Content uploaded by Monnica T Williams
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Monnica T Williams on Sep 15, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
272 the Behavior Therapist
IN THE WAKE of aresurgence of the Black
Lives Matter movement and the unjust
killing of many Black Americans at the
hands of police, there has been increased
awareness of the concept of racial justice
allyship. Specifically, what does it mean for
someone to act as a“White ally,”and what
is their role in the social justicemovements
centered around anti-Black racism?Unfor-
tunately, when trying to answer this ques-
tion, there seems to be adisconnect
between how people seethemselves versus
how they practice allyship in the realworld.
For example, White people frequently
report themselves as allies and are in verbal
agreement with necessary behaviors to
ensure that we are moving towards amore
equitable society. However, when real-life
opportunities arise to act on these convic-
tions and dismantle systems of oppression,
many White people do not end up engag-
ing (e.g., Buchanan, 2020; Reed, 2019). We
are therefore left wondering, in the midst of
the current climate of socialupheaval and
calls for racial justice: Is it really enough for
onetosimply claim to be an ally? And what
characteristics of allyship make one a
meaningful ally?
Allies are members of adominant social
group, or ingroup, who work towardsfair-
ness for peopleinanondominant group, or
outgroup. Ingroupand outgroup terminol-
ogy draws from social identity theory, and
offers ahelpful frame for consideringinter-
group dynamics—particularly when an
ingroup, such as Whiteness, is defined
throughexclusion and exclusionary prac-
tices (e.g., Hogg et al., 1995). According to
Brown and Ostrove (2013), allyship con-
sists of supporting nondominant groups
through meaningful relationships and
taking concrete action to dismantle
inequitable colonial systems. Ally behav-
iorscan include calling out discrimination
and fighting for inclusion of outgroup
members, and allyship consists of both
public and private behaviors. When it
comes to tackling racism, White allies can
use their privilege as part of the ingroup
and play an important role in helping to
reduce incidents of individual or systemic
racism against people of color. Smith et al.
(2016) clarify some keypointsabout racial
justiceallyship.First,allyship is about sup-
port, not leadership. Second, allyship is a
continuous process that cannot be
“achieved,” but to which one aspires.Last,
onecannot self-prescribe the label “ally”; it
is adesignation given by members of the
nondominant group with which one
aspirestoally themselves. Whiteallyship,
in this way, diverges from other forms of
allyship,aspopular “Safe Zone” programs
in the 1990s and onward encouraged fac-
ultyand individuals in higher education to
self-declare themselves as allies (e.g.,
Draughn et al., 2002). Such identifications
do comewiththeir own expectations, how-
ever, as queerand trans studentsstill expect
active engagement on the part of self-
declared allies (Forbes &Ueno, 2020).
Spanierman and Smith (2017) further clar-
ify White allies are those who:“(a) demon-
strate nuanced understanding of institu-
tional racism and White privilege, (b) enact
acontinualprocess of self-reflection about
their own racism and positionality, (c)
express asense of responsibility and com-
mitment to using their racial privilege in
ways that promote equity, (d) engage in
actions to disrupt racism andthe statusquo
on micro and macro levels, (e) participate
in coalition building and work in solidarity
with people of color, and (f) encounter
resistance from other White individuals.”
Unfortunately, many confuse White ally-
ship with White saviorship—engaging in
performative acts of helping others for ben-
efit, self-image, or recognition (Williams &
Sharif, 2021). White saviors espousemore
of acharity model or paternalistic view of
helpingthosethey consider“less fortunate”
while still maintaining notions of White
superiority and social/emotional distance.
Genuine allyship requires identifying and
decentering Whiteness, empowering
others even whenthis involves peer con-
flict, and engaginginreciprocal vulnerabil-
ity (e.g., confronting uncomfortable or
shamefulrace-based topics; Haeny et al., in
press; Printz Pereira &George, 2020).
There are currentlynot many toolsfor
assessing and quantifying the allyship of
ingroup members, and, as such, there isa
need to develop new methods for assessing
allyship that can be used in this moment of
social change to better understandthe most
important characteristics of allies and
determine if interventions designed to
reduce prejudice can improve allyship in
the service of equity and equality.Further-
more, research has shown that White
people frequentlylabel themselves as allies,
yet most of this research is based on self-
report. Very little research exists within the
academic literature examining people's
real-life behaviorsand objectively rating it
as in line with allyship or not. For example,
astudy by Mekawi andTodd(2018) sought
to measure allyship using self-report mea-
sures. University studentswerepresented
with avariety of microaggressive situa-
tions, to which the majority (93%) reported
they would behaveinan allied manner by
openly disagreeing if met with such asitu-
ation in the real world. However, there was
no follow-up behavioral assessment to
verify whether theseallied intentions actu-
ally predicted allied behavior. In fact, based
on reports from people of color, who often
feel abandoned by would-be allies (e.g.,
Buchanan, 2020; Williams, 2020),and the
persistence of microaggressions since they
were first identified by Pierce (1970;
Williams, 2020), it is highly unlikely that
these self-reported allied intentions are
acted upon with the same frequency with
which they are endorsed by participants in
research studies. Rather, it seems that,
more often than not, microaggressions
against people of color go unconfronted by
self-proclaimed“White allies.”
This disconnectbetween intentionand
action is also documented by Suárez-
Orozco and colleagues (2015), who noted
instances of microaggressions in approxi-
mately 30% of college classrooms they
observed, which went largely unchal-
lenged. One possible explanation for the
lack of allied behavior in that study might
relate to the issue of power, since professors
were usually the microaggressors. How-
ever, it is important to note that an attempt
at allied behavior that is unsuccessful(due
to power imbalance, counterattacks by the
perpetrator, social anxiety, etc.) could
result in anger and frustration in the poten-
tialally, whichmay lead to counterproduc-
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Unicorns, Leprechauns, and White Allies:
Exploring the Space Between Intent and Action
Monnica T. Williams, Noor Sharif, Dana Strauss, Sophia Gran-Ruaz,
Amy Bartlett, University of Ottawa
Matthew D. Skinta, Roosevelt University
WILLIAMS ET AL.
274 the Behavior Therapist
tive reactions in would-be allies such as
giving up the effort of allyship altogether.
Thenegativeeffects of aroadblock on
White allies may be particularly strong for
those who highly value antiracist ideals, yet
hold those only in the abstract. As this
studyreveals, relationships and connection
may be at theheartofeffectiveallyship, and
the endorsement of strongly held moral
convictions in the absence of those rela-
tionshipsordesires forintergroup connec-
tion may ultimately express adead endin
understanding the development of an
antiracist mindset.
So how can we better understand the
connection between intention and action
when it comes to White allyship?Interms
of what types of developmental character-
istics are best predictorsofincreased ally-
shipbehavior, previous researchfound that
enthusiasm (feeling impressed, inspired,
and enthusiastic about people of color) and
engagement (a desire to know people of
color and learn about their experiences)
seem to be vital (Williams &Sharif,2021).
This is consistent with reports in the litera-
ture describing the origins of antiracist
White allies, which is predicated by oppor-
tunities for intergroup contact, mentor-
ship, belonging to asocially active organi-
zation, and being part of an experience that
challenges ideas previously held (Smith,
2007).
The objective of thisstudy is to ascertain
the degree to which White individuals
behaveinanallied manner when provided
the opportunity to do so. Authors previ-
ously developed the Interpersonal Racial
Allyship Scale(IRAS) that is correlatedto
allied behaviors (Williams &Sharif, 2021),
using abehavioral experiment to establish
predictive validity. Using the data from this
behavioral experiment, we now aim to
ascertain (1) what percentageofindividu-
als demonstrate allied behaviors in the lab-
oratory experiment, (2) how aligned are
people’s intentions to be allies when con-
trasting their thoughts to their actions,and
(3) what score on the IRAS reliably corre-
sponds to participants behaving as an ally
consistently.
Methods
Participants
Participants were derived from alarger
study. The original participants were 987
non-Hispanic White undergraduate stu-
dents (Mage =19.19, SD =1.85) and 61
Black undergraduate students (Mage =
19.61, SD =2.48) at auniversity in the
Pacific Northwest who participated for
extra credit in their introductory psychol-
ogy courses.The university’sInstitutional
Review Board had approved this study, and
participants signed an online consent form
prior to accessing the survey. The majority
of participants identified as female (63.6%
and 67.2% for White and Black samples,
respectively). Asubset of the White partic-
ipants (n=31) participated in alaboratory
behavioral task; the majority of these par-
ticipants identified as female (51.6%) and
had amean age of 20.29 (SD =4.07). The
participants for this studyconsist of the 31
White individuals who participated in the
behavioral task of the larger study.
Measures
The Interpersonal Racial Allyship Scale
(IRAS; Williams &Sharif, 2021) is a10-
item measure designed to quantify action-
able and behavioral components of inter-
personalracialallyship based on responses
to hypothetical racially chargedscenarios.
After each scenario, participants are pro-
vided aseriesofpotential statements one
might make in that situation, including
statements that would be considered
microaggressive (e.g., “What is your
favoritebasketball team?”) and supportive
(e.g., inviting the Black studenttoafuture
group socialengagement). The 10 support-
iveitems demonstrate inclusion, advocacy,
concern, and assistance toward Black
people in various situations. Respondents
were asked to report how likely they would
be to do or say each response (or some-
thing similar) on a5-point scale with
anchors1(“Veryunlikely”),2(“Unlikely”),
3(“Neither likely or unlikely”), 4
(“Likely”), and 5(“Very Likely”). For the
purposes of study, participants were also
asked (a) how likely they were to think the
supportive response, as well as (b) whether
or notthey would carry it out. Aseparate
total was computed for the allyship
“thought” items versus the allyship antici-
pated“actions.”
The IRAS (action items) have demon-
strated strong fit across several indices in
factor analyses, good convergent validity
across several well-validated measures of
racism and feelings about people of color,
good divergent validity against social desir-
ability, and strong predictive validity with
observed supportive behavior of individu-
als in the laboratory task. Internal consis-
tency was good in the current subsample (α
=.82).
Procedure
In this study, we wanted to determine
the extent to which self-reported allyship
corresponds with real-life allyship. To do
this, we designed alaboratory behavioral
task that we used as abehavioral(“real-
life”) measure of allyship. As noted, a
subset of the participants who completed
the self-report allyship measure, IRAS,
completed the behavioral lab task. We then
compared participants’ scores on each
measuretodetermine the cut-off score on
the IRAS that corresponds with “real-life”
allyship as demonstrated in our laboratory
behavioraltask.
•Behavioral Lab Task
Participants took part in alaboratory
behavioral task wherein they engaged in
three 5-minute discussions with another
research participant (who was actually a
confederate research assistant [RA]) about
racially charged news stories in theUnited
States. Each participant was greeted by a
Black RA,who obtainedinformedconsent,
introduced the participant to the confeder-
ate who was White, and informed them
that the RA would be watching the interac-
tions in the other room via live video-
recording. The researchersofthe studydid
not want to expose the Black RA to
microaggressions directly. However, the
participant knew the interactions were
being watched and recorded by aBlack
peer. All participants were debriefed once
the study was complete. The interactions
were subsequently coded and scored to
arrive at anumerical rating for each
vignette for each participant, basedonthe
number and quality of supportive state-
ments made by the participant toward out-
group members.
Development of the behavioral test.
News stories used as the subject of discus-
sion were selected based on their ability to
provoke racial microaggressions. These
were types of news stories that had gener-
ated discussions about racial issues in the
popular press. The first story (“Monu-
ment”) described the fight between
activists and the city government concern-
ing the removal of aConfederate monu-
ment in Kentucky, apainful reminder of
slavery and an exampleofanenvironmen-
tal microaggression (Williams, 2019). Sup-
port for keeping the monument in place
would be microaggressive, whereas
denouncing it we would be asupportive
behavior. Similarly, the second story
(“Police”) described the killing of an
unarmed Black male college student by
police after acar accident, the typeofprob-
lem that has sparked the Black Lives Matter
movement. Support for the killing of the
September •2021 275
WHITE ALLIES:SPACE BETWEEN INTENT AND ACTION
Black man would be microaggressive,
whereas denouncing would be supportive
behavior. The third (“Party”) described a
fraternity party that involved members
employing Black stereotypes, resulting in
their suspension and acampus-wide
debate about free speech. Support for the
fraternity party-goers employing Black
stereotypes and against their suspension
would be microaggressive whereas
denouncing both would be an indication of
supportive behavior. (The full text of the
three vignettes is available in Kanter et al.,
2020.) The discussion generated by these
news items provided ample opportunity
for participants to express microaggres-
sions or allyship behaviors.
Coding and scoring procedure for behav-
ioral task.The recording of the behavioral
task was coded by ateam of trained and
supervised undergraduate research assis-
tants. The group was intentionallydiverse:
five identified as female, three as Asian,two
as Black, and two as White. The coding
system was developed by aresearcher and a
graduate student who met with the coders
weekly for 1.5 hours over 2monthsfor the
provision of training. Two criterion
coders—both Black female graduate stu-
dents—randomly coded 10 videotapes for
areliability check.
Coders rated each recording (three dis-
cussions per participant) on two dimen-
sions: overall racist microaggressions and
overall supportive nonracist statements.
For the development of the IRAS, only the
supportive statements were examined. The
coders were asked to consider everything
the participant said and rate how they
believed aperson of color (non-White
person) would feel interacting with that
participant using a4-point Likert scale: 0
(absenceofanysupportivecomments); 1(at
least one specific positive supportive com-
ment); 2(consistently supportive through-
out the interaction); 3(very explicit, unwa-
vering support for nonracist and equity
values and behavior). While coders were
encouraged to consider this process holisti-
cally, considering tone and other noncon-
tent features of speech and communica-
tion, this was factored into the assigned
scale and not separately tracked.The scores
were then averaged between the two
coders. More information about this task
and the methodology is described else-
where (Kanter et al., 2020; Williams &
Sharif, 2021).
Results
Research Question 1: What Percentage
of Individuals Demonstrated Allied
Behaviors in the Laboratory Experi-
ment?
Descriptive statistics are presented in
Table 1, which indicates the degree to
which participants displayed allyship
behaviors in each of the scenarios in the
behavioral lab task. Table 1describes the
outcomes (low, moderate, or high allyship)
for each scenario (“Party,” “Police,” and
“Monument”) as determined by the team
of coders based on the number and quality
of supportive statements made by the par-
ticipants toward outgroup members.
When using aminimum mean cut-off
score of 2asanindicator of allyship for
each scenario (consistently supportive
throughout the interaction), participant
mean ally scores for the three scenarios
combined was alow 2.79 (SD =1.56) out of
9. Moreover, only 3.2% of the participants
were allies in all three scenarios, 9.7% were
allies in two scenarios, and 16.1% were
allies in one scenario. Participants showed
the highest allyship in the Black stereotyp-
ing “Party” scenario, followed by the
unarmed “Police” killing scenario, and,
finally, the Confederate “Monument” sce-
nario.
Research Question 2: Are People More
Likely to Think About Allied Behaviors
Than Do Them?
Paired t-tests were conducted on the
IRAS total scores for allyship thoughts
versus anticipated actions, with the expec-
tation that thoughts would be significantly
greater than anticipated actions, which is
consistent with our theory that people may
have more allied intentions than actions.
The thoughts scale means (M=37.32, SD =
5.79) were significantly greater than the
actions scale (M=33.84, SD =6.37), with
t(30) =4.68, p<.001. This indicated that
more participants had more thoughts
about saying or doingsomethingsupport-
ive than beliefs that they would actually
carry it out.
Research Question 3: What IRAS Score
Corresponds to Participants Behaving
as an Ally Consistently?
For each item in the IRAS, participants
rated how likely they were to say or do each
response (or something similar) on a5-
point scale. Only scores of 4or5(likely or
very likely,respectively) were considered to
be responses demonstrating allied inten-
tions as determined by adiversity expert
sample. We report the descriptive statistics
for each itemonthe IRAS, as illustrated in
Table 2. As shown in Table 2, there were
three items that the majority of participants
reported they would be likely or very likely
to say or do. Notably, none of those items
require muchinterpersonalrisk.
In examining IRAS scores, 43/50 would
appear to be the best cut-off as it coincides
with ascore of 2orgreater (high allyship)
on all of the three behavioral lab tasks.
Although it seems as if, for most IRAS
items, amajority of participants responded
in away that would indicate allied inten-
tions, in fact, only 3.2% of participants were
observed to engage in an allied manner in
all three situations on the behavioral tasks
(N=1). Because there was only one person
that we could classify as an ally, we were
unable to perform avalid receiver operat-
ing characteristic (ROC) analysis for the
IRAS to determine acut-off score. These
resultsindicatethat meaningful Whiteally-
ship is low.
Discussion
This studysought to better understand
racial justice allyship by investigating
observed allyship behavior versus self-
reported intentions of allyship in White
participants. Though allies are defined as
people in the dominant group who support
members ofnondominant groups and take
concrete actions to end their oppression
(Brown &Ostrove,2013; Washington &
Evans, 1991), to our knowledgethere have
not been any prior studies that quantita-
Party
Police
Monument
Scenario
Table 1.Frequency of Participant Allyship in Laboratory Behavioral Tasks
%Low
Allyship (N)
(score 0-.99)
%Moderate
Allyship (N)
(score 1-1.99)
41.9% (13)
61.3% (19)
74.2 %(23)
41.9% (13)
35.5% (11)
16.1% (5)
%High
Allyship (N)
(score 2-3)
16.1% (5)
3.2% (1)
9.7% (3)
Mean Allyship
Rating (0-3)
(SD)
1.21 (0.62)
0.89 (0.56)
0.70 (0.73)
276 the Behavior Therapist
WILLIAMS ET AL.
tively measure these actions. Most of the
literaturehas been focused on the theoryof
allyship, rather than the practical compo-
nents or real-life application of allyship
intention.Previous researchonallyship has
examined the qualities that self-reported
allies possess (i.e., out-group empathy, atti-
tudes, exposure, etc.) with the goal of culti-
vating more allies (i.e., Fingerhut, 2011;
Gonzalez et al., 2015). The current study is
among the first to quantitatively measure
the behavioral components of allyship and
compare it against self-reported intention.
This was accomplished through the use of a
self-report scenario-based measureofally-
ship combined withabehavioral task. The
results indicate that White people consis-
tently do not act as racial justice allies
towards Black people in the real world,
despite their intentions of allyship or their
view of themselves as allies. For example,
although over half of participants indicated
that they would speak out against the
shooting of an unarmed Black man (based
on responses to the item “No law enforce-
ment officer should shoot an unarmed
person under any circumstances”), only
39% actually did during the “Police” behav-
ioraltask, and of these only3%provided a
robust supportive response. This indicates
that people engage in allyship behavior less
often than they say they would, or such
behaviors may not be as supportive as
respondents believe. Further, more people
thought about acting as an ally than those
who said they woulddoallied behaviors.
The outcomes in our study also indicate
that White peopleshow different levelsof
allyship behavior depending on the form of
racism presented. More specifically, the
scenario concerning stereotyping Black
people (“Party”) generated comparatively
more allyship behavior than that of police
killings (“Police”) or removing Confeder-
ate monuments(“Monument”), with the
latter generating theleast allyship behavior
of all three scenarios. One possible expla-
nation for the increased allyship behavior
in the“Party” scenario might be that
stereotyping and other overt forms of
racism are more widely understood to be
racist, whereas institutional or structural
racism, such as Confederate monuments
and racial profiling in law enforcement, is
not. This is consistent with findings in the
developmental literature that White chil-
dren learn at ayoung age that race is a
meaningful cue for sorting ingroup and
outgroupmembers, and then acquire out-
group stereotypes earlier than ingroup
stereotypes (Pauker et al., 2010; Stangor,
2016). It could also be that there is more
racial awareness around inappropriate
behaviors at fraternity parties on college
campuses (which is the context from where
participants for this study were drawn). Or,
perhaps White people feel more comfort-
able and are less fearful of failure when
engaging in ally-like behaviors towards
perpetrators who occupy asimilar plane or
position of power as them (e.g., peer
against peer, as is the case of the “Party”
scenario), whereas with racism fromperpe-
trators in positions of power, allies may feel
fear,uncertainty, or hopelessness in being
able to make adifference(e.g.,citizen
against police officer, as in the case of the
“Police” scenario, or citizen against State,
as is the case with the “Monument” sce-
nario).
Allyship behavior in White people may
be infrequent because maintaining soci-
ety’s status quo serves to benefit White
people the most (Guess,2006; Moore-Berg
&Karpinski, 2019). Therefore, perhaps on
aviscerallevel many do not, in actuality,
want to address the racism that exists in
order to maintain the status of “most priv-
ileged.” Nevertheless, they may want to
maintain the image of being an ally and
behaving in ways that seem allied perfor-
matively but, in fact, do not authentically
address the issues that need to change to
create an antiracist society (e.g., joining
groups, committees or task forces to
address theseissuesbut not making mean-
ingful structuralorpersonal change). Fur-
thermore, behavingasanally meanspoten-
tially being rejected by the ingroup or
facing other social or career consequences
for being aWhite ally. Indeed, White allies
and people of color who push for meaning-
ful change face negative consequences in
their livesfor doing so by those who do not
want to dismantle oppressive structures;
Spaniermanand Smith (2017) underscore
the reality of negative socialconsequences
as aresult of allied behaviors. Finally, low
Item
Note.Scenarios:(1) Interacting with ayoung, Black female with African-style dress and braided hair; (2) taking adiversity training workshop;
(3) talking about current events with racially diverse friends, (4) responding to aBlack man lost in the neighborhood, (5) listening and
singing along to rap music with racially diverse friends, (6) watching news at asports bar about apolice shooting, (7) doing aprojectwith a
racially ambiguous female, and (8) meeting aBlack male law student at aparty.
Table 2. Ratings of IRAS Items of Allied Behaviors
Scenario M
7
3
8
3
2
6
3
5
2
6
4.03
3.81
3.74
3.26
3.29
3.32
3.35
3.13
3.03
2.87
0.71
0.98
0.77
1.21
1.24
1.11
0.88
1.02
0.98
1.23
83.9
71.0
71.0
51.6
51.6
51.6
51.6
35.5
35.5
29.0
1. “I’m glad Igot apartner who knows this stuff.”
2. “Racism is amajor issue in our country.”
3. Invite the Black student to afuture social engagement, like alecture, group
lunch, or party.
4. “White supremacy needs to be addressed for our country to move forward.”
5. “It’s not fair, but I’ve gotten lots of advantages from being White.”
6. “No law enforcement officer should shoot an unarmed person under any
circumstances.”
7. “I am upset about the unfair treatment minorities get.”
8. Say that you object to the song because it bothers your friend.
9. “Too many White people have ahard time talking about race, and that’s
aproblem.”
10. “I’m sure race was abig factor in that shooting”
SD %Likely or Very
Likely to Do/Say
WHITE ALLIES:SPACE BETWEEN INTENT AND ACTION
ally behavior may be aresult of alack of
adequate education and training around
these issues. Many institutions do not edu-
cate and discuss issues around racism in
depth to their students,staff, etc., and so it
may be that many people simply do not
know how to behave in allied ways since
they lack the necessary knowledge and
sensitization to issues of race. Bystander
training could be utilized to helppeopleact
in allied ways in the moment (e.g., San-
tacrose et al., 2020).
Poor allyship behavior by Whitepeople
has implications for both the would-be
allies and the marginalized groups they
have failed. White people may experience
cognitive dissonance between their ideals
or values and their behaviors, resulting in
negative outcomes, such as anger, sadness,
and giving up theiralliedambitions alto-
gether. Marginalized groups may feel
abandoned, disappointed, moredistrustful
of White people, or even experience more
serious clinical implications (impacts on
mental health, everyday life, relationships,
work, school, or parenting; Gopalkrishnan
2018).
So, how can we improve the connection
between allyship intention and behavior?
Unfortunately, traditional diversity train-
ing cannot be assumed to improve ally-
ship. One intervention specifically
designed to improve constructs related to
allyship resulted in maintained gains of
positive attitudes towards outgroup mem-
bers (i.e., allophilia), but eventually saw
reduced allyship after just 1month (e.g.,
Williams et al., 2020). Based on previous
literature, interventions to improve ally-
ship should be carefully designedtomaxi-
mize enthusiasm, engagement, and inter-
group communication and connection. As
was previously mentioned, research has
shownthat allophilia is linked to allyship
(Ostrove &Brown, 2018; Pittinsky et al.,
2011). Of the five components of allophilia
(affection, comfort, kinship, engagement,
and enthusiasm; Pittinsky &Maruskin,
2008), enthusiasm and engagement have
been found to best predict allyship
(Williams &Sharif, 2021). Consistent with
these findings, the origins of antiracist
White allies have been attributed to oppor-
tunities for intergroup communication,
mentorship, involvement in socially active
organizations, and challenging stereotypes
(O’Brien, 2001; Smith, 2007). As such,
more opportunities for cross-racial con-
nections may be important.
Other exercises that can be used in
interventions include role-play around
responding to microaggressions, celebrat-
Are passionate about disrupting and
correcting patterns of injustice.
Recognize and value racial, ethnic,
and cultural differences.
Are willing to be vulnerable and
challenge own internal racism.
Examples:
Realizing that automatic assump-
tions about who is most qualified to
run aresearch study have been
shaped by alifetime of racist mes-
sages and treating these attitudes
with skepticism.
Developing amindful stance of notic-
ing and observing anti-Black
thoughts without assuming such
thoughts are true.
Challenging thoughts derived from
guilt, shame, and anger that comes
with reckoning with one’s own White
privilege.
Are motivated by values surround-
ing equity, inclusion, and diversity.
Act out of genuine care and concern
for the wellbeing of BIPOC in their
lives.
Examples:
Conducting research that could
uncover racism at one’s own institu-
tion in order to address it.
Giving money to an anti-racism
cause one believes in for the purpose
of empowering Black people who
have been oppressed.
Transform White dominated sys-
tems such that they are equitable,
fair, and just.
Maintain cultural humility and
freely apologize for missteps.
Step back, avoid centering them-
selves in situations, and create
opportunities for people of colour to
be centered.
Examples:
Advocating for system-level reform in
the workplace through the develop-
ment of anti-racist office policies.
Help people of colour navigate asys-
tem of White dominance without
trying to change it.
Broadcast allyship behaviours and
sentiments, without accepting criti-
cism.
Center themselvesand overstate
their own relevance.
Examples:
Offering to bring up issues relating to
BIPOC with other White colleagues
at the next meeting rather than invit-
ing BIPOC to the meeting to voice
concerns.
Are seeking reputational benefits or
personal glorification.
Are motivated by White guilt to feel
like a“good person” or that they
have “done their part.”
Examples:
Going to aBlack Lives Matter protest
and posting the selfies on social
media to broadcast one’s presumed
allyship.
Giving money to acharity to feed
starving children in Africa to feel like
they have done well to support Black
people.
Believe White people have the
unique power to uplift and edify
others.
Have paternalistic attitudes toward
people of colour.
See themselves as uniquely qualified
to bring necessary change.
Examples:
Assuming that aWhite research team
leader is best for everyone rather than
considering that ateam leader of
colour may possess relevant insight
that may be preferable.
Uncritically accepting the perspective
of aWhite person over aBlack per-
son.
Adopting aChinese baby with no
effort to expose the child their ances-
tral language or culture, believing
White American culture is adequate
or superior.
Table 3. White Allies vs. White Saviors
WhiteAllies
Attitudes
Motivation
Action
WhiteSaviors
Continued on p. 279
September •2021 277
278 the Behavior Therapist
WILLIAMS ET AL.
ing cultural differences, and sharing excite-
ment over stories of antiracism victories
that includeallies (Steketee et al., in press;
Sue et al., 2019).Sue et al. also focus on the
importance of actually doing antiracist
actions, and self-identified White allies
taking the concretestepofexposing oneself
to lived experiences of allyship.Inorder to
combat the divergencebetweenally inten-
tion and behavior in potential allies,
including the risks of White saviorship
(Spanierman &Smith, 2017), future inter-
ventions should address allyship with more
intentionality, providing specific instruc-
tions andguidance on actionablesteps that
allies can take. Someofthese concrete steps
may include initiating conversations with
family and friends about racism, donating
to BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of
Color) organizations and movements,
advocating to policymakersaround issues
facing BIPOC people, amplifying BIPOC
voices, increasing support of BIPOC busi-
nesses, or calling out microaggressionsone
encounters in public settings (e.g., Sue et
al., 2019; Thurber &DiAngelo, 2018). In
addition, including mentors and clearly
structuredgoals that extend after the inter-
vention may help to increase allyship
longevity. In that spirit, in Table 3wehigh-
light some characteristics and actions that
can help orient White allies towards more
meaningfulallyship behaviors, as opposed
to White saviorship (Edwards, 2006; Printz
Pereira &George, 2020; Smith et al., 2016;
Spanierman &Smith, 2017; Straubhaar,
2015; Sue et al., 2019). Concrete examples
are provided to help instantiate concepts
that can often seem abstract.
There are some limitations of this
study that should be noted. First, this study
was an exploratory analysis comparing
allyship intention and behavior; given this,
the sample size is small and therefore more
work is needed to make broader conclu-
sions. Second, the study sample was
entirely university students. Research has
shown that allyship is adevelopmental
process that happens in stages (Waters,
2010) and therefore university students
may be in an earlier stage of development
than others, as university is frequently the
first place in which young adults engage
with situationsthat require critical think-
ing. This work should be extended with a
larger sample that represents people from
different age groups, communities, and
geographic areas. Further, debates on
whether attitudes and bias toward people
of color is the same as specific,anti-Black
bias, and how best to capturethat distinc-
tion in exploring Whiteallyship, is outside
the scope of this study (e.g., Sears &Savalei,
2006).
Our study suggests that the problem
with meaningful White allyship is perhaps
not alack of intent, but rather alack of
follow-through and meaningful action.
Self-proclaimed alliesseemtounderstand
the basic idea behind allyship but fall short
when tasked with transforming these ideals
into actions. With this knowledge, future
research might focus on how to promote
allyship behavior among those who either
believe they are allies or aspire to be allies.
One potential way to promote allyship
behavior mightbethrough allyship work-
shopsinwhich allies receive practicalexpe-
riences, tests,and training (e.g., Metinyurt
et al., 2020). And to prevent potential
burnout and/or harm to people of color,
allies should train future allies. By better
understanding this gap and encouraging
people to transform their allyship from
intention to action, it is hoped that White
allies will move farther from the imaginary
realm of unicorns and leprechauns, and
closer to having amoreconcrete and posi-
tive impact on equity and social justice in
our communitiesand profession.
References
Broido, E. M. (2000). The development of
social justice allies during college: Aphe-
nomenological investigation. Journalof
College Student Development, 41,3.
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 ofApplied
SocialPsychology, 43(11), 2211-2222.
Buchanan, N. T. (2020). Researching while
Black(andfemale). Women &Therapy,
43(1-2),91-111.
Draughn,T., Elkins,B., &Roy, R. (2002).
Alliesinthe struggle: Eradicating homo-
phobia and heterosexism on campus.
JournalofLesbianStudies, 6(3-4), 9-20.
Edwards, K. E. (2006).Aspiring socialjus-
ticeallyidentity development: Aconcep-
tualmodel. NASPA Journal,43(4), 39–
60. https://doi:10.2202/0027-6014.1722
Fingerhut, A. (2011). Straight allies: What
predicts heterosexuals’ alliancewith the
LGBT community? JournalofApplied
Social Psychology, 41(9),2230–.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2011.00807.x
Forbes, T. D.,&Ueno, K. (2020). Post-gay,
political, and pieced together: Queer
expectationsofstraight allies. Sociological
Perspectives, 63(1), 159-176.
Gonzalez, K. A., Riggle, E. D., &Rostosky,
S. S. (2015).Cultivating positivefeelings
and attitudes: Apathtoprejudice reduc-
tion andallybehavior. Translational
IssuesinPsychological Science,1(4), 372.
Gopalkrishnan, N.(2018). Cultural diver-
sity andmental health: Considerations
forpolicy and practice. Frontiersin
Public Health, 6, 179.
Guess,T.J.(2006).The socialconstruction
of whiteness: Racism by intent, racism by
consequence. Critical Sociology, 32(4),
649-673.
Haeny,A., Holmes, S., &Williams,M.T.
(inpress). Theneedfor shared nomen-
clature on racism andrelated terminol-
ogy. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Hogg, M. A.,Terry, D. J.,&White, K. M.
(1995). Atale of twotheories: Acritical
comparison of identity theory withsocial
identity theory. SocialPsychology Quar-
terly,58(4), 255-269.
Kanter,J.W., Williams, M. T.,Kuczynski,
A. M.,Corey, M. D., Parigoris, R.M.,
Carey,C.M., Manbeck, K. E.,Wallace, E.
C.,&Rosen, D. C. (2020).The measure-
ment and structure of microaggressive
communicationsbyWhite people. Race
and Social Problems,2,323–343.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12552-020-
09298-w
Mekawi, Y. &Todd, N. R. (2018). Okayto
say?: Initial validation of the acceptability
of racialmicroaggressions scale. Cultural
Diversityand Ethnic Minority Psychology,
24(3), 346-362.https://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/cdp0000201
Metinyurt, T., Haynes-Baratz, M. C., Li, Y.
L., &Bond, M. A. (2020, October 19-20).
Bystander training forfaculty: Apromis-
ing approachtotacklingmicroaggressions
in the academy [Poster]. Second Annual
PublicSummit of theAction Collabora-
tiveonPreventing Sexual Harassment in
Higher Education.
Moore-Berg,S., &Karpinski, A. (2019) An
intersectionalapproach to understanding
how race andsocial classaffect inter-
group processes. Socialand Personality
Psychology Compass, 13(1), e12426.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12426
O'Brien, E. (2001). Whites confront racism:
Antiracistsand their paths to action.
Lanham,MD: Rowman &Littlefield.
Ostrove, J. M.,&Brown, K. T. (2018). Are
allies whowethinktheyare?Acompara-
tiveanalysis. JournalofAppliedSocial
Psychology,48(4), 195–204.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12502
Pauker, K., Ambady, N., &Apfelbaum, E.
P. (2010). Race salienceand essentialist
thinking in racial stereotypedevelop-
ment. Child Development, 81(6), 1799-
1813.
Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive mechanisms.
In F. Barbour (Ed.), In the Black Seventies
(pp. 265–282). PorterSargent.
WHITE ALLIES:SPACE BETWEEN INTENT AND ACTION
Pittinsky, T. L.,&Maruskin, L. (2008).
Allophilia: Beyond tolerance. In S. J.
Lopez(Ed.), Positive psychology: Explor-
ing the best in people,Vol 2: Capitalizing
on emotionalexperiences (pp. 141–148).
Praeger/GreenwoodPublishing.
Pittinsky, T.,Rosenthal, S., &Montoya, R.
(2011). Likingisnotthe oppositeofdis-
liking: The functional separability of
positive and negative attitudes toward
minority groups. CulturalDiversity and
Ethnic MinorityPsychology, 17(2),134–
143. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0023806
Printz Pereira,D.&George, J. (2020). The
ethical obligationofallyship: Whyand
how Whiteprofessionals need to foster
Black equality. theBehavior Therapist,
43(6), 194-200.
Reed, S. (2019, January11). TheDamage
of White Feminism:AnAnecdote.
ChacrunaInstitute. https://chacruna.
net/the-damage-of-white-feminism-
an-anecdote/
Santacrose, L. B., Laurita,A.C.,&
Marchell, T. C. (2020).Intervene: Mod-
elingpro-social bystander behavior in
college students through onlinevideo.
Health Communication,35(4), 397–409.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1
564956
Sears, D. O.,&Savalei, V. (2006).The
political color lineinAmerica: Many
“peoples of color”orBlack exceptional-
ism? Political Psychology, 27(6), 895-924.
Smith, C. (2007). The costofprivilege:
Takingonthe system of Whitesupremacy
and racism.Camino Press.
Smith, J., Puckett, C., &Simon, W. (2016).
Indigenousallyship:Anoverview. Water-
loo,ON: Office of Aboriginal Initiatives,
Wilfrid LaurierUniversity.
Spanierman,L.B.&Smith, L. (2017).
Roles andresponsibilities of White allies:
Implicationsfor research,teaching, and
practice. TheCounseling Psychologist,
45(5), 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0011000017717712
Stangor, C. (2016).The study of stereotyp-
ing, prejudice,and discrimination within
social psychology: Aquick history of
theoryand research. In T. D. Nelson
(Ed.), Handbook of prejudice,stereotyp-
ing,and discrimination (p. 3–27).Psy-
chology Press.
Steketee, A., Williams,M., Valencia,B.,
Printz, D., &Hooper,L.M.(in press).
Racial and language microaggressionsin
theschool ecology. Perspectives on Psy-
chological Science.
Straubhaar,R.(2015) The stark reality of
the ‘White Saviour’ complexand the
need forcritical consciousness: adocu-
ment analysis of theearly journals of a
Freireaneducator. Journal of Compara-
tiveand International Education,45(3),
Table 3continued
WhiteAllies WhiteSaviors
Directing questions about specific or
technical topics to BIPOC colleagues
with subject-matter expertise instead
of answering them themselves.
Talking to friends and family about
the problem of racism.
Stepping down from aleadership role
to allow it to be filled by aperson of
colour who would benefit profession-
ally.
Encouraging Black women to set the
goals and agenda for afeminist orga-
nization traditionally controlled by
White women.
Anticipate that anti-racism work is
an ongoing effort to dismantle indi-
vidual and institutional beliefs, prac-
tices, and polices.
Expect that their education about
diversity issues will be acontinual
process of hard work and self-reflec-
tion
Understand they will receive disap-
proval /punishment from dominant
group members.
Examples:
Offering support to aBIPOC person
without expecting acknowledgement
or thanks.
Speaking up if they witness behaviour
or speech that is degrading or offen-
sive.
Anticipating losing some friends
when talking to them about their
racist behaviours.
Build meaningful relationships with
members of the groups with which
they aspire to ally themselves.
Having several BIPOC as close
friends whom one would reach out
to if in need.
Examples:
Checking in with therapy clients of
colour when something racist has
happened in the media, and showing
care and support.
Avoiding sharing potentially trauma-
tizing material, such as videos depict-
ing the murder of Black individuals
Maintain hierarchical or distant
relationships with members of the
groups with which they wish to ally
themselves.
Having no BIPOC as close friends.
Examples:
Pathologizing aBIPOC therapy client
over an emotional reaction to racism
in the media, advising the person to
be calm and rational instead of justi-
fiably distressed.
Psychology researchers looking for
diversity in their participant pool but
not in their own research team.
Expect acknowledgement, credit
and/or glory for efforts.
Expect everyone to agree when they
refer to themselves as allies.
Expect BIPOC to be grateful for
their good intentions, even if they
accidentally cause harm.
Examples:
Expecting praise and support for
writing anti-racism posts on social
media.
Expecting credit for chairing adiver-
sity committee at their workplace.
Stopping efforts to recruit BIPOC
graduate students after receiving
unexpected criticism from higher-ups.
Action
Expectations
Connection
Creating adiversity vision statement
for an organization about getting
BIPOC to support existing organiza-
tional goals rather than creating a
shared organizational vision with
BIPOC.
Organizing apanel presentation
about Hispanic mental health with-
out any Hispanic people on the panel.
Afeminist organization using stories
of oppressed Black women to garner
donations without addressing the dif-
ferent needs of Black women.
Continued on p. 281
September •2021 279
Table 3continued
WhiteAllies WhiteSaviors
Connection
Accountability
or Black bodies lying on the street,
out of respect and caring.
Listening and asking questions when
someone describes an experience of
racism, without inserting own per-
sonal stories or attempting to link a
racist experience to aWhite experi-
ence.
Achurch that offers bilingual services
to better connect with locals from
immigrant communities.
Work to understand the needs of the
groups to which they hope to ally
themselves and hold themselves
accountable to those groups.
Examples:
Asking people of colour (colleagues,
community stakeholders, friends) for
constructive criticism of anti-racist
efforts.
Accepting the label of “ally” only
from recognized members of the non-
dominant groups with which they
wish to ally themselves
Conducting participatory research
with acommunity of colour, where
BIPOC share equal or greater power
in decision making.
Do nothold themselves accountable
to the groups with which they claim
to ally themselves, but only to their
own goals.
Examples:
Requesting more funding for EDI ini-
tiatives without getting feedback from
BIPOC on the relevance or success of
those initiatives.
Making misleading claims about an
indigenous heritage in order to create
credibility when discussing Native
American issues.
Implementing asubstance abuse
intervention in acommunity of
colour without permission from the
community leaders.
Partnering with Black trainees as
coauthors but not collaborating with
Black scholars of equal rank that
might be empowered to disagree.
Achurch sending missionaries to
Africa with no effort to bring Black
people from the local community into
the congregation.
381-400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
03057925.2013.876306
Suárez-Orozco, C., Casanova, S.,Martin,
M.,Katsiaficas,D., Cuellar, V., Smith, N.
A.,&Dias,S.I.(2015).Toxic rain in class:
Classroom interpersonal microaggres-
sions. EducationalResearcher,44(3), 151–
160.
Sue, D., Alsaidi,S., Awad, M., Glaeser, E.,
Calle, C., &Mendez, N. (2019). Disarm-
ingracial microaggressions: Microinter-
vention strategies for targets,White
allies, and bystanders. AmericanPsychol-
ogist, 74(1), 128–142. https://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/amp0000296
Thurber,A.&DiAngelo, R. (2018)
Microaggressions: Interveninginthree
acts. Journal of Ethnic &Cultural Diver-
sityinSocial Work, 27(1), 17-27.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313204.201
7.1417941
Washington, J.,&Evans,N.J.(1991).
Becoming an ally. Beyondtolerance:Gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals on campus.Ameri-
can College Personnel Association.
Waters, R. (2010). Understanding ally-
hoodasadevelopmental process. About
Campus, 15(5), 2–8.https://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/abc.20035
Williams,M.T.(2020). Preventing
microaggressions in therapy(and life in
general), Chapter7.InM.T.Williams
(Eds.), Managingmicroaggressions:
Addressing everydayracism in therapeu-
tic spaces (p. 117-133).Oxford Univer-
sity Press.https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
med-psych/9780190875237
Williams, M. T., Kanter, J. W., Peña, A.,
Ching, T. W. C.,&Oshin, L. (2020).
Reducing microaggressions and promot-
ing interracial connection: The Racial
Harmony Workshop. Journal of Contex-
tual and Behavioral Science, 16,153-161.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.04.
008
Williams,M.T.&Sharif, N. (2021).Mea-
suring allyship:Anovel technique and
newinsights. NewIdeas in Psychology,
62,100865. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.newideapsych.2021.100865
...
This projectwas undertaken, in part, thanks
to fundingfrom the CanadaResearch
Chairs Programand the American Psycho-
logical Foundation.
The authors have no conflicts of interest
to report.
Correspondence to Monnica T. Williams,
Ph.D., University of Ottawa, School of Psy-
chology, 136Jean-JacquesLussier,Vanier
Hall, Ottawa, Ontario,K1N 6N5,Canada
Monnica.Williams@uOttawa.ca
Continued from p. 279
September •2021 281
•COVID-19
•Resources for Anxiety
•Coping in the Real World
•Telehealth Resources
ABCT Has Links to Incredible Resources
Pertaining to COVID-19and Telehealth
https://www.abct.org/featured-articles/
