Mobilized or marginalized? Understanding low-status groups' responses to social justice efforts led by high-status groups.

Abstract

Members of high-status groups (e.g., men) often lead social justice efforts that seek to benefit low-status groups (e.g., women), but little is known about how observers respond to such instances of visible and influential solidarity. We presented information about a nonprofit organization seeking to address gender (Study 1, N = 198) or racial (Study 2, N = 216) inequality, in which the leadership team was manipulated to include a numerical majority of either high-status group members or low-status group members. Members of low-status groups who read about the majority high-status leadership team reported lower levels of collective action intentions, compared with those who read about the majority low-status leadership team. Mediation analyses (Studies 1 and 2) and an experimental-causal-chain design (Study 3, N = 405) showed that lower collective action intentions in response to the majority high-status leadership team were mediated by participants' perception of a specific problem presented by high-status group leaders (lower awareness of inequality) and lower levels of hope. Study 4 (N = 555) demonstrated that low-status group members responded more negatively to a majority high-status leadership team in an organization seeking to benefit their low-status ingroup (solidarity context), compared with organizations seeking to benefit other groups (nonsolidarity contexts). Results provide the first evidence that the presence of influential high-status group leaders can discourage members of low-status groups from joining a social justice effort that seeks to benefit their ingroup, and that these negative responses extend beyond preferences predicted by frameworks of ingroup bias and role congruity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).