IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v182y2024ics0749597824000244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ganegoda, Deshani B.
  • Shukla, Jigyashu
  • Shapiro, Debra L.

Abstract

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

Suggested Citation

  • Ganegoda, Deshani B. & Shukla, Jigyashu & Shapiro, Debra L., 2024. "Garnering support for social justice: When and why is “yes” likelier for “allies” versus “disadvantaged group advocates”?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:182:y:2024:i:c:s0749597824000244
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104332
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597824000244
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104332?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:182:y:2024:i:c:s0749597824000244. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.