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

IF 3.4 2区管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104332

Deshani B. Ganegoda , Jigyashu Shukla , Debra L. Shapiro

{"title":"Garnering support for social justice: When and why is “yes” likelier for “allies” versus “disadvantaged group advocates”?","authors":"Deshani B. Ganegoda , Jigyashu Shukla , Debra L. Shapiro","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Via three studies (two experiment-based and one critical incident-based) we test <em>when</em> and <em>why</em> 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 104332"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597824000244/pdfft?md5=70d2fd0e7532bc93876f2ea6d0949ccd&pid=1-s2.0-S0749597824000244-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597824000244","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

为社会正义争取支持：盟友 "与 "弱势群体倡导者 "何时以及为何更容易获得 "支持"？

通过三项研究（两项以实验为基础，一项以关键事件为基础），我们检验了社会正义呼吁在由弱势群体倡导者（DGA）或盟友（即分别属于或不属于呼吁中提到的边缘化群体的人）发出时获得更多支持的时间和原因。正如假设的那样，当接受者对弱势群体有强烈认同感时，由弱势群体倡导者（而非盟友）发出的社会正义呼吁会得到更多的支持；而当这种认同感较弱时，这种模式就会发生逆转。正如我们所预测的那样，这种互动效应受接受者对自己与倡导者相似性的看法、呼吁的可信度以及他们的同理心的影响。我们的研究结果表明，有必要扩大理论研究的范围，使其超越人口统计学对DGA与盟友说服力的影响，并说明在选择倡导者时考虑呼吁-接受者认同的重要性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Multiple-

CiteScore

8.90

自引率

4.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context