach to conflict resolution: Dialogue intervention to Israeli and Palestinian youth impacts oxytocin and empathy. Social Neuroscience, 14(4), 378-389 Ipsos and Global Institute for Women's Leadership. (2019, March 6). Gender equality around the world. https://www.ipsos.com/en-za/gender-equalityaround-world Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Intergroup attributions and affective consequences in majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 936–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.936 Iyer, A., & Achia, T. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000325 Iyer, A., & Leach, C. W. (2009). Helping disadvantaged out-groups challenge unjust inequality. In S. Stürmer & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Psychology of Prosocial Behavior (pp. 337–353). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444307948.ch17 Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202238377 Javed, B., Naqvi, S., Khan, A., Arjoon, S., & Habib, H. (2017). Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety. Journal of Management & Organization, 25, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.3 Johnson, I. R., Pietri, E. S., Fullilove, F., & Mowrer, S. (2019). Exploring identity-safety cues and allyship among black women students in STEM environments. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843198309 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(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000033 Jones, K. N., Hoover, S., Glaeser, E., Woods, C. J., Clark, M., & Brewster, M. (2022). Thematic qualitative content analysis of cishet allies’ activism: Perceptions of igniting events and barriers to activism. Journal of Homosexuality, 69(9), 1501-1523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2021.1917220 Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 111–153). Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis. Joy-Gaba, J. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). The surprisingly limited malleability of implicit racial evaluations. Social Psychology, 41(3), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000020 Kaiser, C., & Miller, C. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272010 Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2003). Derogating the victim: The interpersonal consequences of blaming events on discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(3), 227–237. Kalina P. (2020). Performative Allyship. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 11(1), 478–481. 154 https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v11i1.1518 Kawakami, K., Dunn, E., Karmali, F., & Dovidio, J. F. (2009). Mispredicting affective and behavioral responses to racism. Science, 323(5911), 276–278. Kazmi, M. A., Spitzmueller, C., Yu, J., Madera, J. M., Tsao, A. S., Dawson, J. F., & Pavlidis, I. (2022). Search committee diversity and applicant pool representation of women and underrepresented minorities: A quasi-experimental field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(8), 1414–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000725 Kennedy, J. T., & Jain-Link, P. (2021, June 21). What does it take to build a culture of belonging? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/06/what-does-it-take-to-build-a-culture-of-belonging Kim, J. H. (2019). Multicollinearity and misleading statistical results. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 72(6), 558-569. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.19087 Kiner, M. (2020, April 14). It’s time to break the cycle of female rivalry. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/04/its-time-to-break-the-cycle-of-female-rivalry King, M. E., Winter, S., & Webster, B. (2009). Contact reduces transprejudice: A study on attitudes towards transgenderism and transgender civil rights in Hong Kong. International Journal of Sexual Health, 21(1), 17–34. Kim, J. Y., & Meister, A. (2023). Microaggressions, interrupted: The experience and effects of gender microaggressions for women in STEM. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(3), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05203-0 Klonis, S. C., Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2005). Internal and external motivation to respond without sexism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(9), 1237–1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205275304 Kumar, D. (2023, January 20). National Faculty Group “appalled” by Florida’s stand on critical race theory. Tampa Bay Times. https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2023/01/20/national-professors-group-appalled-by-floridas-stand-critical-race-theory/ Kunstman, J. W., Tuscherer, T., Trawalter, S., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216652860 Kutlaca, M., & Radke, H. R. M. (2023). Towards an understanding of performative allyship: Definition, antecedents and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(2). Kristofferson, K., White, K., & Peloza, J. (2014). The nature of slacktivism: How the social observability of an initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial action. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1149-1166. Labhardt, D., Holdsworth, E., Brown, S., & Howat, D. (2017). You see but you do not observe: A review of bystander intervention and sexual assault on university campuses. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 35, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.05.005 Lacosse, J., Tuscherer, T., Kunstman, J., Plant, A., Trawalter, S., & Major, B. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.003 Lane, D. S., & Dal Cin, S. (2018). Sharing beyond slacktivism: The effect of socially observable prosocial media sharing on subsequent offline helping behavior. Information, Communication & Society, 21(11), 1523-1540. Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), 1232–1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206289729 Lean In (2023). Allyship at Work. https://leanin.org/allyship-at-work Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2079 155 Levin, S., van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of ingroup and outgroup friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001013 Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principle and practice. Sage. Logel, C., Walton, G. M., Spencer, S. J., Iserman, E. C., von Hippel, W., & Bell, A. E. (2009). Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1089–1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015703 Louis, W. R. (2009). Collective action—and then what? Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 727–748. Louis, W. R., Thomas, E., Chapman, C. M., Achia, T., Wibisono, S., Mirnajafi, Z., & Droogendyk, L. (2019). Emerging research on intergroup prosociality: Group members’ charitable giving, positive contact, allyship, and solidarity with others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12436 Lount, R. B., & Phillips, K. W. (2007). Working harder with the out-group: The impact of social category diversity on motivation gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.03.002 MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84 Madsen, S. R., Townsend, A., & Scribner, R. T. (2020). Strategies that male allies use to advance women in the workplace. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 28(3), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826519883239 Major, B., 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 Major, B., & Schmader, T. (2018). Stigma, social identity threat, and health. In B. Major, J. F. Dovidio, & B. G. Link (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of stigma, discrimination, and health (pp. 85–103). Oxford University Press. Mallett, R. K., & Wagner, D. E. (2011). The unexpectedly positive consequences of confronting sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.001 Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qualitative health research, 26(13), 1753-1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444 Marcus, B. (2016, January 13). The dark side of female rivalry in the workplace and what to do about it. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bonniemarcus/2016/01/13/the-dark-side-of-female-rivalry-in-the-workplace-and-what-to-do-about-it/?sh=7517d6635255 Marinucci, M., Maunder, R., Sanchez, K., Thai, M., McKeown, S., Turner, R. N., & Stevenson, C. (2021). Intimate intergroup contact across the lifespan. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 64–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12399 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557 Marti, M. W., Bobier, D. M., & Baron, R. S. (2000). Right before our eyes: The failure to recognize non-prototypical forms of prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430200003004005 McCormick-Huhn, K., Warner, L. R., Settles, I. H., & Shields, S. A. (2019). What if psychology took intersectionality seriously? Changing how psychologists think about participants. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(4), 445-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319866430 McGarty, C., Bliuc, A.-M., Thomas, E. F., & Bongiorno, R. (2009). Collective action as the material expression of opinion-based group membership. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 839–857. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01627.x McKenzie, M. (2014). Black girl dangerous: On race, queerness, class, and gender. BGD Press. 156 Meckler, L., & Natanson, H. (2021, May 3). As schools expand racial equity work, conservatives see a new threat in critical race theory. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/03/critical-race-theory-backlash/ Mendoza, S. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Amodio, D. M. (2010). Reducing the expression of implicit stereotypes: Reflexive control through implementation intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210362789 Mendoza-Denton, R., & Page-Gould, E. (2008). Can cross-group friendships influence minority students’ well-being at historically White universities? Psychological Science, 19(9), 933–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02179.x Mendoza-Denton, R., Page-Gould, E., & Pietrzak, J. (2006). Mechanisms for coping with status-based rejection expectations. In S. Levin & C. van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 151–169). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Migacheva, K., & Tropp, L. (2012). Learning orientation as a predictor of positive intergroup contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 426–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212455854 Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Parker, V., Giles, M., Chiang, V., & Joyce, P. (2015). Managing inclusiveness and diversity in teams: How leader inclusiveness affects performance through status and team identity. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21658 Monteith, M., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Voils, C., & Czopp, A. (2002). Putting the brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1029–1050. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1029 Monteith, M. J. (1993). Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for progress in prejudice-reduction efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(3), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.3.469 Monteith, M. J., Deneen, N. E., & Tooman, G. D. (1996). The effect of social norm activation on the expression of opinions concerning gay men and Blacks. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1803_2 Monteith, M. J., Lybarger, J. E., & Woodcock, A. (2009). Schooling the cognitive monster: The role of motivation in the regulation and control of prejudice. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(3), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00177.x Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2005). Changing one’s prejudiced ways: Awareness, affect, and self-regulation. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 113–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280500229882 Monteith, M. J., Parker, L. R., & Burns, M. D. (2016). The self-regulation of prejudice. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 409–432). Psychology Press. Montgomery, M. (2019, January 13). A basic protocol for efficient orthographic transcription for the archive of traditional Appalachian speech and culture. University of South Carolina College of Arts and Sciences. https://artsandsciences.sc.edu/appalachianenglish/node/792 Moon, K., & Blackman, D. (2014). A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation biology, 28(5), 1167-1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326 Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984287 Moser, C. E., & Branscombe, N. R. (2022). Male Allies at Work: Gender-Equality Supportive Men Reduce Negative Underrepresentation Effects Among Women. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211033748 Moss-Racusin, C. A., Sanzari, C., Caluori, N., & Rabasco, H. (2018). Gender bias produces gender gaps in STEM engagement. Sex Roles, 79(11–12), 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0902-z Mujal, G. N., Taylor, M. E., Fry, J. L., Gochez-Kerr, T. H., & Weaver, N. L. (2021). A systematic review of bystander interventions for the prevention of sexual violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(2), 381-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019849587 157 Murrar, S., Gavac, S., & Brauer, M. (2017). Reducing prejudice. In R. Summers (Ed.), Social psychology: How other people influence our thoughts and actions (pp. 361–383). ABC-CLIO. Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group’s help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.97 Nadler, A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G., & Ben-David, Y. (2009). Defensive helping: Threat to group identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group identity as determinants of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 823–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015968 Nelson, J. K., Dunn, K. M., & Paradies, Y. (2011). Bystander anti‐racism: A review of the literature. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 11(1), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01274.x Nembhard, I., & Edmondson, A. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413 Neuman, K. (2019, December 10). Race relations in Canada 2019 survey. Environics Institute. https://www.environicsinstitute.org/projects/project-details/race-relations-in-canada-2019 Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412–1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017190 Novacek, G., Lee, J., & Krentz, M. (2021). It’s time to reimagine diversity, equity, and inclusion. https://web-assets.bcg.com/0b/c4/c45a07e54f48ae0dc784667a66dd/bcg-its-time-to-reimagine-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-may-2021-r.pdf Ortiz-Walters, R., & Gilson, L. L. (2005). Mentoring in academia: An examination of the experiences of protégés of color. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.09.004 Ostrove, J. M., & Brown, K. T. (2018). Are allies who we think they are?: A comparative analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(4), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12502 Page‐Gould, E., Mendoza‐Denton, R., & Mendes, W. B. (2014). Stress and coping in interracial contexts: The influence of race‐based rejection sensitivity and cross‐group friendship in daily experiences of health. Journal of Social Issues, 70(2), 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12059 Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1080–1094. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1080 Pagotto, L., Voci, A., & Maculan, V. (2010). The effectiveness of intergroup contact at work: Mediators and moderators of hospital workers’ prejudice towards immigrants. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1038 Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607 Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Hewstone, M., & Neumann, D. (2018). Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12422 Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 770–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262848 Paolini, S., Wright, S. C., Dys-Steenbergen, O., & Favara, I. (2016). Self-expansion and intergroup contact: Expectancies and motives to self-expand lead to greater interest in outgroup contact and more positive intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 72(3), 450–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12176 Park, J. W., Vani, P., Saint-Hilaire, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2022). Disadvantaged group activists’ attitudes toward advantaged group allies in social movements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98, 104226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104226 158 Parker, K., & Funk, C. (2017, December 14). 42% of US working women have faced gender discrimination on the job. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/14/gender-discrimination-comes-in-many-forms-for-todays-working-women/ Pascoe, E. A., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016059 Patel, V. S. (2011). Moving Toward an Inclusive Model of Allyship for Racial Justice. The Vermont Connection, 32(1), 78-88. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/147332500200100363 Patton, L. D. (2009). My sister’s keeper: A qualitative examination of mentoring experiences among African American women in graduate and professional schools. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(5), 510–537. Patton, L. D., & Bondi, S. (2015). Nice white men or social justice allies?: Using critical race theory to examine how white male faculty and administrators engage in ally work. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(4), 488-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.1000289 Payne, B. K., & Gawronski, B. (2010). A history of implicit social cognition: Where is it coming from? Where is it now? Where is it going? In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 1–15). The Guilford Press. Pell, A. N. (1996). Fixing the leaky pipeline: women scientists in academia. Journal of Animal Science, 74(11), 2843-2848. https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74112843x Pettigrew, T. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Personality and social structure: Social psychological contributions. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 417–438). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50018-4 Pettigrew, T. F. (2018). The emergence of contextual social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), 963–971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218756033 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice: Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504 Pew Research Center. (2019, April 22). A changing world: Global views on diversity, gender equality, family life and the importance of religion. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/04/22/a-changing-world-global-views-on-diversity-gender-equality-family-life-and-the-importance-of-religion/ Pew Research Center (2021, April 1). Stem jobs see uneven progress in increasing gender, racial and ethnic diversity. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/04/01/stem-jobs-see-uneven-progress-in-increasing-gender-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/ Phillips, H. (2020). Performative allyship is deadly (here’s what to do instead). Policy Exchange. https://policyexchange.org.uk/performative-allyship-is-deadly-heres-what-to-do-instead. Phillips, K. W. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202238367 Phillips, K. W., Liljenquist, K. A., & Neale, M. A. (2009a). Is the pain worth the gain? The advantages and liabilities of agreeing with socially distinct newcomers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208328062 159 Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.12.001 Phillips, K. W., Kim-Jun, S. Y., & Shim, S.-H. (2011). The value of diversity in organizations: A social psychological perspective. In D. De Cremer, R. van Dick, & J. K. Murnighan (Eds.), Social psychology and organizations (pp. 253–271). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & H. Gruenfeld, D. (2004). Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.003 Phillips, K. W., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (2006). Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206067557 Phillips, K. W., Rothbard, N. P., & Dumas, T. L. (2009b). To disclose or not to disclose? Status distance and self-disclosure in diverse environments. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 710–732. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.34.4.zok710 Pierce, A. (2015, June 15). Being a good ally is an ongoing process. National Organization for Women. https://now.org/blog/ongoing-allyship/ Pietri, E. S., Hennes, E. P., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Bailey, A. H., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Handelsman, J. (2019). Addressing unintended consequences of gender diversity interventions on women’s sense of belonging in STEM. Sex Roles, 80, 527-547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0952-2 Prieto-Rodriguez, E., Sincock, K., Berretta, R., Todd, J., Johnson, S., Blackmore, K., Wanless, E., Giacomini, L., & Gibson, L. (2022). A study of factors affecting women’s lived experiences in STEM. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(121), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01136-1 Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741 Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4 Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615 Radke, H., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. (2016). Barriers to women engaging in collective action to overcome sexism. American Psychologist, 71, 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040345 Radke, H. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2018). Changing versus protecting the status quo: Why men and women engage in different types of action on behalf of women. Sex Roles, 79, 505-518. Radke, H. R. M., Kutlaca, M., Siem, B., 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320918698 Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002 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(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903539754 Rasinski, H. M., Geers, A. L., & Czopp, A. M. (2013). “I guess what he said wasn’t that bad”: Dissonance in nonconfronting targets of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 856–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213484769 160 Reason, R. D., & Broido, E. M. (2005). The development of social justice attitudes and actions: An overview of current understandings. In R. D. Reason, E. M. Broido, T. L. Davis, & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Developing social justice allies. John Wiley & Sons. Reason, R. D., Roosa Millar, E. A., & Scales, T. C. (2005). toward a model of racial justice ally development. Journal of College Student Development, 46(5), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0054 Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.49.1.95 Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions: Costs, consequences, and possibilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 316–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00528.x Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 934–947. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.934 Ro, H. K., Campbell‐Jacobs, B., Broido, E. M., Hanasono, L. K., O’Neil, D. A., Yacobucci, M. M., & Root, K. V. (2023). Faculty allyship: Differences by gender, race, and rank at a single US University. Gender, Work & Organization, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12988 Roberson, L., Deitch, E., Brief, A., & Block, C. (2003). Stereotype threat and feedback seeking in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00056-8 Ross, L., Lepper, M. and Ward, A. (2010). History of social psychology: insights, challenges, and contributions to theory and application. In S.T. Fiske, D.T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 3-50). John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001001 Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202 Saguy, T., & Chernyak-Hai, L. (2012). Intergroup contact can undermine disadvantaged group members’ attributions to discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 714–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.003 Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (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 Sanchez, D. T., Chaney, K. E., Manuel, S. K., & Remedios, J. D. (2018). Theory of prejudice and American identity threat transfer for Latino and Asian Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), 972-983. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216665096 Saucier, D. A., Strain, M. L., O’Dea, C. J., Sanborn, M., & Martens, A. L. (2020). Don’t laugh it off: Gender differences in perceptions of women’s responses to men’s use of sexist humor. Humor, 33(2), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2019-0100 Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(2), 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062326 Schmader, T., Bergsieker, H. B., & Hall, W. M. (2020). Cracking the culture code: A tri-level model for cultivating inclusion in organizations. In J. P. Forgas, W. D. Craino, & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applications of Social Psychology: How Social Psychology Can Contribute to the Solution of Real-World Problems (1st ed., pp. 334–355). Routledge. Schmader, T., & Sedikides, C. (2018). State authenticity as fit to environment: The implications of social identity for fit, authenticity, and self-segregation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 228–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317734080 Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2002). The differential effects of solo status on members of high and low-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 694–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202288013 161 Sekaquaptewa, D., Waldman, A., & Thompson, M. (2007). Solo status and self-construal: Being distinctive influences racial self-construal and performance apprehension in African American women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(4), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.4.321 Seron, C., Silbey, S., Cech, E., & Rubineau, B. (2018). “I am Not a Feminist, but...”: Hegemony of a meritocratic ideology and the limits of critique among women in engineering. Work and Occupations, 45(2), 131-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888418759774 Settles, I. H., Warner, L. R., Buchanan, N. T., & Jones, M. K. (2020). Understanding psychology's resistance to intersectionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion and invisibility. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 796-813. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12403 Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., Salvatore, J., & Hill, D. M. (2006). silence is not golden: The intrapersonal consequences of not confronting prejudice. In S. Levin & C. van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 65–81). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Shelton, J. N., & Stewart, R. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00138.x Shelton, J. N., Trail, T. E., West, T. V., & Bergsieker, H. B. (2010). From strangers to friends: The interpersonal process model of intimacy in developing interracial friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509346422 Sheltzer, J. M., & Smith, J. C. (2014). Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(28), 10107-10112. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403334111 Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. Shnabel, N., Bar-Anan, Y., Kende, A., Bareket, O., & Lazar, Y. (2016). Help to perpetuate traditional gender roles: Benevolent sexism increases engagement in dependency-oriented cross-gender helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000037 Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943 Short, S. E., & Mollborn, S. (2015). Social determinants and health behaviors: Conceptual frames and empirical advances. Current Opinion in Psychology, 5, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.05.002 Shuman, E., Saguy, T., Van Zomeren, M., & Halperin, E. (2020). Disrupting the system constructively: Testing the effectiveness of nonnormative nonviolent collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000333 Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319 Skorinko, J. L., & Sinclair, S. A. (2013). Perspective taking can increase stereotyping: The role of apparent stereotype confirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.009 Smith, L., & Redington, R. M. (2010). Lessons from the experiences of White antiracist activists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41(6), 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021793 Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597 Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 415–437. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235 Spring, V. L., Cameron, C. D., & Cikara, M. (2018). The upside of outrage. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(12), 1067–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.09.006 Statistics Canada. (2021, August 12). In 2020, one in four women and one in six men reported 162 having experienced inappropriate sexualized behaviours at work in the previous year. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/210812/dq210812b-eng.pdf?st=SHXeWOgC Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613 Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797 Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0 Stephan, W. G. (2014). Intergroup anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530518 Stephan, W. G., Boniecki, K. A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K. S., Jackson, L. A., McNatt, P. S., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1242–1254. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022812009 Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00144 Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2013). The role of ignorance in intergroup relations. In N. S. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: the psychology of desegregation (pp. 229–255). Academic Press. Stephens, N. M., Rivera, L. A., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2021). The cycle of workplace bias and how to interrupt it. Research in Organizational Behavior, 40, 100137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2021.100137 Stewart, B. D., & Payne, B. K. (2008). Bringing automatic stereotyping under control: Implementation intentions as efficient means of thought control. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1332–1345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208321269 Stout J. G., Dasgupta N., Hunsinger M., McManus M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385 Sue, D. W., Alsaidi, S., Awad, M. N., Glaeser, E., Calle, C. Z., & Mendez, N. (2019). Disarming racial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, White allies, and bystanders. American Psychologist, 74(1), 128. Sumerau, J. E., Forbes, T. D., Grollman, E. A., & Mathers, L. A. (2021). Constructing allyship and the persistence of inequality. Social Problems, 68(2), 358-373. Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?!: women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1370 Syed, M., Azmitia, M., & Cooper, C. R. (2011). Identity and academic success among underrepresented ethnic minorities: An interdisciplinary review and integration. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 442–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01709.x Szekeres, H., & Čabarkapa, Đ. (2023). Myths and reality about confronting anti-gay prejudice: Who confronts and why (not)? Journal of Homosexuality, 1-24. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon. Tausch, N., Becker, J., Spears, R., Christ, O., Saab, R., Singh, P., & Siddiqui, R. (2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022728 Tausch, N., & Hewstone, M. (2010). Intergroup contact. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. Esses (Eds.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 544–560). SAGE. 163 Techakesari, P., Barlow, F. K., Hornsey, M. J., Sung, B., Thai, M., & Chak, J. L. (2015). An investigation of positive and negative contact as predictors of intergroup attitudes in the United States, Hong Kong, and Thailand. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 454-468. Thomas, E. F., & Louis, W. R. (2013). Doing democracy: The social psychological mobilization and consequences of collective action. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7(1), 173–200. Thomas, E. F., & Louis, W. R. (2014). When will collective action be effective? Violent and non-violent protests differentially influence perceptions of legitimacy and efficacy among sympathizers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213510525 Thomas, E. F., & McGarty, C. A. (2009). The role of efficacy and moral outrage norms in creating the potential for international development activism through group-based interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X313774 Thompson, M., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2002). When being different is detrimental: Solo status and the performance of women and racial minorities. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2002.00037.x Tokenism. (n.d.). In APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved March 31, 2022, from https://dictionary.apa.org/tokenism Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780041038312 Trawalter, S., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and executive function after interracial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(3), 406–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.05.008 Tropp, L. R., & Barlow, F. K. (2018). Making advantaged racial groups care about inequality: Intergroup contact as a route to psychological investment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 194-199. Tropp, L. R., & Bianchi, R. A. (2006). Valuing diversity and interest in intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00472.x Tropp, L. R., Mazziotta, A., & Wright, S. C. (2017). Recent developments in intergroup contact research: Affective processes, group status, and contact valence. In C. G. Sibley & F. K. Barlow (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 463–480). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.020 Uluğ, Ö. M., & Uysal, M. S. (2023). The role of ethnic identification, allyship, and conflict narratives in supporting pro-minority policies among majority and minority groups. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 29(2), 172–183. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Women in the labor force: a data book. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2022/ Van Camp, A. R., Gilbert, P. N., & O’Brien, L. T. (2019). Testing the effects of a role model intervention on women’s STEM outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 22, 649-671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09498-2 van Zomeren, M. (2019). Toward a cultural psychology of collective action: Just how “core” are the core motivations for collective action? Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 13(15). van Zomeren, M., & Iyer, A. (2009). Introduction to the social and psychological dynamics of collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 645–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01618.x van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Bettache, K. (2011). Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality? Extending the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 735-753. van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A., & Leach, C. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649 Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.163 164 Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001011 Vorauer, J. D., Martens, V., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). When trying to understand detracts from trying to behave: Effects of perspective taking in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013411 Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82 Walton, G. M., Logel, C., Peach, J. M., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2015). Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 468–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037461 Warren, M. A., & Bordoloi, S. D. (2021). Going beyond good colleagues: Men’s and women’s perspectives on allyship behaviors toward women faculty in male-dominated disciplines in academia. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000369 Washington, J., & Evans, N. J. (1991). Becoming an ally. In N. J. Evans & V. Wall A. (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals on campus. (pp. 195–224). American College Personnel Association. Wellman, M. L. (2022). Black squares for Black lives? Performative allyship as credibility maintenance for social media influencers on Instagram. Social Media+ Society, 8(1), 1-10. What is Allyship? Why Can’t I Be an Ally? (2016, November 22). PeerNetBC. http://www.peernetbc.com/what-is-allyship Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro -relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 942-966. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942 Wilkins, D. J., Livingstone, A. G., & Levine, M. (2019). All click, no action? Online action, efficacy perceptions, and prior experience combine to affect future collective action. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 97-105. Williams, J. C., Phillips, K. W., & Hall, E. V. (2016). Tools for change: Boosting the retention of women in the STEM pipeline. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 6(1), 11-75. https://doi.org/10.22381/JRGS6120161 Woodzicka, J. A., & Good, J. J. (2020). Strategic confrontation: Examining the utility of low stakes prodding as a strategy for confronting sexism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2020.1829529 Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00199 Woodzicka, J. A., Mallett, R. K., Hendricks, S., & Pruitt, A. V. (2015). It’s just a (sexist) joke: Comparing reactions to sexist versus racist communications. Humor, 28(2), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0025 Woodzicka, J. A., Mallett, R. K., & Melchiori, K. J. (2020). Gender differences in using humor to respond to sexist jokes. Humor, 33(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2019-0018 Wright, S. C. (2009a). Cross-group contact effects. In S. Otten, K. Sassenberg, & T. Kessler (Eds.), Intergroup relations: The role of motivation and emotion (pp. 262–283). Psychology Press. Wright, S. C. (2009b). The next generation of collective action research. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 859–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01628.x Wright, S.C., Brody, S.M. & Aron, A. (2005). Intergroup contact: Still our best hope for improving intergroup relations. In C. S. Crandall, & M. Schaller, (Eds.) Social psychology of prejudice: Historical and contemporary issues. (pp. 115-142). Seattle, WA: Lewinian Press. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., & Brody, S. M. (2008). Extended contact and including others in the self: Building on the Allport/Pettigrew legacy. In U. Wagner, L. R. Tropp, G. Finchilescu, & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 143–159). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444303117.ch10 165 Wright, S. C., Brody, S. M., & Aron, A. (2004). Intergroup contact: Still our best hope for improving intergroup relations. In C. S. Crandall & M. Schaller (Eds.), Social Psychology of Prejudice: Historical and Contemporary Issues (pp. 119–146). Lewinian Press. Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). Psychology Press. Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.994 Wright, S. C., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Collective action in response to disadvantage: Intergroup perceptions, social identification, and social change. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 200–236). Cambridge University Press. Wright, S. C., & Van Der Zande, C. (1999, October). Bicultural friends: When cross-group friendships cause improved intergroup attitudes. Annual Meeting of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, St. Louis, MO. Xu, M. A., & Storr, G. B. (2012). Learning the concept of researcher as instrument in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1-18. Yoon, M. Y., Joshi, A., & Dang, C. T. (2023). Male privilege awareness and relational well-being at work: An allyship pathway. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 24(2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000427 Young, D. M., Rudman, L. A., Buettner, H. M., & McLean, M. C. (2013). The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 283-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313482109 166 Appendix A: Preregistered Sample Size Calculations (Studies 1-4) Study 1a We based our sample size on the ability to run an exploratory factor analysis on our items. As we intend to conduct a test with four fixed factors, with four indicators of each factor, we set our sample size to over 300 (in line with Callum et al. 1999). Moreover, we ran a power analysis in G*Power (Figure A.1) and found that a sample of 380 is adequate to detect our smallest effect in the previous iteration of this study (eta partial square of .02 for a type*level interaction). Therefore, we aim to collect data from 380 participants (i.e., 380 useable data points). Study 1b We based our sample size on the ability to run a confirmatory factor analysis on our items. As we intend to conduct a test with four factors, with four indicators of each factor, we set our sample size to over 300 (in line with Callum et al. 1999). Moreover, we ran a power analysis in G*Power (Figure A.1) and found that a sample of 380 is adequate to detect our smallest effect in a previous iteration of this study (eta partial square of .02 for a type*level interaction). Therefore, we aim to collect data from 380 participants (i.e., 380 useable data points). Study 2-3 We based our sample size on power analysis in G*Power (Figure A.1) and found that a sample of 380 is adequate to detect our smallest effect in a previous iteration of this study (eta partial square of .02 for a type*level interaction), accounting for participant gender [race/ethnicity] as a between-subjects factor. Therefore, we aim to collect data from 380 participants (i.e., 380 useable data points). Figure A.1 A priori power analyses for Studies 1-3 167 Study 4 We based our sample size on power analysis in G*Power and found that a sample of 100 is adequate to detect a correlation coefficient of 0.35. We chose this correlation coefficient based on a previous, similar correlational study which examined the relationship between % men as allies and women’s (STEM professionals) social identity threat in the workplace. Therefore, we aim to collect data from 100 participants (i.e., 100 useable data points). To account for potential exclusions, we will collect data from 150 participants. Figure A.2 A priori power analyses for Study 4 168 Appendix B: Study 1 Materials and Additional Analyses Stimuli and Measures (Study 1a) Instructions: In this next section, you will be presented with sixteen short vignettes. Please read each vignette and answer the questions that follow. Stem A: Andrew and a group of his male coworkers are starting a planning group to organize optional work dinners. Although social, these dinners will provide networking and collaboration opportunities. To ensure equity... 1. once the event is planned, Andrew reaches out to female colleagues and personally invites them to the dinners. 2. Andrew ensures that the planning group has equal gender representation before proceeding with organizing the dinners. Stem B: Bob works in an office where important information is shared through casual conversation. Bob sees that women in his office are actively left out of these conversations; his male colleagues have expressed they prefer to talk with one another. 3. When Bob sees male colleagues actively exclude women from conversation, he openly disapproves and tells them that it is sexist. 4. Bob identifies this as an issue during a relevant meeting. He asks that HR formally documents and reprimands active gender exclusion in the office. Stem C: Carl’s organization started a new program that gives out awards to high achieving members of the company. Carl wants to make sure that awards are given out fairly. 5. Carl fills out nomination forms for a few of his female colleagues who he believes are deserving of recognition. 6. Carl suggests a policy whereby an equal number of women and men must be nominated and considered for the award. Stem D: Daniel notices that women in his office are spoken over and interrupted more often than men are in team meetings. 7. When he notices his male coworkers speak over women in meetings, Daniel tells them that they are interrupting and should give women their full attention. 8. Daniel brings this pattern up during a relevant meeting and suggests formal meeting procedures to ensure men are not speaking over or interrupting women. Stem E: Eric and his team are responsible for recruiting the new board of directors at his firm. The board of directors will have an influential role in the company. 9. Eric reaches out to a few female colleagues he knows are qualified. He encourages them to apply for a position on the board, offering to be a reference. 10. Eric implements a policy in which there must be balanced gender representation for the new board, hiring just as many qualified women as men. Stem F: Fred serves on the hiring committee of his company. 11. A man on the committee expresses concerns that a woman who recently had children would make a poor candidate for the job, as he assumes these women will leave the job early. Fred responds to this man, stating that a candidate’s status as a mother is irrelevant to her qualifications for the position. 12. Fred learns that the committee does not evaluate applications from women who report being married with children, as the office assumes these women will leave the job early. In response, Fred files a formal complaint against this policy, stating it is an unfair practice. Stem G: George has worked in a computer sciences department for a decade. One day, he hears that early career women are hoping to move forward in the department, but are unsure how to do so. 13. George asks a few of his female colleagues if they would like his insight into the company’s promotion practices. George has coffee with those women that are interested to discuss career goals and strategies. 169 14. George organizes a mentorship program that matches early career women with senior leaders. The program’s goal is for mentors to provide career advancing opportunities. Stem H: Henry realizes men in his office call women certain names (such as baby, sexy, and sugar), which the women in the office believe is inappropriate. 15. When Henry sees his male coworker call another woman baby, Henry confronts him and says that it’s sexist. 16. At a relevant meeting, Henry puts pressure on the organization to address this pattern, requesting a task force against this issue. Outcome Variables ● For each scenario, participants complete the following measures ● All on a 1 (Not at All) ← → 7 (Very Much) scale Instructions: We are interested in your perceptions of this action in relation to gender bias. Gender biases, which may be explicit (i.e., overt) or implicit (i.e., subtle and often unintentional), are tendencies to associate certain characteristics (e.g., abilities, attributes) with men more so than with women and/or holding negative beliefs about women. Time ● To what extent can this action take place before gender bias occurs? ● To what extent can this action take place after gender bias occurs? ● To what extent is this action contingent on gender bias occurring (i.e., gender bias needs to happen for this action to take place) Aim ● To what extent does this action aim to… ○ Foster/increase feelings of inclusion and participation in the workplace? ○ Counteract/decrease existing gender bias in the workplace? Focus ● To what extent is this action focused on… ○ Providing support to those who are potentially affected by gender bias? ○ Addressing people or policies that perpetuate gender bias? Level ● To what extent do you believe this action is targeted at the ○ Interpersonal level, or how people associate/interact with one another. ○ Systemic level, or addressing institutional policies and practices Individual Difference: Perceptions of Sexism (measured once at the end of survey) ● To what extent do you believe gender bias is generally a problem in society? ○ 1 (Not at All) ← → 7 (Very Much) 170 Stimuli and Measures (Study 1b) Instructions: In this next section, you will be presented with sixteen short vignettes. Please read each vignette and answer the questions that follow. Person [LETTER] is a White/European-American working professional. Stem A: Person A[B] is starting a planning group to organize optional work dinners. Although social, these dinners will provide networking and collaboration opportunities. To ensure equity... 1. once the event is planned, Person A reaches out to their colleagues of color and personally invites them to the dinners. 2. Person B ensures that the planning group has equal race/ethnicity representation before proceeding with organizing the dinners. Stem B: Person C[D] works in an office where important information is shared through casual conversation. Person C[D] sees that people of color in his office are actively left out of these conversations. 3. When Person C sees White colleagues actively exclude people of color from conversation, they openly disapprove and tell their colleagues that it is racist. 4. Person D identifies this as an issue during a relevant meeting. Person D asks that HR formally documents and reprimands active racial exclusion in the office. Stem C: Person E[F]’s organization started a new program that gives out awards to high achieving members of the company. Person E[F] wants to make sure that awards are given out fairly. 5. Person E fills out nomination forms for a few of their colleagues of color who they believe are deserving of recognition. 6. Person F suggests a policy whereby there must be fair racial/ethnicity representation in nominations and consideration for the award. Stem D: Person G[H]notices that people of color in their office are spoken over and interrupted more often than White people are in team meetings. 7. When Person G notices his White coworkers speak over people of color in meetings, Person G tells them that they are interrupting and should give their colleagues their full attention. 8. Person H brings this pattern up during a relevant meeting and suggests formal meeting procedures to ensure White people are not speaking over or interrupting people of color. Stem E: Person I[J] and their team are responsible for recruiting the new board of directors at their firm. The board of directors will have an influential role in the company. 9. Person I reaches out to a few colleagues of color they knows are qualified. Person I encourages them to apply for a position on the board, offering to be a reference. 10. Person J implements a policy in which there must be balanced racial/ethnicity representation for the new board, hiring just as many qualified people of color as White people. Stem F: Person K[L] serves on the hiring committee of his company. The hiring committee is looking for a person to represent the company at professional events, responsible for giving public presentations. One of the most qualified candidates is a person of color who has natural curly/kinky hair. 11. A person on the committee expresses that this person should not be chosen, stating that their hairstyle is unprofessional. Person K responds, stating that a candidate’s natural hair style is irrelevant to their qualifications for the position. 12. Person L learns that the committee will only hire this candidate if the person cuts or straightens their hair, based on company policies about “professional appearance.” In response, Person L files a formal complaint against this policy, stating it is an unfair practice. Stem G: Person M[N] has worked in their department for a decade. One day, Person M[N] hears that early career professionals of color are hoping to move forward in the department, but are unsure how to do so. 13. Person M asks a few colleagues of color if they would like insight into the company’s promotion practices. Person M has coffee with those colleagues of color that are interested to discuss career goals and strategies. 14. Person N organizes a mentorship program that matches early career professionals of color with senior leaders. The program’s goal is for mentors to provide career advancing opportunities. 171 Stem H: Person O[P] realizes White people in their office often call people of color by the wrong names. Although this makes people of color in the office uncomfortable, people often make a joke of it rather than apologize. 15. When Person O sees a White coworker call a colleague of color by the wrong name, Person O confronts them and says that it’s racist. 16. At a relevant meeting, Person P puts pressure on the organization to address this pattern, requesting sensitivity training for employees. Outcome Variables ● For each scenario, participants complete the following measures ● All on a 1 (Not at All) ← → 7 (Very Much) scale Instructions: We are interested in your perceptions of this action in relation to racial bias. Racial biases, which may be explicit (i.e., overt) or implicit (i.e., subtle and often unintentional), are tendencies to associate certain characteristics (e.g., abilities, attributes) with people of color more so than White people and/or holding negative beliefs about people of color. Time ● To what extent can this action take place before racial bias occurs? ● To what extent can this action take place after racial bias occurs? ● To what extent is this action contingent on racial bias occurring (i.e., racial bias needs to happen for this action to take place) Aim ● To what extent does this action aim to… ○ Foster/increase feelings of inclusion and participation in the workplace? ○ Counteract/decrease existing racial bias in the workplace? Focus ● To what extent is this action primarily focused on… ○ Providing support to those who are potentially affected by racial bias? ○ Addressing people or policies that perpetuate racial bias? Level ● To what extent do you believe this action is targeted at the ○ Interpersonal level, or how people associate/interact with one another. ○ Systemic level, or addressing institutional policies and practices Individual Difference: Perceptions of Racism (measured once at the end of survey) ● To what extent do you believe racial bias is generally a problem in society? ○ 1 (Not at All) ← → 7 (Very Much) 172 Additional Analyses Study 1b Confirmatory Factor Analysis Loadings Figure A.3.1 Factor Loadings for Time: Before Figure A.3.2 Factor Loadings for Time: After Figure A.3.3 Factor Loadings for Time: Contingent 173 Figure A.3.4 Factor Loadings for Aim: Decrease Bias Figure A.3.5 Factor Loadings for Aim: Increase Inclusion Figure A.3.6 Factor Loadings for Focus: Perpetrators 174 Figure A.3.7 Factor Loadings for Focus: Those Potentially Affected by Bias 175 Study 1ab Cronbach Alphas Table A.1. Study 1a&b Cronbach Alphas for Each Scenario Composite Study 1a: Gender Time Aim Focus Level Before After Contingent Increase Inclusion Decrease Bias Those Affected Perpetrators Interpersonal Institutional Reactive Interpersonal 0.81 0.85 0.74 0.74 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.76 0.80 Institutional 0.79 0.85 0.73 0.78 0.85 0.79 0.83 0.71 0.71 Proactive Interpersonal 0.77 0.79 0.86 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.84 0.71 0.81 Institutional 0.81 0.83 0.87 0.80 0.74 0.81 0.76 0.71 0.70 Study 1b: Race/Ethnicity Time Aim Focus Level Before After Contingent Increase Inclusion Decrease Bias Those Affected Perpetrators Interpersonal Institutional Reactive Interpersonal 0.78 0.79 0.71 0.72 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.78 Institutional 0.73 0.82 0.68 0.78 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.72 0.71 Proactive Interpersonal 0.80 0.81 0.84 0.79 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.73 0.77 Institutional 0.81 0.78 0.81 0.80 0.77 0.77 0.72 0.65 0.71 176 Table A.2.1. Study 1a&b Mixed Analyses of Variance Tests, Controlling for Participant Identity Type Level Type*Level 1a: Gender F(df) n2p p F(df) n2p p F(df) n2p p Timing Before F(1,382) = 368.24 0.491 < .001 F(1,382) = 52.03 0.120 < .001 F(1,382) = 16.94 0.042 < .001† After F(1, 381) = 229.69 0.376 < .001 F(1, 381) = 0.57 0.001 0.450 F(1, 381) = 0.023 < .001 .879 Contingent F(1, 382) = 457.70 0.545 < .001 F(1, 382) = 1.84 0.005 0.176 F(1, 382) = 27.58 0.067 < .001† Aim Decrease Bias F(1,382) = 132.35 0.257 < .001 F(1,382) = 115.32 0.232 < .001 F(1,382) = 2.12 0.006 0.146 Increase Inclusion F(1,382) = 96.17 0.201 < .001 F(1,382) = 59.37 0.135 < .001 F(1,382) = 18.46 0.046 < .001† Focus Perpetrators F(1,382) = 294.67 0.435 < .001 F(1,382) = 156.97 0.291 < .001 F(1,382) = 54.54 0.125 < .001† Those Affected F(1,382) = 0.85 0.002 .385 F(1,382) = 20.07 0.050 < .001 F(1,382) = 6.70 0.017 .010 Type Level Type*Level 1b: Race F(df) n2p p F(df) n2p p F(df) n2p p Timing Before F(1,346) = 359.22 0.509 < .001 F(1,346) = 24.38 0.066 < .001 F(1,346) = 27.84 0.074 < .001† After F(1,346) = 260.69 0.430 < .001 F(1,346) = 3.92 0.011 0.049 F(1, 346) = 2.91 0.008 .089 Contingent F(1,346) = 393.92 0.532 < .001 F(1,346) = 4.10 0.012 0.044 F(1,346) = 26.60 0.076 < .001† Aim Decrease Bias F(1,346) = 66.30 0.161 < .001 F(1,346) = 123.93 0.264 < .001 F(1, 346) = 2.10 0.006 .148 Increase Inclusion F(1,346) = 184.87 0.348 < .001 F(1,346) = 30.73 0.082 < .001 F(1,346) = 13.91 0.039 < .001† Focus Perpetrators F(1, 346) = 246.58 0.416 < .001 F(1, 346) = 162.57 0.320 < .001 F(1, 346) = 55.84 0.139 < .001† Those Affected F(1, 346) = 12.13 0.034 < .001 F(1, 346) = 1.34 0.004 0.248 F(1, 346) = 4.42 0.013 .036 † Unpacking these interactions revealed that hypothesized distinctions between reactive and proactive action were weaker (but still significant) at the institutional level. 177 Main Effects of and Interactions Involving Participant Identity Table A.2.2. Study 1a&b Mixed Analyses of Variance Tests, Effects Involving Participant Identity Identity Identity*Type Identity*Level Identity*Type*Level 1a: Gender F(df) n2p p F(df) n2p p F(df) n2p p F(df) n2p p Timing Before F(1, 382) = 0.009 < .001 .935 F(1, 382) = 5.37 0.014 .021 F(1, 382) = 1.10 0.003 .296 F(1, 382) = 0.007 < .001 .934 After F(1, 381) = 4.36 0.011 .037 F(1, 381) = 3.79 0.011 .037 0.010 .052 F(1, 381) = 2.12 0.006 .146 F(1, 381) = 0.320 0.001 .573 Contingent F(1, 382) = 0.52 .001 .470 F(1, 382) = 11.28 .001 .470 0.029 < .001 F(1, 382) = 1.60 0.004 .207 F(1, 382) = 1.67 0.004 .196 Aim Decrease Bias F(1, 382) = 5.04 0.013 .025 F(1, 382) = 0.760 0.002 .384 F(1, 382) = 0.21 0.001 0.645 F(1, 382) = 4.00 0.010 .046 Increase Inclusion F(1, 382) = 7.40 0.019 .007 F(1, 382) = 2.45 0.006 .118 F(1, 382) = 0.64 0.002 0.425 F(1, 382) = 1.40 0.004 .238 Focus Perpetrators F(1, 382) = 5.27 0.014 .022 F(1, 382) = 2.95 0.008 .087 F(1, 382) = 0.08 < .001 .785 F(1, 382) = 0.51 0.001 .476 Those Affected F(1, 382) = 11.50 0.029 < .001 F(1, 382) = 0.57 .001 .452 F(1, 382) = .008 < .001 0.930 F(1, 382) = 0.12 < .001 .731 Level Interpersonal F(1, 382) = 4.06 0.011 .045 F(1, 382) = 1.31 0.003 .253 F(1, 382) = 0.05 < .001 .827 F(1, 382) = 0.30 .001 .583 Institutional F(1, 382) = 1.82 0.005 .178 F(1, 382) = 0.23 0.001 .632 F(1, 382) = 1.07 0.003 .303 F(1, 382) = 2.53 0.007 .113 Identity Identity*Type Identity*Level Identity*Type*Level 1b: Race F(df) n2p p F(df) n2p p F(df) n2p p F(df) n2p p Timing Before F(1, 346) = 0.60 0.002 .439 F(1, 346) = 14.57 0.040 < .001 F(1, 346) = 0.18 0.001 .671 F(1, 346) = 1.98 0.006 .161 After F(1, 346) =1.34 0.004 .247 F(1, 346) = 4.26 0.012 .040 F(1, 346) = 0.48 0.001 .488 F(1, 346) = 1.58 0.005 .210 Contingent F(1, 346) = 8.89 0.025 .003 F(1, 346) = 6.93 0.20 .009 F(1, 346) = 0.07 < .001 .785 F(1, 346) = 0.62 0.002 .432 Aim Decrease Bias F(1, 346) = 0.72 0.002 .396 F(1, 346) = 9.72 0.027 .002 F(1, 346) = 0.003 < .001 .955 F(1, 346) = 0.67 0.002 .414 Increase inclusion F(1, 346) = 0.93 0.003 .335 F(1, 346) = 0.02 < .001 .880 F(1, 346) = 1.05 0.003 .307 F(1, 346) = 2.10 0.006 .148 Focus Perpetrators F(1, 346) = 0.03 < .001 .875 F(1, 346) =8.08 0.023 .005 F(1, 346) = 0.26 0.001 .610 F(1, 346) = 1.24 0.004 .267 Those Affected F(1, 346) = 1.01 0.003 .317 F(1, 346) = 1.24 0.004 .266 F(1, 346) = 1.90 0.005 .169 F(1, 346) = 0.07 < .001 .795 Level Interpersonal F(1, 346) = 0.21 0.001 .649 F(1, 346) = 0.50 0.001 .478 F(1, 346) = 8.00 0.023 .005 F(1, 346) = 0.081 < .001 .777 Institutional F(1, 346) = 0.70 0.002 .402 F(1, 346) = 0.14 < .001 .712 F(1, 346) = 3.57 0.010 .060 F(1, 346) = 0.056 < .001 .814 178 Table A.2.3 Study 1a&b Descriptive Statistics for Time, Aim, and Focus Items Time Aim Focus Study 1a: Gender Before After Contingent Increase Inclusion Decrease Bias Those Affected Perpetrators M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Reactive 3.32 (1.58) 6.10 (1.06) 5.55 (1.16) 5.15 (1.21) 5.78 (1.10) 5.60 (1.17) 5.91 (1.10) Interpersonal 3.08 (1.65) 6.08 (1.13) 5.62 (1.24) 4.96 (1.33) 5.59 (1.25) 5.48 (1.31) 5.80 (1.23) Institutional 3.55 (1.73) 6.10 (1.10) 5.49 (1.29) 5.34 (1.26) 5.98 (1.12) 5.72 (1.19) 6.02 (1.11) Proactive 5.43 (1.33) 4.79 (1.54) 3.26 (1.70) 5.73 (1.10) 5.04 (1.26) 5.54 (1.13) 4.42 (1.47) Interpersonal 5.36 (1.42) 4.78 (1.60) 3.15 (1.75) 5.66 (1.17) 4.81 (1.44) 5.50 (1.23) 4.04 (1.71) Institutional 5.50 (1.41) 4.79 (1.68) 3.36 (1.80) 5.79 (1.17) 5.27 (1.32) 5.58 (1.24) 4.80 (1.44) Time Aim Focus 1b: Race/Ethnicity Before After Contingent Increase Inclusion Decrease Bias Those Affected Perpetrators M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Reactive 3.36 (1.40) 5.87 (1.06) 5.25 (1.16) 4.88 (1.29) 5.39 (1.32) 5.21 (1.34) 5.52 (1.25) Interpersonal 3.13 (1.53) 5.87 (1.14) 5.32 (1.29) 4.72 (1.36) 5.21 (1.42) 5.15 (1.40) 5.38 (1.35) Institutional 3.60 (1.54) 5.88 (1.09) 5.19 (1.27) 5.04 (1.40) 5.57 (1.38) 5.27 (1.42) 5.66 (1.32) Proactive 5.23 (1.35) 4.57 (1.49) 3.25 (1.52) 5.63 (1.12) 4.82 (1.27) 5.40 (1.20) 4.18 (1.35) Interpersonal 5.23 (1.45) 4.51 (1.61) 3.10 (1.62) 5.58 (1.22) 4.58 (1.45) 5.41 (1.30) 3.76 (1.59) Institutional 5.23 (1.46) 4.64 (1.54) 3.39 (1.58) 5.66 (1.16) 5.06 (1.32) 5.39 (1.25) 4.60 (1.36) 179 Effects Involving Participant Identity Study 1A Main Effects: Women and non-binary people (compared to men) more strongly believe that action in general… • Takes place after bias occurs (d = 0.22) • Decreases bias (d = 0.40) • Increases inclusion (d = 0.29) • Focuses on perpetrators (d = 0.24) • Focuses on those potentially affected (d = 0.36) • Is interpersonally oriented (d = 0.21) Gender * Type • Both men (d = 1.23, p < .001) and women/non-binary people (although to a stronger extent; d = 1.59, p < .001) more strongly perceive reactive (compared to proactive) action to take place before bias occurs. • Whereas gender groups are equivalent in their perception of reactive action as contingent on bias (d = .23, p = .489), men more strongly believe that proactive action is contingent on bias compared to women and non-binary people (d = 0.25, p = .031) Gender * Type * Level (Aim: Decrease Bias): The three-way interaction was driven by a larger perceived difference between interpersonal reactive and institutional reactive action for women and non-binary people (d = 0.40; p < .001) compared to men (d = 0.23, p = .021). Study 1B Main Effect: Participants of color perceived actions in general to be more contingent on bias than White participants (d = 0.32) Race/Ethnicity * Type • Compared to White participants, participants of color more strongly believed that reactive action occurs before bias (p = .012, d = 0.33). However, (descriptively) participants of color were weaker in beliefs that proactive action occurs before bias (p = .316, d = 0.21) compared to White participants. • Compared to White participants, participants of color were descriptively weaker in beliefs that reactive action occurs after bias (p = .20, d = 0.28). Participants of color were more equivalent in beliefs that proactive action occurs after bias (p > .99, d = 0.02). • Compared to participants of color, White participants were weaker in beliefs that proactive action is contingent on bias occurring (p < .001, d = 0.38). However, groups were equivalent in their beliefs about reactive action (p > .99, d = 0.04) • For perceptions of aim (decrease bias), proactive/reactive distinction was larger for White participants (p < .001, d = 0.59) compared to participants of color (p = .004, d = 0.26) • For perceptions of focus (agent), the proactive/reactive distinction was stronger for White people (p < .001, d = 0.83) compared to participants of color (p < .001; d = 1.20) • The main effect of focus: those potentially affected by bias was qualified by a significant two-way interaction; the hypothesized Type distinction emerged for interpersonal (dRace/Ethnicity = 0.19; pRace/Ethnicity < .001) but not institutional action (dRace/Ethnicity = 0.091; pRace/Ethnicity = .335). Race*Type*Level (Interpersonal Check): For White participants, interpersonal proactive action was perceived as more interpersonal than institutional proactive action (p < .001, d = 0.39). However, for participants of color, interpersonal proactive and institutional proactive action were perceived as equivalently interpersonally oriented (p = .170, d = 0.19). 180 Unpacking Table A.2.1: Effects Involving Level † Reflects supported preregistered hypotheses Main Effects of Level • Interpersonal (compared to institutional) actions are more strongly perceived to be targeted towards how people interact/associate with one another † o dGender = 0.35 o dRace/Ethnicity = 0.38 • Institutional compared to interpersonal level actions are more strongly perceived to… • Be targeted towards addressing policies/practices † o dGender = 0.87 o dRace/Ethnicity = 0.84 • Decrease bias o dGender = 0.39 o dRace/Ethnicity = 0.36 • Focus on perpetrators of bias o dGender = 0.45 o dRace/Ethnicity = 0.50 • Occur after bias (Study 1b only) o dRace/Ethnicity = 0.05 (p = .049) Level * Type • Interpersonal reactive and interpersonal proactive actions were similarly perceived in terms of how much they addressed policies/practices (dGender = 0.08, pGender = .155; dRace/Ethnicity = 0.01, pRace/Ethnicity > .99) • Institutional proactive compared to institutional reactive actions were perceived to be more institutionally oriented (For Study 1a only: dGender = 0.37, pGender < .001). • Institutional reactive compared to institutional proactive actions were perceived to be more institutionally oriented (For Study 1b only: d Race/Ethnicity = 0.17, p Race/Ethnicity = .006). • For reactive forms only, institutional (compared to interpersonal) action was more strongly perceived as… o Possible before bias occurs § dGender = 0.28, p < .001 (proactive: dGender = 0.10, pGender = .104) § dRace/Ethnicity = 0.30, pRace/Ethnicity < .001 (proactive: dRace/Ethnicity = 0.01, p Race/Ethnicity > .99) o Increasing inclusion § dGender = 0.23, p < .001 (proactive: dGender = 0.07, pGender = .751) § dRace/Ethnicity = 0.23, p < .001 (proactive: dRace/Ethnicity = 0.07, pRace/Ethnicity > .99) o Focused on those potentially affected by bias (Study 1a only) § dGender = 0.19, pGender < .001 (proactive: dGender = 0.06; pGender = .956). • For proactive forms only, institutional (compared to interpersonal) action was more strongly perceived as contingent on bias occurring (for Study 1b only) o dRace/Ethnicity = 0.18, p < .001 (reactive: dRace/Ethnicity = 0.10, pRace/Ethnicity = .165) Other Main Effects of Type • There was a significant main effect of type for the interpersonal manipulation check. Reactive action generally was perceived to be more interpersonally oriented than proactive actions. o dGender = 0.33 o dRace/Ethnicity = 0.34 181 Appendix C: Study 2 Materials and Additional Analyses Stimuli (Study 2a) Instructions: In this next section, you will be presented with sixteen short stories about a different workplace. Imagine that you heard this story about this workplace about a year ago. For the questions that follow each story, imagine you are presently providing advice to a female friend who has gotten a job opportunity at this workplace. Note that the beginning of some stories may repeat, but have different “endings.” Please consider these stories as different workplaces, even if they have similar beginnings. Proactive Reactive Andrew is starting a planning group to organize optional work dinners. Although social, these dinners will provide networking and collaboration opportunities. To ensure equity... Interpersonal: once the event is planned, Andrew reaches out to female colleagues and personally invites them to the dinners. Institutional: Andrew ensures that the planning group has equal gender representation before proceeding with organizing the dinners. Bob works in an office where important information is shared through casual conversation. Bob sees that women in his office are actively left out of these conversations. Interpersonal: When Bob sees male colleagues actively exclude women from conversation, he openly disapproves and tell his colleagues that it is sexist. Institutional: Bob identifies this as an issue during a relevant meeting. He asks that HR formally documents and reprimands active gender exclusion in the office. Carl’s organization started a new program that gives out awards to high achieving members of the company. Carl wants to make sure that awards are given out fairly. Interpersonal: Carl nominates a few of his female colleagues who he believes are deserving of the organization’s recognition. Institutional: Carl suggests a policy whereby there must be fair gender representation in nominations and consideration for the award. Daniel notices that women in his office are spoken over and interrupted more often than men are in team meetings. Interpersonal: When Daniel notices his male coworkers speak over women in meetings, Daniel tells them that they are interrupting and should give his colleagues their full attention. Institutional: Daniel brings this pattern up during a relevant meeting and suggests formal meeting procedures to ensure men are not speaking over or interrupting women. Eric and his team are responsible for recruiting the new board of directors at his firm. The board of directors will have an influential role in the company. Interpersonal: Eric reaches out to a few female colleagues he knows are qualified. He encourages them to apply for a position on the board, offering to be a reference. Fred serves on the hiring committee of his company. One of the most qualified candidates is a woman who recently had a child. Interpersonal: A man on the committee expresses concerns that a woman who recently had children would make a poor candidate for the job, as he assumes these women will leave the job early. Fred responds to this man, stating that a candidate’s status as a mother is irrelevant to her qualifications for the position. Institutional: Fred learns that the committee does not evaluate applications from women who report being 182 Institutional: Eric implements a policy in which the board must have balanced gender representation, hiring just as many qualified women as men. married with children, as the office assumes these women will leave the job early. In response, Fred files a formal complaint against this policy, stating it is an unfair practice. George has worked in his department for a decade. One day, he hears that early career women are hoping to move forward in the department, but are unsure how to do so. Interpersonal: George asks a few of his female colleagues if they would like his insight into the company’s promotion practices. George has coffee with those women that are interested to discuss career goals and strategies. Institutional: George organizes a mentorship program that matches early career female professionals with senior leaders. The program’s goal is for mentors to provide career advancing opportunities. Henry realizes men in his office call women certain names (such as baby, sexy, and sugar). Although this makes women in the office uncomfortable, men often make a joke of it rather than apologize. Interpersonal: When Henry sees his male coworker call another woman baby, Henry confronts him and declares that it’s sexist. Institutional: At a relevant meeting, Henry puts pressure on the organization to address this pattern, requesting sensitivity training for employees. Stimuli (Study 2b) Instructions: In this next section, you will be presented with sixteen short stories about a different workplace. Imagine that you heard this story about this workplace about a year ago. For the questions that follow each story, imagine you are presently providing advice to a friend who is a person of color (i.e., a friend who does not identify as White/European-American) who has gotten a job opportunity at this workplace. Note that the beginning of some stories may repeat, but have different “endings.” Please consider these stories as different workplaces, even if they have similar beginnings. Proactive Reactive Person A[B] is starting a planning group to organize optional work dinners. Although social, these dinners will provide networking and collaboration opportunities. To ensure equity... Interpersonal: once the event is planned, Person A reaches out to their colleagues of color and personally invites them to the dinners. Institutional: Person B ensures that the planning group has equal race/ethnicity representation before proceeding with organizing the dinners. Person C[D] works in an office where important information is shared through casual conversation. Person C[D] sees that people of color in their office are actively left out of these conversations. Interpersonal: When Person C sees White colleagues actively exclude people of color from conversation, they openly disapprove and tell their colleagues that it is racist. Institutional: Person D identifies this as an issue during a relevant meeting. Person D asks that HR formally documents and reprimands active racial exclusion in the office. Person E[F]’s organization started a new program that gives out awards to high achieving members Person G[H]notices that people of color in their office are spoken over and interrupted more often than White people are in team meetings. 183 of the company. Person E[F] wants to make sure that awards are given out fairly. Interpersonal: Person E fills out nomination forms for a few of their colleagues of color who they believe are deserving of recognition. Institutional: Person F suggests a policy whereby there must be fair racial/ethnicity representation in nominations and consideration for the award. Interpersonal: When Person G notices their White coworkers speak over people of color in meetings, Person G tells them that they are interrupting and should give their colleagues their full attention. Institutional: Person H brings this pattern up during a relevant meeting and suggests formal meeting procedures to ensure White people are not speaking over or interrupting people of color. Person I[J] and their team are responsible for recruiting the new board of directors at their firm. The board of directors will have an influential role in the company. Interpersonal: Person I reaches out to a few colleagues of color they know are qualified. Person I encourages them to apply for a position on the board, offering to be a reference. Institutional: Person J implements a policy in which there must be balanced racial/ethnicity representation for the new board, hiring just as many qualified people of color as White people. Person K[L] serves on the hiring committee of their company. The hiring committee is looking for a person to represent the company at professional events, responsible for giving public presentations. One of the most qualified candidates is a person of color who has natural curly/kinky hair. Interpersonal: A person on the committee expresses that this person should not be chosen, stating that their hairstyle is unprofessional. Person K responds, stating that a candidate’s natural hair style is irrelevant to their qualifications for the position. Institutional: Person L learns that the committee will only hire this candidate if the person cuts or straightens their hair, based on company policies about “professional appearance.” In response, Person L files a formal complaint against this policy, stating it is an unfair practice. Person M[N] has worked in their department for a decade. One day, Person M[N] hears that early career professionals of color are hoping to move forward in the department, but are unsure how to do so. Interpersonal: Person M asks a few colleagues of color if they would like insight into the company’s promotion practices. Person M has coffee with those colleagues of color that are interested to discuss career goals and strategies. Institutional: Person N organizes a mentorship program that matches early career professionals of color with senior leaders. The program’s goal is for mentors to provide career advancing opportunities. Stem H: Person O[P] realizes White people in their office often call people of color by the wrong names. Although this makes people of color in the office uncomfortable, people often make a joke of it rather than apologize. Interpersonal: When Person O sees a White coworker call a colleague of color by the wrong name, Person O confronts them and says that it’s racist. Institutional: At a relevant meeting, Person P puts pressure on the organization to address this pattern, requesting sensitivity training for employees. 184 Study 2a&b Measures Perceptions of Workplace Climate Study 2a: Imagine you are offering insight to a female friend of yours who is interested in working in this workplace. Given this event you heard about a year ago and the time that has passed, to what extent would you tell her... • She would feel valued and respected in this workplace • She would be able to be as successful as her male colleagues in this workplace • She would feel negatively judged by others in this workplace because of her gender (R) Study 2b: Imagine you are offering insight to a friend of yours, a person of color, who is interested in working in this workplace. Given this event you heard about a year ago and the time that has passed, to what extent would you tell them that... • They would feel valued and respected in this workplace • They would be able to be successful as their White colleagues in this workplace • They would feel negatively judged by others in this workplace because of their race/ethnicity (R) Individual Difference: Perception of Bias (measured once at the end of survey) • Study 2a: To what extent do you believe gender bias is generally a problem in society? o 1 (Not at All) ← → 7 (Very Much) • Study 2b): To what extent do you believe racial bias is generally a problem in society? ○ 1 (Not at All) ← → 7 (Very Much) scale 185 Additional Analyses Table A.3 Study 2a&b Descriptive Statistics for Outcome Variables Social Fit Ability to Be Successful Social Identity Threat 2a: Gender α M SD α M SD α M SD Reactive 0.85 3.57 1.16 0.86 3.77 1.15 0.84 4.25 1.33 Interpersonal 0.75 3.50 1.23 0.77 3.75 1.24 0.75 4.32 1.25 Institutional 0.74 3.63 1.24 0.77 3.78 1.23 0.71 4.16 1.21 Proactive 0.84 5.66 0.81 0.86 5.64 0.84 0.87 2.18 0.99 Interpersonal 0.76 5.53 0.91 0.78 5.46 0.97 0.76 2.18 0.97 Institutional 0.78 5.80 0.87 0.79 5.83 0.84 0.82 2.08 1.00 Social Fit Ability to Be Successful Social Identity Threat 2b: Race/Ethnicity α M SD α M SD α M SD Reactive 0.84 3.32 1.14 0.87 3.52 1.24 0.82 4.56 1.12 Interpersonal 0.73 3.24 1.27 0.78 3.46 1.33 0.72 4.61 1.26 Institutional 0.72 3.44 1.26 0.76 3.58 1.29 0.67 4.54 1.13 Proactive 0.85 5.59 0.89 0.88 5.55 0.96 0.85 2.37 1.04 Interpersonal 0.74 5.64 0.95 0.80 5.54 1.03 0.79 2.26 1.07 Institutional 0.77 5.56 0.99 0.79 5.58 1.02 0.73 2.37 1.03 186 Table A.4 Study 2a&b Mixed Analysis of Variance Tests for Outcome Variables, Controlling for Participant Identity (PIdentity) Social Fit Ability to Be Successful Social Identity Threat 2a: Gender F(1,363) p η2p F(1,365) p η2p F(1,363) p η2p Type 924.49 < .001 0.718 841.91 < .001 0.698 880.23 < .001 0.708 Level 33.10 < .001 0.084 38.42 < .001 0.095 12.66 < .001 0.034 Type*Level 5.57 0.019 0.015 33.22 < .001 0.083 1.14 0.285 0.003 PGender 0.06 0.809 < .001 0.33 0.568 0.001 0.00 0.964 < .001 PGender*Type 0.71 0.400 0.002 0.54 0.461 0.001 0.64 0.425 0.002 PGender*Level 1.14 0.088 0.008 0.65 0.420 0.002 0.90 0.343 0.002 PGender*Type*Level 0.10 0.748 < .001 0.13 0.723 < .001 0.23 0.635 0.001 Social Fit Ability to Be Successful Social Identity Threat 2b: Race/Ethnicity F(1,357) p η2p F(1,358) p η2p F(1,350) p η2p Type 953.41 < .001 0.728 804.56 < .001 0.693 835.10 < .001 0.705 Level 3.11 0.079 0.009 5.23 0.023 0.014 < 0.001 0.982 < .001 Type*Level 17.13 < .001 0.046 0.78 0.378 0.002 6.96 0.009 0.019 PRace 2.52 0.113 0.007 3.89 0.049 0.011 0.34 0.561 0.001 PRace*Type 0.53 0.466 0.001 0.14 0.708 < 0.001 0.18 0.675 0.001 PRace*Level 1.10 0.295 0.003 2.18 0.141 0.006 0.69 0.407 0.002 PRace*Type*Level 2.35 0.126 0.007 3.46 0.064 0.010 8.13 0.005 0.023 187 Social fit. For gender, my hypothesis that institutional action would be perceived as engendering greater social fit than interpersonal action was only supported for proactive (d = 0.31, p < .001), but not reactive action (d = 0.11, p = .067). The reverse was true in the context of race/ethnicity: institutional action was perceived as more conducive to social fit than interpersonal action when actions were reactive (d = 0.17, p < .001) rather than proactive (d = 0.08, p = .661). I also hypothesized that interpersonal reactive action would be least perceived as fostering social fit compared to all other forms of action. Although this was not the case for gender, this hypothesis was supported in the context of race/ethnicity. Interpersonal reactive action was perceived as significantly less conducive to social fit compared to institutional reactive (d = 0.17), interpersonal proactive (d = 2.14), and institutional proactive action (d = 2.05; ps all < .001). Ability to be successful. For gender, my hypothesis that institutional action would be perceived as more conducive to women’s success was only for proactive (d = 0.42, p < .001) and not reactive action (d = 0.03, p > .99). In the context of race/ethnicity, the predicted main effect of Level was significant but small (d = 0.08). Social identity threat. For gender, there was a main effect of Level in that workplaces where institutional (rather than interpersonal) action occurred were perceived as less conducive to social identity threat (d = 0.13).21 Counter to our hypothesis, I did not replicate this main effect of Level in the race/ethnicity context (d = 0.01). However, there was a significant three-way interaction that supported our more focused prediction that institutional/ cultural proactive action would be most effective at mitigating social identity threat, but only among participants of color. Among participants of color, institutional proactive action (M = 2.43, SD = 1.02) was perceived as more effectively mitigating social identity threat compared to institutional reactive (M = 4.53, SD = 1.17; d = 1.91, p < .001), interpersonal proactive (M = 2.20, SD = 1.04; d = 0.21, p = .013), and interpersonal reactive action (M = 4.68, SD = 1.26; d = 1.95, p < .001). I did not support this prediction for the gender scenarios (either overall or for women specifically). 21 This test was exploratory in Study 2a. My hypothesis about a main effect of Level for social identity threat was only preregistered for Study 2b: Race/Ethnicity. 188 Appendix D: Study 3 Measures and Additional Analyses Stimuli and Measures (Study 3a) Instructions: In this next section, you will be presented with four short vignettes. Please read each vignette and answer the questions that follow. Proactive Reactive Andrew is starting a planning group to organize optional work dinners. Although social, these dinners will provide networking and collaboration opportunities. To ensure equity... Interpersonal: once the event is planned, Andrew reaches out to female colleagues and personally invites them to the dinners. Institutional: Andrew ensures that the planning group has equal gender representation before proceeding with organizing the dinners. Bob works in an office where important information is shared through casual conversation. Bob sees that women in his office are actively left out of these conversations. Interpersonal: When Bob sees male colleagues actively exclude women from conversation, he openly disapproves and tell his colleagues that it is sexist. Institutional: Bob identifies this as an issue during a relevant meeting. He asks that HR formally documents and reprimands active gender exclusion in the office. Carl’s organization started a new program that gives out awards to high achieving members of the company. Carl wants to make sure that awards are given out fairly. Interpersonal: Carl nominates a few of his female colleagues who he believes are deserving of the organization’s recognition. Institutional: Carl suggests a policy whereby must be fair gender representation in nominations and consideration for the award. Daniel notices that women in his office are spoken over and interrupted more often than men are in team meetings. Interpersonal: When Daniel notices his male coworkers speak over women in meetings, Daniel tells them that they are interrupting and should give his colleagues their full attention. Institutional: Daniel brings this pattern up during a relevant meeting and suggests meeting procedures to ensure men are not speaking over or interrupting women. Eric and his team are responsible for recruiting the new board of directors at his firm. The board of directors will have an influential role in the company. Interpersonal: Eric reaches out to a few female colleagues he knows are qualified. He encourages them to apply for a position on the board, offering to be a reference. Fred serves on the hiring committee of his company. One of the most qualified candidates is a woman who recently had a child. Interpersonal: A man on the committee expresses concerns that a woman who recently had children would make a poor candidate for the job, as he assumes these women will leave the job early. Fred responds to this man, stating that a candidate’s status as a mother is irrelevant to her qualifications for the position. Institutional: Fred learns that the committee does not evaluate applications from women 189 Institutional: Eric implements a policy in which the board must have balanced gender representation, hiring just as many qualified women as men. who report being married with children, as the office assumes these women will leave the job early. In response, Fred files a formal complaint against this policy, stating it is an unfair practice. George has worked in his department for a decade. One day, he hears that early career women are hoping to move forward in the department, but are unsure how to do so. Interpersonal: George asks a few of his female colleagues if they would like his insight into the company’s promotion practices. George has coffee with those women that are interested to discuss career goals and strategies. Institutional: George organizes a mentorship program that matches early career female professionals with senior leaders. The program’s goal is for mentors to provide career advancing opportunities. Henry realizes men in his office call women certain names (such as baby, sexy, and sugar). Although this makes women in the office uncomfortable, men often make a joke of it rather than apologize. Interpersonal: When Henry sees his male coworker call another woman baby, Henry confronts him and declares that it’s sexist. Institutional: At a relevant meeting, Henry puts pressure on the organization to address this pattern, requesting sensitivity training for employees. Stimuli and Measures (Study 3b) Instructions: In this next section, you will be presented with four short vignettes. Please read each vignette and answer the questions that follow. Person [LETTER] is a White/European-American working professional. Proactive Reactive Person A[B] is starting a planning group to organize optional work dinners. Although social, these dinners will provide networking and collaboration opportunities. To ensure equity... Interpersonal: once the event is planned, Person A reaches out to their colleagues of color and personally invites them to the dinners. Institutional: Person B ensures that the planning group has equal race/ethnicity representation before proceeding with organizing the dinners. Person C[D] works in an office where important information is shared through casual conversation. Person C[D] sees that people of color in their office are actively left out of these conversations. Interpersonal: When Person C sees White colleagues actively exclude people of color from conversation, they openly disapprove and tell their colleagues that it is racist. Institutional: Person D identifies this as an issue during a relevant meeting. Person D asks that HR formally documents and reprimands active racial exclusion in the office. Person E[F]’s organization started a new program that gives out awards to high achieving members of the company. Person E[F] wants to make sure that awards are given out fairly. Person G[H]notices that people of color in their office are spoken over and interrupted more often than White people are in team meetings. 190 Interpersonal: Person E fills out nomination forms for a few of their colleagues of color who they believe are deserving of recognition. Institutional: Person F suggests a policy whereby there must be fair racial/ethnicity representation in nominations and consideration for the award. Interpersonal: When Person G notices their White coworkers speak over people of color in meetings, Person G tells them that they are interrupting and should give their colleagues their full attention. Institutional: Person H brings this pattern up during a relevant meeting and suggests formal meeting procedures to ensure White people are not speaking over or interrupting people of color. Person I[J] and their team are responsible for recruiting the new board of directors at their firm. The board of directors will have an influential role in the company. Interpersonal: Person I reaches out to a few colleagues of color they know are qualified. Person I encourages them to apply for a position on the board, offering to be a reference. Institutional: Person J implements a policy in which there must be balanced racial/ethnicity representation for the new board, hiring just as many qualified people of color as White people. Person K[L] serves on the hiring committee of their company. The hiring committee is looking for a person to represent the company at professional events, responsible for giving public presentations. One of the most qualified candidates is a person of color who has natural curly/kinky hair. Interpersonal: A person on the committee expresses that this person should not be chosen, stating that their hairstyle is unprofessional. Person K responds, stating that a candidate’s natural hair style is irrelevant to their qualifications for the position. Institutional: Person L learns that the committee will only hire this candidate if the person cuts or straightens their hair, based on company policies about “professional appearance.” In response, Person L files a formal complaint against this policy, stating it is an unfair practice. Person M[N] has worked in their department for a decade. One day, Person M[N] hears that early career professionals of color are hoping to move forward in the department, but are unsure how to do so. Interpersonal: Person M asks a few colleagues of color if they would like insight into the company’s promotion practices. Person M has coffee with those colleagues of color that are interested to discuss career goals and strategies. Institutional: Person N organizes a mentorship program that matches early career professionals of color with senior Stem H: Person O[P] realizes White people in their office often call people of color by the wrong names. Although this makes people of color in the office uncomfortable, people often make a joke of it rather than apologize. Interpersonal: When Person O sees a White coworker call a colleague of color by the wrong name, Person O confronts them and says that it’s racist. Institutional: At a relevant meeting, Person P puts pressure on the organization to address this pattern, requesting sensitivity training for employees. 191 leaders. The program’s goal is for mentors to provide career advancing opportunities. Study 3a&b Measures ● For each scenario, participants complete the following measures ● All on a 1 (Not at All) ← → 7 (Very Much) scale Study 3a Instructions: We are interested in your perceptions of this action in relation to gender bias. Gender biases, which may be explicit (i.e., overt) or implicit (i.e., subtle and often unintentional), are tendencies to associate certain characteristics (e.g., abilities, attributes) with men more so than with women and/or holding negative beliefs about women. Time ● To what extent can this action take place before gender bias occurs? ● To what extent can this action take place after gender bias occurs? ● To what extent is this action contingent on gender bias occurring (i.e., gender bias needs to happen for this action to take place) Aim: To what extent does this action aim to… ● Foster/increase feelings of inclusion and participation in the workplace? ● Counteract/decrease existing gender bias in the workplace? Focus: To what extent is this action focused on… ● Providing support to those who are potentially affected by gender bias? ● Addressing people or policies that perpetuate gender bias? Level: To what extent do you believe this action is targeted at the ● Interpersonal level, or how people associate/interact with one another. ● Systemic level, or addressing institutional policies and practices General Effectiveness (Equality): To what extent do you believe this action is effective in increasing gender equality in the workplace? Time Specific Effectiveness (Improving Culture): To what extent do you believe this action is effective in improving workplace culture for women… ● In the short-term ● In the long-term Agent Specific (Improving Culture): To what extent do you believe that this action is effective in improving workplace culture for women when enacted by… • A man? • A woman? Agent Specific Standing: To what extent do you believe ____ would be the right person to take this action? • A man • A woman Individual Difference: Perceptions of Sexism (measured once at the end of survey): To what extent do you believe gender bias is generally a problem in society? 192 Study 3b. Instructions: We are interested in your perceptions of this action in relation to racial bias. Racial biases, which may be explicit (i.e., overt) or implicit (i.e., subtle and often unintentional), are tendencies to associate certain characteristics (e.g., abilities, attributes) with people of color more so than White people and/or holding negative beliefs about people of color. Time ● To what extent can this action take place before racial bias occurs? ● To what extent can this action take place after racial bias occurs? ● To what extent is this action contingent on racial bias occurring (i.e., racial bias needs to happen for this action to take place) Aim: To what extent does this action aim to… ● Foster/increase feelings of inclusion and participation in the workplace? ● Counteract/decrease existing racial bias in the workplace? Focus: To what extent is this action primarily focused on… ● Providing support to those who are potentially affected by racial bias? ● Addressing people or policies that perpetuate racial bias? Level: To what extent do you believe this action is targeted at the ● Interpersonal level, or how people associate/interact with one another. ● Systemic level, or addressing institutional policies and practices General Effectiveness (Equality): To what extent do you believe this action is effective in increasing racial equality in the workplace? Time Specific Effectiveness (Improving Culture): To what extent do you believe this action is effective in improving workplace culture for people of color… ● In the short-term ● In the long-term Agent Specific (Improving Culture): To what extent do you believe that this action is effective in improving workplace culture for people of color when enacted by… • A White person? • A person of color? Agent Specific Standing: To what extent do you believe ____ would be the right person to take this action? • A White person • A person of color Individual Difference: Perceptions of Sexism (measured once at the end of survey): To what extent do you believe racial bias is generally a problem in society? 193 Additional Analyses Table A.5 Study 3a & b Mixed Analysis of Variance Tests for Outcome Variables, Controlling for Participant Identity (PIdentity) Increasing Equality Impact on Culture (Item: Short/Long-Term) Impact on Culture (Item: Man/Woman) 2a: Gender F(1,383) p η2p F(1,383) p η2p F(1,383) p η2p Type 0.666 0.415 0.002 0.101 0.751 < .001 < .001 0.989 < .001 Level 35.34 < .001 0.084 38.18 < .001 0.091 14.89 < .001 0.037 Type*Level 1.80 0.181 0.005 < .001 0.986 < .001 0.307 0.580 0.001 Item – – – 0.252 0.616 0.001 48.22 < .001 0.112 Item*Type – – – 9.95 0.002 0.025 50.99 < .001 0.117 Item*Level – – – 60.86 < .001 0.137 7.99 0.005 0.020 Item*Type*Level – – – 5.54 0.019 0.014 2.85 0.092 0.007 PGender 5.55 0.019 0.014 2.95 0.086 0.008 7.26 0.007 0.019 PGender*Type 1.12 0.291 0.003 2.66 0.104 0.007 3.35 0.068 0.009 PGender*Level 3.89 0.049 0.010 3.14 0.077 0.008 3.53 0.061 0.009 PGender*Item – – – 1.03 0.310 0.003 2.07 0.151 0.005 PGender*Type*Level 0.186 0.667 < .001 1.28 0.258 0.003 0.065 0.799 < .001 PGender*Type*Item – – – 3.17 0.076 0.008 0.795 0.373 0.002 PGender*Level*Item – – – 0.119 0.730 < .001 1.90 0.169 0.005 PGender*Type*Level*Item – – – 0.062 0.804 < .001 1.55 0.214 0.004 Increasing Equality Impact on Culture (Item: Short/Long-Term) Impact on Culture (Item: White Person/Person of Color) 2a: Race/Ethnicity F(1,379) p η2p F(1,379) p η2p F(1,379) p η2p Type 18.84 < .001 0.047 18.63 < .001 0.047 13.84 < .001 0.035 Level 10.72 .001 0.028 7.53 0.006 0.019 6.95 0.009 0.018 Type*Level 3.49 0.063 0.009 0.112 0.738 < .001 1.27 0.261 0.003 Item – – – 10.42 0.001 0.027 12.84 < .001 0.033 Item*Type – – – 33.98 < .001 0.082 6.29 0.013 0.016 Item*Level – – – 41.88 < .001 0.100 13.10 < .001 0.033 Item*Type*Level – – – 2.27 0.133 0.006 5.04 0.025 0.013 PRace 2.57 0.109 0.007 0.487 0.486 0.001 0.032 0.859 < .001 PRace*Type 2.06 0.152 0.005 0.288 0.592 0.001 0.654 0.419 0.002 PRace*Level 1.62 0.204 0.004 0.589 0.443 0.002 0.065 0.799 < .001 PRace*Item – – – 0.781 0.377 0.002 0.438 0.509 0.001 PRace*Type*Level – – – 0.045 0.832 < .001 < .001 0.985 < .001 PRace*Type*Item – – – 1.17 0.281 0.003 0.473 0.492 0.001 PRace*Level*Item – – – 0.111 0.739 < .001 0.492 0.484 0.001 PRace*Type*Level*Item 0.02 0.878 < .001 0.013 0.909 < .001 0.056 0.814 < .001 194 Table A.6 Study 3a & b Descriptive Statistics for Outcome Variables Increasing Equality Short-Term Impact Long Term Impact Men's Impact Women’s Impact 2a: Gender M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Reactive 4.97 1.38 4.84 1.41 4.70 1.58 5.32 1.49 4.58 1.50 Interpersonal 4.78 1.68 4.85 1.70 4.27 1.90 5.27 1.71 4.35 1.79 Institutional 5.16 1.63 4.83 1.65 5.12 1.74 5.38 1.66 4.81 1.74 Proactive 4.94 1.45 4.72 1.46 4.80 1.54 5.06 1.51 4.88 1.50 Interpersonal 4.66 1.77 4.66 1.72 4.48 1.89 4.97 1.74 4.75 1.77 Institutional 5.23 1.70 4.80 1.69 5.14 1.83 5.15 1.71 5.03 1.74 Increasing Equality Short-Term Impact Long Term Impact White People's Impact People of Color's Impact 2b: Race/Ethnicity M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Reactive 4.60 1.57 4.61 1.57 4.24 1.70 4.79 1.72 4.44 1.61 Interpersonal 4.43 1.83 4.67 1.85 3.99 1.97 4.79 2.02 4.22 1.97 Institutional 4.77 1.83 4.57 1.85 4.49 1.99 4.79 1.99 4.67 1.85 Proactive 4.95 1.48 4.74 1.47 4.76 1.56 4.98 1.53 4.83 1.45 Interpersonal 4.91 1.72 4.74 1.70 4.59 1.91 4.96 1.80 4.75 1.72 Institutional 4.99 1.77 4.72 1.73 4.93 1.87 4.67 1.85 4.91 1.75 195 † Reflects supported preregistered hypothesis * Reflects a preregistered hypothesis that was not supported Increasing Equality • Study 3a (Gender) o Main effect of level: Institutional more effective at increasing equality than interpersonal actions (d = 0.34) † o Level * PGender: Only female and non-binary participants perceived institutional action (M = 5.36, SD = 1.28) as more effective in increasing equality than interpersonal action (M = 4.75, SD = 1.38; d = 0.46; p < .001). Men perceived institutional actions (M = 4.94, SD = 1.59) as equally effective in increasing equality as interpersonal actions (M = 4.64, SD = 1.48; d = 0.19; p = .063). • Study 3b (Race/Ethnicity) o Main effect of level: Institutional actions were perceived as more effective in increasing racial equality than interpersonal actions (d = 0.14, p < .001). † Impact on Culture (Short/Long-Term) • Study 3a (Gender): Type * Level * Item o Both institutional reactive (d = 0.47) and institutional proactive (d = 0.35) actions more effective in the long-term than their interpersonal equivalents (ps < .001) † o Interpersonal and institutional actions equally (ps > .99) effective in the short-term for both reactive (d = 0.01) and proactive (d = .08) forms. * o Interpersonal reactive action equally effective in the short-term (ps > .99) as interpersonal proactive (dGender = 0.11), institutional reactive (dGender = 0.01), and institutional proactive action (dGender = 0.04). * o Interpersonal reactive action least effective in the long term compared to institutional reactive and proactive action (dsGender = 0.47, ps < .001) † but not interpersonal proactive action (p > .99) * • Study 3b (Race/Ethnicity) o Level * Item: Institutional action more impactful in the long-term than interpersonal action (d = 0.25; ps < .001). † No difference between interpersonal and institutional action in short-term effectiveness (d = 0.05; p > .99). * o Level * Type * Item (not significant, but preregistered focused comparisons): § Interpersonal reactive action equally impactful in the short-term (ps > .99) as interpersonal proactive (dRace/Ethnicity = 0.04), institutional reactive (dRace/Ethnicity = 0.06), and institutional proactive action (dRace/Ethnicity = 0.03). * § Interpersonal reactive action least effective in the long-term compared to institutional reactive (dRace/Ethnicity = 0.25), institutional proactive action (dRace/Ethnicity = 0.48), and interpersonal proactive action (d = 0.30), ps < .001. † Impact on Culture (White Person/Person of Color) • Study 3a (Gender): Level * Item o Men, compared to women were perceived as more impactful in taking institutional (d = 0.23, p < .001) * and (to a larger extent) interpersonal (d = 0.39, p < .001) action. o Only for women agents, interpersonal action was perceived as less effective than institutional action (d = 0.25; p < .001). In contrast, men equally effective in interpersonal versus institutional efforts (d = 0.098; p = .435). 196 • Study 3b (Race): Type * Level * Item o For interpersonal reactive action only, a White person more effective in taking action than a person of color (d = 0.29, p < .001). † However, a person of color and a White person were perceived to be equally effective in taking the other three forms of action (dInterpersonalProactive = 0.11; dInstitutionalReactive = 0.066; dInstitutionalProactive = 0.046; ps > .95). * o For agents of color, interpersonal reactive action less effective than all other forms of action (dinterpersonal proactive = 0.29; dinstitutional/cultural reactive = 0.23; dintstitutional/cultural proactive = 0.36; ps < .001). White agents equally effective in taking all four forms of action (ps > .99). Figure A.4.1 Study 3a Time Manipulation Checks Figure A.4.2 Study 3a Aim Manipulation Checks 197 Figure A.4.3 Study 3a Focus Manipulation Checks Figure A.4.4 Study 3a Level Manipulation Checks Figure A.4.5 Study 3b Time Manipulation Checks 198 Figure A.4.6 Study 3b Aim Manipulation Checks Figure A.4.7 Study 3b Focus Manipulation Checks Figure A.4.8 Study 3b Level Manipulation Checks 199 Standing For Study 3a (Gender), comparisons of standing were exploratory. Based on our Study 3a findings, I preregistered the hypotheses below for Study 3b (Race/Ethnicity). Between-Agent Comparisons: Are Advantaged Agents Perceived as Having More Standing To Take Reactive (But Not Proactive) Action? For Study 3a (Gender), my exploratory test revealed that men were perceived to have more standing than women to take reactive (d = 0.33, p < .001) but not proactive (d = 0.007; p > .99) action. For race/ethnicity, I hypothesized replicating this effect, however the three-way interaction between Type, Level, and Agent revealed that only for interpersonal reactive action was a White person viewed to have more standing than a person of color (d = 0.23; p < .001). Within-Agent Comparisons: Are Advantaged Agents Perceived as Having More Standing To Take Reactive Compared To Proactive Action? For this exploratory test in Study 3a (Gender), there was a significant Type by Agent interaction. Whereas women were perceived as having the same degree of standing for taking reactive and proactive action (d = 0.07; p > .99), men were perceived as having more standing to take reactive compared to proactive action (d = 0.35, p < .001). For Study 3b, there were no differences within-agent for standing (ps > .10). 200 Table A.7. Study 3a&b Descriptive Statistics for Standing Variable Study 3A: Gender Study 3B: Race/Ethnicity M SD M SD M SD M SD Reactive 5.57 1.43 5.09 1.48 5.09 1.74 4.87 1.63 Interpersonal 5.57 1.67 5.02 1.74 5.19 1.96 4.47 1.90 Institutional 5.58 1.62 5.16 1.69 4.99 2.00 4.99 1.89 Proactive 5.20 1.48 5.19 1.43 5.13 1.62 5.05 1.51 Interpersonal 5.05 1.76 5.11 1.70 5.16 1.86 5.07 1.67 Institutional 5.35 1.67 5.27 1.65 5.09 1.85 5.04 1.81 Interpersonal 5.31 1.44 5.06 1.42 5.18 1.58 4.91 1.48 Institutional 5.47 1.44 5.21 1.46 5.04 1.64 5.01 1.56 Table A.8. Study 3a&b Mixed Analysis of Variance Tests for Standing, Controlling for Participant Identity (PIdentity) Study 3a: Gender Study 3b: Race/Ethnicity F(1,383) p η2p F(1,379) p η2p Type 7.96 0.005 0.020 Type 2.07 0.151 0.005 Level 5.65 0.018 0.015 Level 0.005 0.943 < .001 Type*Level 2.21 0.138 0.006 Type*Level 0.308 0.580 0.001 Item 14.58 < .001 0.037 Item 3.71 0.055 0.010 Item*Type 41.36 < .001 0.097 Item*Type 3.90 0.049 0.010 Item*Level 0.057 0.812 < .001 Item*Level 13.56 < .001 0.035 Item*Type*Level 3.32 0.069 0.009 Item*Type*Level 8.54 0.004 0.022 PGender 11.20 < .001 0.029 PRace 0.243 0.622 0.001 PGender*Type 5.35 0.021 0.014 PRace*Type 0.309 0.579 0.001 PGender*Level 6.82 0.009 0.018 PRace*Level 5.10 0.025 0.013 PGender*Item 2.37 0.125 0.006 PRace*Item 0.230 0.632 0.001 PGender*Type*Level 0.69 0.406 0.002 PRace*Type*Level 0.548 0.460 0.001 PGender*Type*Item 0.88 0.348 0.002 PRace*Type*Item 0.469 0.494 0.001 PGender*Level*Item 1.28 0.260 0.003 PRace*Level*Item 0.129 0.720 < .001 PGender*Type*Level*Item 0.74 0.389 0.002 PRace*Type*Level*Item 0.332 0.565 0.001 201 Appendix E: Study 4 Stimuli and Measures Introduction: Our research team is interested in your experiences and perceptions of allyship action in STEM: behaviors that intend to support people in STEM who are from identity groups that are underrepresented and often marginalized. The findings from this survey will provide us a better sense of your feelings towards allyship and its effectiveness. Gender biases are tendencies to prefer members of one group over another based on gender. Gender biases can appear in various forms and are not limited to the attitudes and stereotypes within the minds of individuals (e.g., favoring one group over another). Gender biases can also appear in what we see other people say and do (e.g., making assumptions about a person’s credentials based on their gender identity) and in how institutions function (e.g., hiring policies that disproportionately target a gender identity group). These gender biases can be both intentional and unintentional, but still harmful. Fortunately, there are many ways that people can address gender biases. On the next few pages, we suggest six different ways that people can address gender bias and ask for your opinions on them. On the following pages, we specifically focus on women and men although we recognize that gender identities are not constrained to these two groups and that gender biases can affect people in different ways. At the end of the survey, we provide you an opportunity to share any thoughts regarding other identity groups or issues (including but not limited to gender) that are not discussed in this survey [Action Descriptions (presented one at a time, followed by perception of action DVs)] 1. Building Capacity for Inclusion: This type of action is focused on increasing one’s own capacity to support women. They are directly aimed at personal growth, therefore are not contingent bias occurring. Some examples include but are not limited to: putting yourself in the shoes of those who are impacted by gender bias, educating oneself, being open-minded and acknowledging one’s own privilege. 2. Inclusive Interactions: This type of action is focused on increasing positive outcomes for one or several individual women. The goal is to make one or several women feel accepted, included and/or empowered, when they might otherwise feel excluded. Some examples include but are not limited to: Listening to women concerns, befriending women, treating women respectfully. 3. Instituting Inclusion: This type of action is focused on promoting inclusivity and equality in institutions (i.e., beyond oneself or another person). This action entails implementing empowering practices/policies or encouraging norms that promote equity. Some examples include but are not limited to: voting for policies that allow for gender equity in pay, organizational efforts to hire an equal proportion of men and women introducing educational programs emphasizing inclusive values. 4. Countering Own Bias: This type of action is focused on addressing and decreasing one’s own biases and prejudice against disadvantaged gender groups. This action is a response directed toward oneself as the perpetrator of gender bias. Some examples include but are not limited to: Notice and challenge one’s own biases towards women, stop oneself from making gendered jokes or comments, reduce stereotypes one might have towards women. 5. Confronting Others’ Bias: This type of action is focused on directly confronting one or several other perpetrators of gender bias. This action revolves around speaking out against one or several other individuals’ biased behaviors when one sees it. Some examples include but are not limited to: Calling out another person’s discrimination against women responding to a person’s gender biased comments by educating them on issues 202 6. Challenging Institutional Bias: This type of action is focused on responding to gender bias embedded in institutions and cultures. These actions are focused on challenging gender biased policies, practices, norms that are perpetuated by institutions and societies. Some examples include but are not limited to: denouncing one’s workplace’s gender biased hiring practices, voting against legislation that disadvantages women. Outcome Variables 1. Understanding Action We would like to know how understandable our description of [action label] is. To what extent do you feel you understand what [action label] is based on the description above? 1 (Not at All) 2 (Slightly) 3 (Fairly) 4 (Moderately) 5 (Very Much) 2. Prevalence How often do you experience or witness ____ take action to [action label] in your own workplace? • Men • Women 1 (Never) 2 (Rarely, e.g., once a year) 3 (Occasionally, e.g., once every couple of months) 4 (Frequently, e.g., once a month) 5 (Very Frequently, e.g., once or more a week) 3. Dispersion (Campbell & Brauer, 2021) In your opinion, what proportion of ____ in your workplace at least occasionally engage in [action label]? • Men • Women (1) None or nearly none (2) Less than half, but not none (3) About half (4) More than half, but not all (5) All or nearly all 4. Impact When taken by ____, to what extent do you believe that [action label] is effective in improving workplace culture for women? • Men • Women 1 (Not at All) 2 (Slightly) 3 (Fairly) 4 (Moderately) 5 (Very Much) [Following DVs presented once after all actions above have been shown] Fit Please rate the extent to which you feel the following ways in your workplace using the scale below 1. When I’m around other employees, I feel like I can act natural 203 2. I don’t feel like I need to be a different person around others 3. Other people would NOT judge me for being myself 4. I don’t have to hide my true behavior when I’m with others 5. I feel that people understand exactly who I am Efficacy Please rate the extent to which you feel the following ways in your workplace using the scale below 1. Whatever comes my way in my job, I can usually handle it 2. My past experiences in my job have prepared me well to pursue my career aspirations 3. I feel prepared for most of the demands in my job Workplace Commitment Listed below is a series of statements that represent feelings that individuals may have about the workplace in which they work. With respect to your own feelings about the workplace you currently work in, please answer the following questions. 1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this workplace 2. I really feel as if my workplace’s problems are my own 3. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to my workplace 4. I will probably look for a new job in the next year 5. I often think about quitting Supportive Work Environment 1. I feel safe expressing my personal beliefs or values in my workplace 2. I feel like my workplace values my individual contributions 3. My workplace cares about my general satisfaction at work Social Identity Threat (Hall, Schmader, & Croft, 2015; RISE, 2022) Please rate the extent to which you feel the following ways in your workplace using the scale below 1. I feel very aware of my gender 2. I am concerned that my gender influences the way others interact with me 1 (Not at All) 2 (Slightly) 3 (Fairly) 4 (Moderately) 5 (Very Much) Perceptions of Gender Bias To what extent do you believe gender bias is generally a problem in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics) fields? 1 (Not at All) 2 (Slightly) 3 (Fairly) 4 (Moderately) 5 (Very Much) Other Identities (Open-Ended) In this study we focused on gender issues, specifically concerning women and men. Are there any identity groups or issues that you wish we asked about? 204 Additional Analyses Table A.9 Study 4. Mean Level Comparisons of Action Frequency by Type, Level, and Agent Gender. Action Frequency Men Women t-test All M SD M SD p d M SD Intrapersonal 2.65 0.92 3.10 0.94 < .001 0.48 2.88 0.83 Proactive 2.69 1.11 3.19 1.12 < .001 0.45 2.94 0.99 Reactive 2.61 0.97 3.01 1.07 < .001 0.38 2.81 0.90 Interpersonal 2.68 0.85 3.29 0.85 < .001 0.72 2.99 0.76 Proactive 3.17 1.16 3.74 1.06 < .001 0.51 3.45 1.02 Reactive 2.19 0.96 2.85 1.09 < .001 0.64 2.52 0.92 Institutional 2.59 0.93 3.10 0.95 < .001 0.55 2.69 0.87 Proactive 2.90 1.09 3.36 1.04 < .001 0.43 3.13 0.95 Reactive 2.28 1.05 2.84 1.14 < .001 0.51 2.56 0.98 Reactive 2.36 0.84 2.89 0.91 < .001 0.61 2.63 0.79 Proactive 2.92 0.90 3.43 0.84 < .001 0.58 3.18 0.78 All 2.64 0.80 3.17 0.78 < .001 0.67 2.90 0.70 Table A.10 Study 4. Social Identity Threat: Awareness of Gender Regressed on Proactive Action Frequency, Controlling for Perceptions of Gender Bias Step 1 Step 2 Social Identity Threat: Awareness of Gender β SE t p β SE t p Proactive .07 .16 0.70 .458 .09 .16 0.83 .406 Reactive .02 .16 0.17 .864 -.001 .16 -0.01 .989 Gender Bias .11 .09 1.36 .177 R2 F(2,145) p R2 F(3, 144) p .007 0.51 .601 0.02 0.96 .415 205 Table A.11 Study 4. Outcome Variables Regressed on Action Frequency, Controlling for Perceptions of Gender Bias Reactive Proactive Social Fit β SE t p β SE t p Agent (M / W) -.09 .34 0.43 .664 -.19 .39 -.50 .619 Frequency .20 .09 2.24 .026 .33 .08 4.21 < .001 Agent*Frequency -.09 .13 -0.72 .472 .006 .12 0.05 .961 Gender Bias -0.20 .05 -3.42 < .001 -.18 .05 03.33 < .001 R2 F(4,219) p R2 F(4,291) p .05 4.49 .002 .13 11.60 < .001 Reactive Proactive Workplace Inclusivity β SE t p β SE t p Agent (M / W) -.01 .37 2.24 .026 -.18 .43 1.22 .222 Frequency .17 .10 1.89 .060 .42 .09 5.33 < .001 Agent*Frequency -.29 .14 -2.39 .017† -.20 .13 -1.73 .085 Gender Bias -.16 .06 -2.69 .007 -.15 .05 -2.76 .006 R2 F(4,291) p R2 F(4,219) p .04 3.69 .006 .12 11.40 < .001 Workplace Commitment Reactive Proactive β SE t p β SE t p Agent (M / W) -.02 .40 1.01 .315 -.12 .47 0.55 .581 Frequency .10 .11 1.09 .277 .26 .10 3.17 .002 Agent*Frequency -.13 .14 -1.11 .269 -.10 .14 -0.86 .391 Gender Bias -.21 .06 -3.63 < .001 -.21 .06 -3.62 < .001 R2 F(4, 291) p R2 F(4,219) p .04 3.91 .004 .08 7.06 < .001 Social Identity Threat Reactive Proactive β SE t p β SE t p Agent (M / W) -.09 .46 -0.14 .886 -.001 .56 -0.66 .510 Frequency .16 .12 1.85 .065 -.04 .12 -0.47 .637 Agent*Frequency -.01 .17 -0.12 .158 .08 .17 0.69 .493 Gender Bias .30 .07 5.47 < .001 .31 .07 5.52 < .001 R2 F(4,291) p R2 F(4,219) p .11 9.94 < .001 .09 8.18 < .001 † Despite a significant agent*frequency interaction and descriptively different slopes between agents, neither men’s (β = .17, p = .060) nor women’s (β = -.13, p = .138) reactive action significantly predicted Workplace Inclusivity. 206 Appendix F: Focus Group Protocol I. Introduction (5-7 minutes) Hello everyone and welcome to our session! Thank you so much for being here and taking the time to be a part of this focus group today. My name is Lucy De Souza and I am a PhD candidate in Social Psychology at the University of British Columbia. With me is my research assistant [name] who is behind the scenes helping with tech and taking notes. Today we are coming to you from the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples colonially known as Vancouver and I am grateful to be on this land, connecting with you all. Purpose and Goals of the Session: So, what is this and why are we here? This focus group study is conducted through and funded by Engendering Success in STEM: Project RISE. Project RISE is a research collaboration between social psychologists and STEM organizations, aiming to understand what respectful and supportive spaces for underrepresented people in STEM looks like and how to work towards them. More specifically, I’m interested in what people with science and engineering backgrounds think about “allyship,” who or what it involves and its outcomes for women in science and engineering. As part of this team over the past five years, I have had wonderful experiences talking to people in the sciences and engineering about their experiences in the workplace and I’m hoping to better represent these conversations in our research. Our research so far has been predominately quantitative and although quantitative data are meaningful, I found that these casual but rich conversations weren’t so much reflected in the work we’ve done so far. That’s the purpose of the study today, to get a better sense of how you feel about allyship in support of women in science and engineering, what it means, what it looks like, and what (if any) impact it can have. Rights as a Participant: Let’s briefly go over some of your rights as a participant today. You can refuse to answer certain questions if you so choose and you have the right to leave the focus group at any time during the session. To remind you, this session will be audio (but not video) recorded. Only the researchers on this project have access to these audio files, which will be stripped of identifiable information (such as names and organizations) and stored on a secure, encrypted server. I’ll let you know before we start recording. The findings from this research will be reported in my graduate dissertation, academic publications, and reports, but will also be stripped of any information that could identify you. As with any focus group study, there are limitations to confidentiality as we have a group of people here. For this reason, we please ask you to respect confidentiality and refrain from sharing who is in the room today and what is discussed. Although we would love to be able to see each other during this session, it is okay to keep your mic off when you aren’t speaking and your camera off if you have concerns about confidentiality. You may withdraw consent to participate at any time and withdraw your data before publication by emailing us. Finally, in appreciation of your participation today you will receive a $40 gift card, your choice of Starbucks or Amazon within two weeks. Are there any questions at all about any of this? Ground Rules: Now let’s quickly go over some ground rules. First, I’m not the expert on your experiences and I’m here to facilitate, listen, and center your perspectives. There may be times where I direct the discussion with statements or questions, ask for expansion, or move the conversation along due to time. But I’m never looking for any specific answer to any question and there are no right or wrong answers. Please absolutely “chat amongst yourselves,” responding and expanding on each other’s thoughts and feelings. Of course, there is space for disagreement, but we ask that everyone try to be respectful of each other’s opinions. Feel free to eat or drink if you need to. Although I ask that you try to stay here for the entire session given our small numbers, it is fine to step out if you need to. Although it can be tricky virtually, I do ask to try to only have one person speak at a time. There’s no speaking order, so please feel free to speak up when you feel you have something to share. However, it’s good to be cognizant of 207 when you have been sharing a lot and could step back or haven’t spoken up in a while and could step up. Are there any questions about this or other requests for the space today? II. Focus Group Questions (60-90 minutes) # Approx. Max Time Allotted Question *priority 1 5 min To get to know each other a little bit better, let’s start with a quick around-the-virtual-room question. - Please share what drew you to be a part of this focus group today. Announce and Start Recording 2 25 min As I mentioned before, today’s topic is on what “support for women in STEM” looks like. So, to start us off, I’d like to ask a pretty broad question: - What comes to mind for you when you hear the word “allyship?”/ What are some immediate thoughts you have when you hear “allyship?”/ What kind of person do you think of?* - When you think of allyship, where do you think of it happening? In what contexts? Let’s think about allyship now in the context of your own experiences, specifically at work: - Can you think back to a time where you personally experienced or witnessed what you believe was allyship [Or met someone you consider an ally] * - In what ways do you think this experience was allyship [or this person was an ally] (versus being generally nice or supportive)? 15 min Thank you for sharing your ideas about what allyship looks like. I want to narrow our focus to a certain kind of action that has been [hasn’t been] brought up. Some actions are focused on challenging sexism when someone sees it: - What are some immediate feelings about actions that are more reactive or oriented towards challenging sexism?* - Are there are any benefits or risks of these kinds of actions in the STEM workplace?* - Are there any specific kinds of effects that these kind of actions might have in the workplace? 15 min Allyship [as you all have brought up before], includes more than just speaking up against sexism. There are situations where a person makes efforts to include or empower, which don’t necessarily need to happen as a response to sexism: - What are some immediate feelings about these actions, efforts to include or promote women in STEM, that are more proactive?* - Are any benefits or risks of these forms of actions in the STEM workplace?* - Are there any specific kinds of effects that these kind of actions might have in the workplace? - How do you feel about these kinds of action compared to more reactive forms that involve confronting sexism? For example, are there similar or different outcomes?* 208 25 min Now that we have discussed our perceptions of allyship and what it might look like in the workplace, I want us to now consider men’s allyship specifically. - What are your thoughts about men’s allyship towards women in STEM specifically? Are there any roles they have that look similar or different compared to other gender groups in allyship?* - Do you feel that men’s allyship has any impact on women’s experiences or outcomes in STEM? These can be positive or negative.* • Reactive forms? Proactive forms? - Are there certain kinds of action that you would like to see men take? Or actions where you believe they could step back?* - What are your feelings towards the frequency to which men take action currently?* - Our work shows that men are highly motivated to be allies to women in STEM, but sometimes their motivation doesn’t line up with their actual behavior. Why do you think that might be? 5 min - Of all the things we discussed, what to you is the most important? - Are there any other comments or topics that you wish we covered when thinking about allyship in STEM? Have we missed anything? III. Closing Thank you so much everyone for participating in this focus group today. Like I mentioned, you will receive a gift card of either Amazon or Starbucks within two-weeks. Please fill out the following two-question survey so we know which card you prefer and which email to send it to. We’ll also send out this survey via email shortly after this session. I really appreciate your time here today and I will stick around if you have any remaining questions or comments. Otherwise you are free to go! Put link in the chat
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Psychology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Schmader, Toni, 1972-
When people do allyship : a typology of allyship action
Text