Psychological discomfort can motivate, demotivate, or even backfire upon efforts to encourage allyship. We consider the intensity of such discomfort to test curvilinear relationships between psychological discomfort and Whites’ engagement in equity efforts. Across four pre-registered studies (N = 4,563), we find support for our curvilinear model. First, we explore the relationship between collective discomfort and allyship intentions. While we find that collective discomfort is linearly associated with greater allyship, we find little evidence of diminishing returns. Second, we find a curvilinear relationship between collective discomfort and defensive reactions: Both low and high discomfort was associated with increasing defensive reactions to evidence of racial inequity (victimhood claiming, stigma reversal) than moderate discomfort. Thus, we provide empirical support for the idea that dominant group members who experience high (vs. moderate) discomfort in the face of social inequality may be less likely to support equity. We offer insights on how to manage this issue
AdamsG.EdkinsV.LackaD.PickettK. M.CheryanS. (2008). Teaching about racism: Pernicious implications of the standard portrayal. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802502309
2.
AdamsJ. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
3.
AllenA. M.LeachC. W. (2018). The psychology of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “creative maladjustment” at societal injustice and oppression. Journal of Social Issues, 74(2), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12271
4.
AmodioD. M.DevineP. G.Harmon-JonesE. (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
5.
Ashburn-NardoL. (2018). What can allies do? In ColellaA. J.KingE. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of workplace discrimination (pp. 373–386). Oxford University Press.
6.
BaumeisterR. F.StillwellA. M.HeathertonT. F. (1995). Personal narratives about guilt: Role in action control and interpersonal relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1–2), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.1995.9646138
7.
BoutteG. S.JacksonT. O. (2014). Advice to White allies: Insights from faculty of color. Race Ethnicity and Education, 17(5), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.759926
BrownK. T.OstroveJ. 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
10.
BrownR.GonzálezR.ZagefkaH.ManziJ.ČehajićS. (2008). Nuestra culpa: Collective guilt and shame as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.75
11.
CaseK. A. (2012). Discovering the privilege of Whiteness: White women’s reflections on anti-racist identity and ally behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01737.x
12.
CheathamL. B.TormalaZ. L. (2017). The curvilinear relationship between attitude certainty and attitudinal advocacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216673349
13.
Chrobot-MasonD.CampbellK.VasonT. (2020). Whiteness in organizations: From White supremacy to allyship. In Chrobot-MasonD.CampbellK.VasonT. (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management (pp. 1–27). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.195
14.
CichockaA.GórskaP.JostJ. T.SuttonR. M.BilewiczM. (2017). What inverted U can do for your country: A curvilinear relationship between confidence in the social system and political engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(5), 883–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000168
15.
CohenT. R.WolfS. T.PanterA. T.InskoC. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 947–966. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022641
16.
CraigM. A.BadaanV.BrownR. 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
17.
DanboldF.OnyeadorI. N.UnzuetaM. M. (2022). Dominant groups support digressive victimhood claims to counter accusations of discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98, 104233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104233
18.
DangC. T.JoshiA. (2023). On the plurality and politics of ally work: Liberalism and self, relational, and organizational ally work. Academy of Management Journal, 66(5), 1554–2023. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.0999
19.
De SouzaL.SchmaderT. (2025). When people do allyship: A typology of allyship action. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 29(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241232732
20.
Du BoisW. E. B. D. (1939). Black folk, then and now: An essay in the history and sociology of the negro race. Henry Holt.
21.
EdwardsK. E. (2006). Aspiring social justice ally identity development: A conceptual model. NASPA Journal, 43(4), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1722
22.
ErskineS. E.BilimoriaD. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819848993
GauselN.LeachC. W.VignolesV. L.BrownR. (2012). Defend or repair? Explaining responses to in-group moral failure by disentangling feelings of shame, rejection, and inferiority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 941. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027233
25.
GoldenbergA.SaguyT.HalperinE. (2014). How group-based emotions are shaped by collective emotions: Evidence for emotional transfer and emotional burden. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037462
26.
GrantA. M.SchwartzB. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393523
HarthN. S.KesslerT.LeachC. W. (2008). Advantaged group’s emotional reactions to intergroup inequality: The dynamics of pride, guilt, and sympathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207309193
29.
HarveyR. D.OswaldD. L. (2000). Collective guilt and shame as motivation for White support of black programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(9), 1790–1811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02468.x
30.
HelmsJ. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on counseling: A Black and White model. The Counseling Psychologist, 12(3–4), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000084124013
31.
HidegI.WilsonA. E. (2020). History backfires: Reminders of past injustices against women undermine support for workplace policies promoting women. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 156, 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.001
32.
Individual Freedom Act, CS/HB 7 (2022).
33.
IyerA.LeachC. W.CrosbyF. 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
34.
IyerA.SchmaderT.LickelB. (2007). Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: The role of anger, shame, and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 572–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206297402
35.
JunS.ChowR. M.van der VeenA. M.BleichE. (2022). Chronic frames of social inequality: How mainstream media frame race, gender, and wealth inequality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(21), Article e2110712119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2110712119
36.
KnowlesE. D.LoweryB. S. (2012). Meritocracy, self-concerns, and Whites’ denial of racial inequity. Self and Identity, 11(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.542015
37.
KnowlesE. D.LoweryB. S.ChowR. M.UnzuetaM. M. (2014). Deny, distance, or dismantle? How White Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614554658
38.
KutlacaM.RadkeH. R. M. (2023). Towards an understanding of performative allyship: Definition, antecedents and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(2), Article e12724. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12724
39.
KutlacaM.RadkeH. R. M.IyerA.BeckerJ. C. (2020). Understanding allies’ participation in social change: A multiple perspectives approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1248–1258. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2720
40.
LeachC. W.IyerA.PedersenA. (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
41.
LeachC. W.SniderN.IyerA. (2002). “Poisoning the consciences of the fortunate”: The experience of relative advantage and support for social equality. In WalkerI.SmithH. J. (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 136–163). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527753.007
LeighA.MelwaniS. (2019). #BlackEmployeesMatter: Mega-threats, identity fusion, and enacting positive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 564–591. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0127
44.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
45.
LoweryB. S.KnowlesE. D.UnzuetaM. M. (2007). Framing inequity safely: Whites’ motivated perceptions of racial privilege. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1237–1250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207303016
46.
McIntoshP. (1989). Unpacking the knapsack of White privilege.
47.
MironA. M.BranscombeN. R.SchmittM. T. (2006). Collective guilt as distress over illegitimate intergroup inequality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206062075
48.
MontadaL.SchneiderA. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Social Justice Research, 3(4), 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048081
NortonM. I.SommersS. R. (2011). Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 215–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406922
51.
OnyeadorI. N.DaumeyerN. M.RuckerJ. M.DukerA.KrausM. W.RichesonJ. A. (2021). Disrupting Beliefs in racial progress: Reminders of persistent racism alter perceptions of past, but not current, racial economic equality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(5), 753–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220942625
PhillipsL. T.LoweryB. S. (2015). The hard-knock life? Whites claim hardships in response to racial inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.008
54.
PhillipsL. T.LoweryB. S. (2018). Herd invisibility: The psychology of racial privilege. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417753600
55.
PhillipsL. T.LoweryB. S. (2020). I ain’t no fortunate one: On the motivated denial of class privilege. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(6), 1403–1422. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000240
56.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
57.
PowellA. A.BranscombeN. R.SchmittM. T. (2005). Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 508–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271713
58.
PuryearC.SteeleL. M.LawlerJ.VandelloJ. (2020). Reminders of ingroup privilege often threaten identity but rarely change beliefs. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gvjkc
59.
RadkeH. R. M.KutlacaM.SiemB.WrightS. C.BeckerJ. C. (2021). Beyond allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 47(5), 753–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320918698
60.
RosetteA. S.KovalC. Z. (2018). Framing advantageous inequity with a focus on others: A catalyst for equity restoration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.002
61.
SaguyT.Chernyak-HaiL.AndrighettoL.BrysonJ. (2013). When the powerful feels wronged: The legitimization effects of advantaged group members’ sense of being accused for harboring racial or ethnic biases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1948
62.
ScullyM.RothenbergS.BeatonE. E.TangZ. (2018). Mobilizing the wealthy: Doing “privilege work” and challenging the roots of inequality. Business & Society, 57(6), 1075–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317698941
63.
ShojaieA.FoxE. B. (2022). Granger causality: A review and recent advances. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 9(1), 289–319.
64.
SimonsohnU. (2018). Two lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918805755
65.
SullivanD.LandauM. J.BranscombeN. R.RothschildZ. K. (2012). Competitive victimhood as a response to accusations of ingroup harm doing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 778–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026573
66.
SwimJ. K.MillerD. L. (1999). White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 500–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025004008
67.
TangneyJ. P. (2005). The self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride. In DalgleishT.PowerM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 541–568). John Wiley Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013494.ch26
68.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC.MavorK. I. (2009). Transforming “apathy into movement”:The role of prosocial emotions in motivating action for social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309343290
69.
UnzuetaM. M.LoweryB. S. (2008). Defining racism safely: The role of self-image maintenance on White Americans’ conceptions of racism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1491–1497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.011
70.
van LeeuwenE.van DijkW.KaynakÜ. (2013). Of saints and sinners: How appeals to collective pride and guilt affect outgroup helping. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(6), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213485995
71.
van ZomerenM.SaguyT.SchellhaasF. M. H. (2013). Believing in “making a difference” to collective efforts: Participative efficacy beliefs as a unique predictor of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 618–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212467476
72.
WarrenM. A.WarrenM. T. (2023). The EThIC model of virtue-based allyship development: A new approach to equity and inclusion in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 182, 783–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-05002-z
73.
WohlM. J. A.BranscombeN. R.KlarY. (2006). Collective guilt: Emotional reactions when one’s group has done wrong or been wronged. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280600574815
74.
XuH.BègueL.BushmanB. J. (2012). Too fatigued to care: Ego depletion, guilt, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1183–1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.007
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
