A costly penny for your thoughts?: Allies cause harm by soliciting disadvantaged group members' voice when confronting prejudice

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A COSTLY PENNY FOR YOUR THOUGHTS?: ALLIES CAUSE HARM BY SOLICITING
DISADVANTAGED GROUP MEMBERS’ VOICE WHEN CONFRONTING PREJUDICE
by
Merrick Osborne

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)
December 2022

ii

DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to the Osbornes, Robinsons, Philpots, and Saunders who both came
before me and stand with me. This dissertation is more than just a culmination of their efforts;
rather, I want for it to be a continuation of the momentum that was generated from their blood,
sweat, tears, and sacrifices. I look to honor their legacy by representing them in my work,
teaching, and beyond.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Although I authored this dissertation, a small legion of mentors and supporters
empowered every keystroke. I am thankful to so many people who filled me with love, hope,
knowledge, and inspiration along the way. First, I would like to thank my advisor, Eric Anicich.
Eric, you taught me a host of lessons. But it was the implicit ones – your patience, curiosity, and
perseverance – that made being your student such a special experience. You showed me how to
be what I have always wanted to be: a scientist.
To the other members of my committee: each of you played key roles in my journey.
Nate Fast, you were one of the first faculty members at USC that I interacted with. Your
exuberance and charisma drew me into the program, but it was your supportiveness and
compassion that kept me in. Leigh Tost, through your guidance, I began to understand how
mastering science could become an artform; once I realized that, I never wanted to look at
science the same. Sarah Townsend, I deeply respect your research, your mission, and the way
you empower myself and the other PhD students. You guided me both directly and through your
mentees. I hope to have a similar influence when I become a professor. Morteza Dehghani, you
and your lab have made me feel at home. Your guidance and mentorship have served to be
invaluable for my development, growth, and self-worth. Your warmth has instilled in me
confidence and self-compassion. Thank you.
I would also like to express supreme gratitude to the other students and staff in the
Management and Organizations department at Marshall. In particular, I would like to thank Drs.
Martha Maimone and Maurice Murphy. Representation matters – and when I saw your smiling
faces the first time I stepped on to campus, I knew I would never be alone here.

iv

I would also like to thank my support system – my mentors and peers in the Management
Doctoral Student Association, The Great Awakening, and the friends and family who encouraged
me to think about the world differently. To my immediate family: Martin Osborne, Miriam
Robinson, and Morinne Osborne. I don’t know where I would be without the three of you – but I
certainly would not have gotten here. You taught me how to be me, even when I didn’t want to
be. Although this is my final degree, each of you inspire me to be a lifelong learner. You have
helped me to smile on my hardest days, and take perspective of my best ones. Morinne, you have
been by my side (and fielding my calls) since we were little, and helped me see the world as a
place that is full of questions, rather than answers. Being your older brother is a privilege. Mom
and Dad, I am proud to be your son. Both of you made tremendous sacrifices for us, and have
provided so much love and spiritual sustenance. Thank you for being there for me, even when it
was hard. Finally, I would like to thank Megan Aguilera. You have listened to my half-baked
ideas, held me when I cried, and prayed with me as I tried to find my way to this point. Thank
you for being my confidant, support system, and making me laugh way too hard.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT .............................. 1
Allyship and prejudice confrontation .......................................................................................... 3
Confronting prejudice as a form of voice expression ................................................................. 4
Soliciting voice during prejudice confrontations ........................................................................ 5
Consequences of soliciting voice during prejudice confrontations ............................................ 9
Repercussions on ally’s competence ........................................................................................ 13
The indirect effect of soliciting voice during a prejudice confrontation on status conferral
through emotional burden is conditional on dispositional and situational factors.................... 15
Overview of studies .................................................................................................................. 19
CHAPTER 2: EMPIRICAL TEST OF THEORY ........................................................................ 20
STUDY 1 .................................................................................................................................. 20
Participants and procedures .................................................................................................. 20
Measures ............................................................................................................................... 21
Results ................................................................................................................................... 23
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 25
STUDY 2 .................................................................................................................................. 26
Participants and procedures .................................................................................................. 27
Measures ............................................................................................................................... 28
Results ................................................................................................................................... 30
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 32
STUDY 3 .................................................................................................................................. 34
Participants and procedures .................................................................................................. 35
Measures ............................................................................................................................... 37
Results ................................................................................................................................... 38
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 39
STUDY 4 .................................................................................................................................. 41

vi

Participants and procedures .................................................................................................. 41
Measures ............................................................................................................................... 42
Results ................................................................................................................................... 43
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 47
STUDY 5 .................................................................................................................................. 50
Participants and procedures .................................................................................................. 52
Prejudice confrontation manipulations ................................................................................. 54
Measures ............................................................................................................................... 54
Results ................................................................................................................................... 55
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 58
STUDY 6 .................................................................................................................................. 59
Participants and procedures .................................................................................................. 60
Measures ............................................................................................................................... 64
Results ................................................................................................................................... 65
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 66
CHAPTER 3: GENERAL DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 68
Theoretical contributions .......................................................................................................... 70
Limitations and future directions .............................................................................................. 74
Practical implications ................................................................................................................ 77
References ..................................................................................................................................... 79
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 93
Appendix A: Supplemental Studies .......................................................................................... 93
Supplemental Study 1: Pilot Study ....................................................................................... 93
Supplemental Study 2 ......................................................................................................... 105
Appendix B: Measures across studies..................................................................................... 114
Measures roadmap .............................................................................................................. 114
Mediators ............................................................................................................................ 115
Outcome Variables.............................................................................................................. 115
Moderator Variables ........................................................................................................... 115
Control Variables ................................................................................................................ 116
Appendix C: Manipulations and materials ............................................................................. 117
Study 1 Manipulations and materials .................................................................................. 117

vii

Study 2 Manipulations and materials .................................................................................. 117
Studies 3 and 4 Manipulations and materials ..................................................................... 118
Study 5 Manipulations and materials .................................................................................. 121
Study 6 Manipulations and materials .................................................................................. 123
Supplemental Study 2 Manipulations and materials ........................................................... 126

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations ................................................. 25
Table 2: Study 1 Regression Results ............................................................................................ 25
Table 3: Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations ................................................. 32
Table 4: Study 2 Regression results .............................................................................................. 32
Table 5: Study 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations ................................................. 39
Table 6: Study 3 Regression results .............................................................................................. 40
Table 7: Study 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations ................................................. 49
Table 8: Study 4 Regression results .............................................................................................. 50
Table 9: Study 5 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations ................................................. 58
Table 10: Study 5 ANCOVA Results ........................................................................................... 58
Table 11: Study 5 Confidence intervals for indirect effects with control variables ..................... 59
Table 12: Study 6 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations ............................................... 68
Table 15: Supplemental Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations ...................... 112
Table 16: Supplemental Study 2 Regression Results ................................................................. 112

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study 1 Results .............................................................................................................. 26
Figure 2: Study 2 Results .............................................................................................................. 34
Figure 3: Study 3 Results .............................................................................................................. 40
Figure 4: Study 4 Results .............................................................................................................. 50
Figure 5: Study 5 Results .............................................................................................................. 59
Figure 6: Study 6 Results .............................................................................................................. 68
Figure 7: Supplemental Study 2 Results ..................................................................................... 112

x

ABSTRACT
When confronting acts of prejudice in the workplace, allies may solicit input—or voice—from
marginalized employees, thereby involving them (potentially against their will) in the
confrontation. Across six studies (N=2,864; five of which were pre-registered) and two
supplemental studies (N=772)—using multiple prejudice confrontation and voice solicitation
situations, as well as different disadvantaged groups (i.e., women and racially marginalized
individuals)—I find that soliciting voice from disadvantaged group members has negative
affective consequences for the disadvantaged group member and negative evaluative
consequences for the ally. Specifically, members of disadvantaged groups whose voices are
directly solicited (vs. not directly solicited) by an ally during a prejudice confrontation
experience more emotional burden; in turn, they view the ally as less deserving of status and
seek to minimize their future exposure to the ally. Integrating insights from the prejudice
confrontation and organizational voice literatures, these findings highlight the theoretical value
and practical importance of examining prejudice confrontations from the disadvantaged group
member’s perspective.
Keywords: prejudice confrontations, voice, voice solicitation, status conferral, emotional burden

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
Despite widespread organizational interest in addressing various forms of workplace
prejudice, members of disadvantaged groups continue to experience unfair treatment and
discriminatory work outcomes at alarming rates (Society for Human Resource Management,
2021; see also Roberts & Rizzo, 2021; Rucker & Richeson, 2021). This impacts their work
experiences, reducing job satisfaction (Hughes & Dodge, 1997), job performance (Dardenne et
al., 2007), feelings of inclusiveness (Smith et al., 2018) and opportunities for advancement
(Tinsley et al., 2017). Past work has also linked experiencing prejudice to detrimental
physiological and psychological outcomes, including greater distress (Hatzenbuehler et al.,
2009), anxiety (Boykin et al., 2020; Smith, 2010) and identity threat (McCluney et al., 2017).
Workplace prejudice is thus extremely costly to organizations. Indeed, one report estimated that
employee turnover due to workplace racism has cost U.S. organizations $172 billion over the
past five years (Society for Human Resource Management, 2021).
Emerging evidence suggests that allies—advantaged group members who display “a
desire to improve the status or circumstances of the disadvantaged group” (Radke et al., 2020, p.
291; see also Louis et al., 2019)—can impact the frequency and intensity of prejudice displays in
the workplace. Specifically, allies can help reduce workplace prejudice (e.g., Brown, Craig, &
Apfelbaum, 2021; Czopp & Monteith, 2003) by voicing their disapproval of prejudice displays.
For instance, a White male can tell another male colleague that his comments were sexist or ask
a White coworker to apologize for making assumptions about a teammate based on their race.
In an effort to confront prejudice, an ally may choose to solicit input from a
disadvantaged group member whose identity was targeted. This gives the disadvantaged group
member the opportunity to critique, build on, or validate the ally’s confrontation – however, it
may leave some disadvantaged group members feeling fraught, as their involvement could

2

negatively influence their well-being and future career outcomes. In the present work, I argue
that when an ally directly solicits (vs. does not directly solicit) a disadvantaged group member’s
voice during a prejudice confrontation, the disadvantaged group member experiences more
emotional burden. In turn, they confer less status on the ally, express less interest in working
with the ally, and less strongly support the ally leading diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)
efforts in the workplace. I further propose that these effects do not emerge when an ally merely
references a disadvantaged group member during a prejudice confrontation (without directly
soliciting their voice) or when an ally solicits voice from the group as a whole during a prejudice
confrontation (without singling out a disadvantaged group member).
My work draws on and extends both the prejudice confrontation and voice literatures to
reveal how allies can confront prejudice without harming the people they aim to help. Examining
this phenomenon from disadvantaged group members’ perspectives helps me respond to
longstanding calls from social psychologists to study issues of racial prejudice from racially
marginalized group members’ perspectives (see Shelton, 2000) and management scholars to
scrutinize men’s roles in addressing sexism (e.g., Joshi et al., 2015). Historically, this literature
has primarily focused on confrontations from the perpetrator’s or confronter’s perspective. For
instance, research on the perpetrator’s perspective asks questions such as “Which confrontations
reduce prejudice the most in the perpetrator?” (e.g., Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006), revealing
that perpetrators are more amenable to confrontations by advantaged group members than
disadvantaged group members. Research on the confronter’s perspective asks questions such as
“Why would someone confront?” (e.g., Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, & Goodwin, 2008; Brown et al.,
2021), developing insights to motivate advantaged group members to confront. I, instead, turn
my focus to another party who may become involved in the interaction: nearby disadvantaged

3

group members. I predict that disadvantaged group members whose voices are solicited by allies
during a prejudice confrontation not only experience greater emotional burden than those whose
voices are not solicited, but also see the allies who solicit their voice as less competent. In turn,
they confer fewer social rewards on said allies.
Examining prejudice confrontations from the disadvantaged group members’ perspective
affords researchers a more complete picture of these situations—and helps determine how allies
can support disadvantaged group members without undermining them. My theorizing and
findings also qualify the pervasive view that organizational voice in general, and voice
solicitation in particular, lead to positive individual and organizational outcomes (e.g., Detert &
Burris, 2007; Fast, Burris, & Bartel, 2014; Park et al., 2022): in fact, I identify a context wherein
inviting a colleague to share their opinion could have negative repercussions for both the inviter
and the invitee.
Allyship and prejudice confrontation
Allies can play an important role in enhancing workplace outcomes for disadvantaged
group members by engaging in prejudice confrontations, or “directly communicating to the
source of prejudice one’s disagreement or displeasure with the prejudicial treatment” (Becker &
Barreto 2019, p. 142; see also Brown et al., 2021; Chaney & Wedell, 2022; Czopp et al., 2006;
Swim et al., 2009). Confronting a perpetrator’s prejudice reduces their subsequent prejudice
expressions (e.g., Burns & Monteith, 2019; Chaney & Sanchez, 2018; Czopp et al., 2006; Mallet
& Wagner, 2011; Rasinski & Czopp, 2010; for a review, see Mallet & Monteith, 2019) and can
lead to positive, long-term changes in the perpetrator’s outgroup attitudes towards disadvantaged
group members, a critical component of prejudice reduction (e.g., Rokeach & McLellan, 1972).
I focus on prejudice confrontations initiated by allies because such confrontations are
seen as more legitimate—and ultimately prove to be more effective—than those initiated by

4

disadvantaged group members. For instance, White perpetrators engage in fewer subsequent
prejudice displays after being confronted by another White person than a Black person (Gervais
& Hillard, 2014; Schultz & Maddox, 2013), in part because the Black person is seen as
“complaining” or “unreasonable” (e.g., Kaiser & Miller, 2001; 2003). Similarly, a woman who
confronts sexism is more likely to be perceived as “crying prejudice” than a man, because she is
seen as “over-sensitive” to sexism displays (Czopp & Monteith, 2003). Scholars theorized that
these results arise from perceptions that allies have less of a personal stake in reducing prejudice
than disadvantaged group members, making their confrontations more surprising (Petty et al.,
2001) and ultimately more effective at reducing prejudice (e.g., Czopp & Monteith, 2003).
Relatively little research, however, has considered how disadvantaged group members
experience and respond to prejudice confrontations from allies. This is important to explore, as
disadvantaged group members benefit from confronting prejudice (e.g., Forsyth & Carter, 2012;
Noh & Kaspar, 2003) and oftentimes express a desire to confront (e.g., Shelton & Stewart, 2004;
Swim & Hyers, 1999; Swim et al., 2003). Allies’ confrontations could thus reduce disadvantaged
group members’ access to these benefits and their ability to manage how they respond to the
prejudice display; therefore, it is important to understand when disadvantaged group members
support (or oppose) an allies’ confrontation, and why.
Confronting prejudice as a form of voice expression
The literature on organizational voice offers a useful lens through which to investigate
disadvantaged group members’ perspectives of prejudice confrontations: it examines when
employees express ideas, concerns, suggestions, or opinions about work issues (e.g., Morrison,
2011; Park et al., 2022), and the outcomes of doing so. At the organizational level, expressing
more voice has been associated with enhanced organizational effectiveness (Lam & Mayer,
2014; Morrison & Milliken, 2000); at the team level, voice helps to minimize team errors (Detert

5

et al., 2013), increase worker safety (Li & Tangirala, 2021), and improve the team’s performance
(Li, Liao, Tangirala, & Firth, 2017; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). At the individual level, greater
voice is associated with employees’ increased perceptions of justice (Brockner et al., 2001; Lind,
Kanfer, & Earley, 1990; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995) and increased status for the voicer in
some situations (e.g., Bain et al., 2022; McClean et al., 2018; Weiss & Morrison, 2018). While
this literature has not extensively focused on expressing voice in response to workplace
prejudice, it has developed a form of voice that broadly speaks to confronting prejudice:
prohibitive voice, wherein an employee verbalizes issues to a colleague in an effort to challenge
the status quo (e.g., Bain et al., 2022; Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012).
Given their similarities in conceptualizations and psychological outcomes, I consider
confronting prejudice as a type of prohibitive voice expression. Like confronting prejudice,
prohibitive voice draws attention to problems (Liang et al., 2012), in an effort to help the
organization (and its members) avoid undesirable outcomes (Lin & Johnson, 2015). Expressing
prohibitive voice can empower employees, as doing so allows them to highlight issues that
negatively impact them (Lam et al., 2022); indeed, speaking out against prejudice has been
linked to similar benefits (e.g., Gervais et al., 2010; Sanchez et al., 2016; Swim & Thomas,
2006). Employees may not always express prohibitive voice, though, due to worries about
backlash (e.g., Huang et al., 2018) – a concern that allies likely share when deciding if they
should confront (Czopp & Monteith, 2003). Thus, given the overlap in psychological
experiences and outcomes of prohibitive voice and prejudice confrontations, I conceptualize
confronting prejudice as a type of prohibitive voice expression.
Soliciting voice during prejudice confrontations
Due to its value in facilitating organizational functioning (e.g., see Bain et al., 2021),
scholars have devoted substantial attention to identifying ways to encourage workplace voice.

6

One such strategy, voice solicitation, involves one person (the solicitor) asking another person
(the solicitee) for input and suggestions (e.g., Fast et al., 2014; Park et al., 2022). Soliciting a
coworker’s voice offers benefits for both the solicitor and the solicitee. For instance, soliciting a
coworker’s input signals to the solicitor that their insights are welcome (e.g., Detert & Burris,
2007; Ng & Feldman, 2012; Park et al., 2022) and will be heeded (Tangirala & Ramanujam,
2012), leading them to be more motivated at work (Zapata-Phelan et al., 2009), feel more
included in the organization (e.g., Park et al., 2022), and reduce their turnover (McClean et al.,
2013). In turn, the solicitor is seen as a more interpersonally effective (Fast et al., 2014),
supportive (e.g., Morrison, 2011), and considerate (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012) colleague.
Returning to the prejudice confrontation context, allies may solicit voice from
disadvantaged group members for a number of reasons. For instance, they may feel insufficiently
equipped or qualified to confront (e.g., Good, Moss-Racusin, & Sanchez, 2012; van Zomeren,
2013), or not feel articulate enough to address the prejudice display (e.g., Sherf, Tangirala, &
Weber, 2017). Moreover, expressing prohibitive voice (e.g., by confronting prejudice) is “more
likely [than other types of voice expression] to be perceived as threatening and provoke
backlash” (Bain et al., 2022, p. 1293). Thus, allies may shy away from confronting prejudice and
stay silent (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009).
To address these concerns, allies could then seek to involve disadvantaged group
members in the confrontation. This dovetails with the societal expectations placed on
disadvantaged group members to educate their advantaged group colleagues about prejudice
(e.g., Hodgson, 2019; Tita-Reid, 2020; Wilson, 2020), as some perceive disadvantaged group
members are better equipped to talk about why a behavior was prejudiced (Duguid, 2011; Ely,
1994; Ibarra, 1995; Loyd & Amoroso, 2018). In line with these expectations, allies may think

7

that calling on disadvantaged group members could lend legitimacy to their confrontation (e.g.,
Hussain, Tangirala, & Sherf, in press), and buffer against possible backlash.
Furthermore, by soliciting their voice, allies invite disadvantaged group members to
claim the benefits associated with engaging in voice behaviors and confronting prejudice. For
instance, confronting prejudice has been associated with a host of positive psychological
outcomes for the disadvantaged group member, such as heightened self-esteem, feelings of
competence and empowerment (Gervais et al., 2010), a restored sense of control following a
transgression (Swim & Thomas, 2006), as well as increased perceptions of personal autonomy
(Sanchez et al., 2016). Additionally, disadvantaged group members who address prejudice have
been reported to experience important health benefits, such as better blood pressure (e.g., Krieger
& Sidney, 1996), reduced depression (Noh & Kaspar, 2003), diminished anxiety (Forsyth &
Carter, 2012), and greater well-being (Forsyth & Carter, 2012; Foster, 2013), compared to
disadvantaged group members who accept that prejudice is “just a fact of life”. Certainly, there
are benefits to expressing voice (via confronting prejudice), too: for instance, expressing voice
empowers employees to exert agency over their situation (e.g., Detert et al., 2013; Lam &
Mayer, 2014; Li et al., 2017; MacKenzie et al., 2011; Sherf et al., 2018) and assert autonomy
over their environment (Morrison, 2014). In other words, allies who solicit voice from
disadvantaged group members not only signal their willingness to uplift the disadvantaged group
member’s perspective, but may also provide disadvantaged group members an opportunity to
reap the benefits of confronting.
However, for disadvantaged group members, being drawn into an ally’s prejudice
confrontation could have negative consequences, particularly in the workplace. Although the ally
may amplify the disadvantaged group members’ voice and reduce the social costs of confronting,

8

they cannot eliminate the potential social costs: disadvantaged group members are still
vulnerable to the perpetrator’s backlash, both during the heat of the confrontation and afterwards.
Perpetrators also tend to react more negatively to disadvantaged group members’ confrontations
compared to allies’ (Drury & Kaiser, 2014; Gervais & Hillard, 2014), so disadvantaged group
members may worry that their voice expressions (i.e., their confrontation) will not be judged as
credible by the perpetrator (e.g., Eliezer & Major, 2012; Good et al., 2012; Kaiser & Miller,
2004). Indeed, past work has shown that disadvantaged group members (particularly women)
experience backlash for acting assertively (e.g., Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013a; Amanatullah &
Tinsley, 2013b), which they may need to do when voicing their reactions to prejudice (Fitzgerald
et al., 1995; Swim & Hyers, 1999).
Beyond backlash for speaking up, disadvantaged group members may be hesitant to
speak out for other reasons. For instance, they may worry about their ability to get the perpetrator
to listen without experiencing deleterious consequences for doing so (e.g., Ashburn-Nardo et al.,
2008; Ayres, Friedman, & Leaper, 2009; Rattan, 2019). Alternatively, they may not know what
to say, or (rightly) worry that speaking out could risk their social capital (Sherf et al., 2017).
Consequently, disadvantaged group members could resist getting involved, hoping to avoid the
harmful effects associated with feeling driven to involuntarily do something (e.g., Brehm, 1981).
As a result, some disadvantaged group members may not want to engage in the confrontation
because they remain wary of the potential costs (Good et al., 2012).
Concerns about confronting prejudice may be especially prevalent for disadvantaged
group members in workplace settings, too, given that they would likely need to interact with the
confronter or perpetrator again to complete their work. Moreover, because of the prevalence of
peer evaluation systems in the workplace (e.g., Antonioni, 1996) and the role that these

9

evaluation systems can have in determining punishments and rewards at work (Brett & Atwater,
2001), disadvantaged group members may be particularly reluctant to engage in an interaction as
fraught as a prejudice confrontation with their coworkers, out of concern for angering those who
hold some stake (however small) in their future. Overall, while there might be benefits for
disadvantaged group members of having their voices solicited, the risky nature of engaging in
prejudice confrontations could reduce the accessibility of these benefits.
Consequences of soliciting voice during prejudice confrontations
Consequently I propose that, when soliciting a disadvantaged group member’s voice
during a prejudice confrontation, there would be negative affective consequences for the
disadvantaged group member and negative evaluative consequences for the ally. First, I predict
that disadvantaged group members feel greater emotional burden when allies solicit their voices
during a prejudice confrontation. I define emotional burden as the negative feelings (e.g., stress,
discomfort, anxiety) associated with supporting others (Kayaalp et al., 2021), as well as the
ability to manage those feelings (Ohaeri, 2003). I argue that allies’ voice solicitation pressures
the disadvantaged group member to engage in the confrontation, leaving them vulnerable to
outcomes associated with increased emotional burden, like fearing backlash (Ashburn-Nardo et
al., 2008; Dorison & Minson, 2022; Frese & Fay, 2001), or engaging in mental calculus to
ensure their voice expression is nonthreatening (Lin & Johnson, 2015; Tangney, Baumeister, &
Boone, 2004). For example, past work has hinted at these outcomes, noting that calling on Black
people to address racism serves to “only augment exhaustion as black colleagues are relied upon
to provide resources, education, guided discovery and emotional support to their non-black
peers” (Boykin et al., 2020, p. 777; see also: Richeson et al., 2005). Indeed, recent research has
demonstrated how being granted additional assignments and responsibilities (such as when a

10

disadvantaged group member is asked to contribute their energies to addressing prejudice) can be
taxing, particularly when these assignments or responsibilities are vital (Baer et al., 2015).
I anticipate, however, that this effect will be strongest when the ally directly solicits from
the disadvantaged group member, rather than when the ally references a disadvantaged group
member during the prejudice confrontation (but does not solicit their voice) or when an ally
solicits voice from the group as a whole without singling out the disadvantaged group member.
In other words, I predict that disadvantaged group members will feel the most emotional burden
when they are singled out, relative to when the confronter solicits their voice (or others’ voices)
more generally. Research on the spotlight effect has illustrated that, when disadvantaged group
members perceive that the social spotlight is focused on them, they are more likely to feel
uncomfortable, worried, anxious, and a host of other negative emotions (Crosby, King, &
Savitsky, 2014). Yet, when the spotlight does not shine as brightly (so to speak) on the
disadvantaged group member, they may not feel as though their actions are as salient and visible,
reducing their feelings of discomfort or anxiety. Thus, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: A disadvantaged group member whose voice is directly solicited (vs. not directly
solicited) by an ally during a prejudice confrontation will experience greater emotional
burden.
I further predict that the increased emotional burden that disadvantaged group members
experience after their voices are solicited during the prejudice confrontation will impact their
perceptions of the ally. Specifically, my focal outcome—which I assess in all studies—is the
amount of status the disadvantaged group member confers on the ally. One's status is determined
by their “perceived instrumental social value”, which is based on an evaluator’s beliefs about
whether the individual’s behavior benefits the group (Leary, Jongman-Sereno, & Diebels, 2014).
An approach allies can take to increase their instrumental social value to disadvantaged
employees is by addressing prejudice independently as it arises. Displaying competency and

11

social skill in this way can enhance the ally’s value to disadvantaged group members (Alonso &
O’Neill, 2021; Anderson et al., 2012; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Berger et al., 1972; Blau, 1964;
Fragale, 2006), leading them to confer more status on the ally. Allies who solicit voice, then,
may signal that they do not have the competency to independently address prejudice, thus
reducing their perceived instrumental social value.
Status conferral is an important outcome to consider, as status is associated with a host of
intrapersonal (e.g., Anderson et al., 2012; Adler et al., 2000) and workplace (e.g., Djurdjevic et
al., 2017; Judge & Cable, 2004; Merton, 1968; Hahl & Zuckerman, 2014) benefits, including
heightened compensation (Chen, Hambrick, & Pollock, 2008) and promotion opportunities
(DiPrete & Soule, 1988). People are aware of these benefits and will strive to earn them by
acting in ways that will help them to retain (or even obtain) status (e.g., Anderson, Hildreth, &
Sharps, 2020). Indeed, past work has posited that status is a fundamental human motive,
suggesting that people will act in ways that they think will grant them status, given its benefits
(Anderson, Hildreth, & Howland, 2015). Thus, being perceived as higher status is likely a salient
goal for many, including allies (e.g., Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1990). Determining how
allies can confront prejudice while maximizing their reputational outcomes will inform their
cost-benefit analysis when considering whether to confront (Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Swim &
Hyers, 1999)—a similar calculus voicers make before choosing to voice (e.g., Detert & Burris,
2007). By investigating the rewards allies could get for confronting, I can better understand when
an ally’s action merits status and all of the trappings that come with it. Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 2a: A disadvantaged group member whose voice is directly solicited (vs. not
directly solicited) by an ally during a prejudice confrontation will confer less status on the ally.
I further theorize that disadvantaged group members will seek to minimize their exposure
to allies who solicit their voice, so as to avoid being put in a similar position in the future. This

12

view is consistent with humans’ fundamental aversion to stressful and anxiety-provoking
situations that can drain cognitive and emotional resources (Hobfoll, 1989) and lead to burnout
(Demerouti et al., 2001). Therefore, when stressors emerge, individuals can engage in various
coping strategies (Edwards, 1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), such as avoiding threat (Folkman
& Lazarus, 1980; Vitaliano et al., 1990). This may manifest in disadvantaged group members
avoiding engagement with the ally in the future. To that end, I consider three additional
downstream outcomes, including disadvantaged group members’ willingness to work with the
ally in the future, willingness to spend time with the ally outside of work, and support for the ally
leading organization-wide DEI efforts following the confrontation.
These three outcomes are important to study because they capture disadvantaged group
members’ behavioral intentions beyond their psychological evaluation of an ally’s status.
Specifically, determining how soliciting voice impacts the disadvantaged group members’
willingness to spend time with the ally and the extent to which they would rely on the ally to lead
DEI efforts in the organization illuminates how soliciting voice shapes both perceptions and
behavioral intentions towards the solicitor. Moreover, examining these outcomes helps us to
further understand how an action which could be seen as empowering disadvantaged group
members could have negative repercussions for them – and lead them to reduce their support for
the supposed ally in tangible ways. Indeed, an action which superficially appears to amplify the
disadvantaged group members’ voice could be seen as a prosocial action, further adding to the
ally’s status (Bain et al., 2022).
Yet, I predict that will not be the case. Although the ally’s actions do provide a space for
the disadvantaged group member to speak up, the riskiness of the context (i.e., a prejudice
confrontation) and the potential for backlash do not evoke evaluations of prosociality towards the

13

ally. Rather, drawing a disadvantaged group member into the confrontation may make the
disadvantaged group member uncomfortable and weary. In turn, they may blame the ally for
putting them in a position which elicits these feelings. As a result, they would not see the ally as
being worthy of status. To that end, I predict that soliciting voice actually undermines the
disadvantaged group members’ perceptions of the ally both as a coworker whom they would
want to spend time with, and their confidence in the ally’s ability to lead a DEI initiative in the
organization. Together, I propose:
Hypothesis 2b: A disadvantaged group member whose voice is directly solicited (vs. not
directly solicited) by an ally during a prejudice confrontation will be less willing to work with
the ally in the future.
Hypothesis 2c: A disadvantaged group member whose voice is directly solicited (vs. not directly
solicited) by an ally during a prejudice confrontation will be less willing to spend time with the
ally outside of work.
Hypothesis 2d: A disadvantaged group member whose voice is directly solicited (vs. not
directly solicited) by an ally during a prejudice confrontation will be less supportive of the ally
leading organization-wide DEI efforts.
Hypothesis 3: Emotional burden will mediate the relationships between a disadvantaged group
member having their voice directly solicited (vs. not directly solicited) by an ally during a
prejudice confrontation and 1) the amount of status they confer on the ally, 2) their
willingness to work with the ally in the future, 3) their willingness to spend time with the ally
outside of work, and 4) their support of the ally leading organization-wide DEI efforts.

Repercussions on ally’s competence
I do not anticipate that disadvantaged group members’ experience of emotional burden
will be the sole driver of the amount of status they confer on an ally who solicits the
disadvantaged group members’ voice during a prejudice confrontation situation. Specifically, I
propose that an ally’s voice solicitation will also impact the disadvantaged group member’s
perceptions of the ally’s competence – in other words, the ally’s ability to effectively navigate
prejudice confrontation situations. I predict that allies soliciting voice during a prejudice
confrontation influences disadvantaged group members’ perceptions of the allies’ ability to

14

manage prejudice-relevant situations – so when the ally solicits their voice, the ally demonstrates
that they are not capable of addressing the prejudice transgression individually. This then reduces
their perceptions that the ally is a competent ally (Fast et al., 2014).
Allies who identify and address a perpetrator’s wrongdoing are likely seen as being able
to relate appropriately to disadvantaged group members, showcasing their ability to competently
navigate challenging workplace situations (Meleady, Seger, & Vermue, 2021). However,
disadvantaged group members may perceive allies who solicit voice during a prejudice
confrontation situation as less competent at navigating confrontations compared to those who
refrain from soliciting voice, or do so in a more discreet and thoughtful manner. By soliciting
voice, allies signal that they require help to successfully navigate the prejudice confrontation
situation, which could impact disadvantaged group members’ perceptions of the ally’s efficacy at
reducing prejudice (Fast et al., 2014). Given that they seek out help completing the task,
disadvantaged group members may think that the ally is less capable of completing the task
independently, or is less capable of navigating intergroup interactions more generally.
Accordingly, disadvantaged group members may evaluate the ally’s competence less favorably
(Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Ramsey & Latting, 2005). While prejudice confrontations may be
attempts to communicate organizational norms of equality and fairness (Czopp et al., 2006),
soliciting voice may lead disadvantaged group members to suspect that the ally is not fully
capable of articulating those norms. Moreover, allies who solicit voice may also signal that they
do not have control over the confrontation, thus reducing the extent to which they appear
knowledgeable about how to effectively address prejudice. This, in part, could serve as a
reflection of a specific facet of the ally’s “social skill,” or their ability to effectively perceive
interpersonal dynamics and react appropriately (Ferris et al., 2001; Witt & Ferris, 2003). By

15

soliciting voice, they are suggesting that they lack the competence to effectively navigate the
confrontation and avoid future negative interactions with the perpetrator (Meleady et al., 2021).
In turn, these influence disadvantaged group member’s perceptions of the ally’s perceived
instrumental social value, which then affects their status. Thus, I predict the following:
Hypothesis 4a: A disadvantaged group member whose voice is directly solicited (vs. not
directly solicited) by an ally during a prejudice confrontation will perceive the ally as less
competent.
Hypothesis 4b: Perceptions of the ally’s competence will mediate the relationships between a
disadvantaged group member having their voice directly solicited (vs. not directly solicited) by
an ally during a prejudice confrontation and the amount of status they confer on the ally.
I predict that these evaluations will operate in tandem with the disadvantaged group
member’s internal feelings – in other words, I predict that the ally’s competence will be a
parallel driver to the disadvantaged group member’s feelings of emotional burden, leading to the
following prediction:
Hypothesis 4c: Perceptions of the ally’s competence and feelings of emotional burden will
mediate (in parallel) the relationships between a disadvantaged group member having their
voice directly solicited (vs. not solicited) by an ally during a prejudice confrontation and the
amount of status they confer on the ally.
The indirect effect of soliciting voice during a prejudice confrontation on status conferral
through emotional burden is conditional on dispositional and situational factors.
Disadvantaged group members are not a monolith: although it is reasonable to assume
that nearly every disadvantaged group member wants for transgressions that are relevant to them
to be addressed, there is likely variance in how or when they would want such transgressions
addressed. Voicing is contingent upon a person’s internal psychological experiences, such as
their sense of self-efficacy (e.g., Fast et al., 2014), perceptions of psychological safety (Detert &
Burris, 2007), or concerns about backlash (Lam et al., 2018). Yet, these perceptions may vary
from disadvantaged group member to disadvantaged group member – some may feel
comfortable having their voices solicited, whereas others may not.

16

Thus far, my theorizing has focused on how disadvantaged group members may feel
emotionally burdened by the prospect of being called upon to participate in a prejudice
confrontation situation. It may be the case, though, that these feelings of emotional burden are
actually conditional on two factors: the disadvantaged group member’s relationship with the ally,
and their own comfort engaging in tense interactions such as prejudice confrontations. Both
factors may play a key role in shaping how much emotional burden the participant feels, given
their influence on the participant’s comfort with speaking up – further impacting how much
status disadvantaged group members confer to the ally. I predict that, when disadvantaged group
members feel fewer concerns about engaging in fraught interactions – due to either situational or
dispositional factors – they are less likely to feel emotionally burdened when their voices are
solicited, given their experiences of discomfort would not be as heightened. Consequently, they
will penalize the ally less than those who have more concerns – that are either situationally or
dispositionally founded – about engaging in the interaction.
First, I consider a situational moderator: the disadvantaged group members’ relationship
with the ally. The disadvantaged group member’s perceptions of the prejudice confrontation (and
the ally afterwards) are not formed in a vacuum: rather, they are partially shaped by
disadvantaged group members’ pre-existing understanding of the ally’s motivations and actions.
This, in turn, informs how the disadvantaged group member feels when the ally solicits their
voice (or does not solicit their voice) during a prejudice confrontation situation. Ostensibly,
disadvantaged group members who have a worse (relative to a better) relationship with the ally
are likely to feel more uncomfortable when the ally solicits their voice during a prejudice
confrontation situation.

17

I investigate a specific dimension of the disadvantaged group members’ relationship with
the ally: the extent to which the disadvantaged group member trusts the ally. Mayer, Davis, and
Schoorman (1995) define trust as “the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party
based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor,
irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (p. 712). In other words,
someone is trustworthy if the trustor (in this case, the solicitee) expects for the trustee’s (in this
case, the solicitor) actions to have some positive outcome for them (Lewicki et al., 2006).
Trustworthy allies likely evoke less emotional burden from disadvantaged group
members when they solicit disadvantaged group members’ voice during a prejudice
confrontation situation for two reasons. First, a trustworthy ally’s actions are assumed to be in
service of the solicitee, as the ally has already displayed their instrumental value, and has
developed a reputation for acting in a way that advances the interests of the disadvantaged group
member (Tinsley, O’Conner, & Sullivan, 2002). In that sense, when an ally calls on a
disadvantaged group member to speak up during a prejudice confrontation situation, the
disadvantaged group member will be more inclined to believe that the ally is not trying to put the
disadvantaged group member in an uncomfortable or awkward position, nor are they acting
without consideration of the disadvantaged group member’s interests or wants.
Second, trustworthy allies are more likely to be seen as protecting or backing up the
disadvantaged group member if the perpetrator further retaliates. If they expect for the ally’s
actions to effectively address the perpetrator (rather than escalate the situation), it is less likely
that disadvantaged group members feel more anxious about receiving backlash from the
perpetrator. Yet, if they do receive backlash, they trust the ally to step in and either buffer them
from the perpetrator’s backlash or respond to the perpetrator themselves. As a result, feelings of

18

trust in the ally allows the disadvantaged group member greater psychological safety (e.g.,
Milliken & Morrison, 2003), helping them feel more comfortable to speak up.
Of course, if the disadvantaged group member does not trust the ally, then the ally’s
voice solicitation could be seen as inauthentic, or as putting the disadvantaged group member on
the spot. Moreover, the disadvantaged group member may hold concerns about how an
untrustworthy ally may support them if the confrontation continues to get worse. As a result, I
predict the following:
H5a: The indirect effect of the ally directly soliciting voice (vs. not directly soliciting voice) on
conferring status through emotional burden will be weaker when the participant trusts the ally
more (vs. less).

I also predict that disadvantaged group members who report having lower levels of
conflict avoidance (i.e., they are not willing or comfortable engaging in conflict; Cai & Fink,
2002) will experience less emotional burden than disadvantaged group members with relatively
higher levels of conflict avoidance – which will then drive how much status disadvantaged group
members confer on the ally. A disadvantaged group member may have high levels of conflict
avoidance for a variety of reasons, including – but not limited to – concerns about backlash, an
inability to articulate what the perpetrator did wrong, or simply a reduced desire to get involved
in the confrontation (Cai & Fink, 2002). Indeed, for highly conflict avoidant disadvantaged
group members, having their voices solicited during the confrontation may be particularly
problematic, as their decision to remain silent may have been motivated by anxiety or fear (Sherf
et al., 2022). Having their voices solicited in a prejudice confrontation is thus likely to exacerbate
these concerns as it draws them into a fraught and uncomfortable interaction.
Of course, though, not all disadvantaged group members have high levels of conflict
avoidance – in fact, some disadvantaged group members may be more willing or comfortable

19

engaging in conflict, thus making them less uncomfortable when their voices are solicited into a
prejudice confrontation. To that end, I predict that a participants’ feelings of conflict avoidance
will impact how much emotional burden they experience when their voices are solicited. I lay
out the following prediction:
Hypothesis 5b: The indirect effect of the ally directly soliciting voice (vs. not directly soliciting
voice) on conferring status through emotional burden will be weaker when the participant has
higher (vs. lower) levels of conflict avoidance.

Overview of studies
I test these hypotheses in six studies (five of which were pre-registered studies) that
exclusively feature women and/or racially marginalized
1
people as participants. Unless otherwise
specified, I sought to collect at least 200 participants per cell, following conventions described in
previous work (e.g., Kreps, Laurin, & Merritt, 2017; Liu et al., 2022; Sivanathan & Kakkar,
2017). In all six studies, I asked participants to report their emotional burden and the amount of
status they would confer on the ally. Across studies, I vary the transgression, how the ally solicits
voice, and who the prejudice display targets across studies. In Study 1, participants evaluated a
fictional coworker who either solicits or does not solicit the participant’s voice during a prejudice
confrontation. In Study 2, participants described a prejudice transgression that could realistically
occur in their workplace and then imagined evaluating a real coworker (i.e., ally) who either
solicits or does not solicit their voice while confronting that particular prejudice transgression. In
Study 3, participants recalled a time when their voice was (or was not) solicited by an ally during
a prejudice confrontation. In Study 4, I replicate the findings of Study 3 and measured
participants’ dispositional level of conflict avoidance and feelings of trust in the ally. In Study 5,

1
In my studies, I only recruit Black and Latine participants. I focus my recruitment on these two populations as their
racial experiences in the United States are currently similar (although certainly not identical). I discuss how
soliciting voice in the context of prejudice confrontations could impact other racially marginalized populations (as
well as other marginalized populations more broadly) in the discussion.

20

I utilized a stimulus sampling technique to examine the differential effects of various strategies
for soliciting voice, developed a novel paradigm to test my hypotheses, and measured three
additional downstream outcomes of the ally’s voice solicitation. Finally, in Study 6, I developed
a novel chat-simulation paradigm, and compared if participants feel greater emotional burden
when their voices were solicited into a prejudice confrontation, compared to when their voices
were solicited into a general disagreement.
I also conducted two supplemental studies. The first supplemental study is a qualitative
pilot study that helped me refine my overarching research question. The second supplemental
study examined additional situations that could impact disadvantaged group members’
perceptions of the confrontation.
CHAPTER 2: EMPIRICAL TEST OF THEORY
STUDY 1
Study 1 is a simple vignette study that serves as a preliminary test of my hypotheses. I
describe a situation where a man makes a sexist comment at work, and another man confronts
the perpetrator about his comment. I manipulate the content of the confrontation: in one
condition, the ally confronts the perpetrator without soliciting the participants’ voice. In the
second condition, the ally confronts the perpetrator and then solicits the participant’s voice. The
pre-registration for this study is available here: https://osf.io/fn69s.
Participants and procedures
A pilot study revealed that the effect of the manipulation used in the current study on my
measure of emotional burden was d=-0.476. I used the “pwr” package in R to compute the
appropriate sample size for a study that was powered at 99% for that effect size. This analysis
revealed that I should collect 163 participants per condition. This would amount to 326

21

participants, total. I recruited 351 working women from Prolific. After excluding participants
who failed an attention check (N=16), I retained a final sample of 335 women (Mage=34.84,
SDage=11.48, 20.60% racially marginalized). First, I instructed participants to imagine that they
were an account manager at a design company. While at work, they walk into an open office
space and notice that some of their coworkers are having a conversation. As the conversation is
wrapping up, one of their coworkers (Paul) says: “I’m really surprised at the types of people who
are working here…with all of this ‘diversity’ hiring—women, minorities, foreigners, etc., I
wonder how long this company will stay on top?” I adapted this language from Rattan & Dweck
(2010; 2018), who found that this statement is perceived as overt bias by both people of color
and women. Next, I presented participants with my manipulations. In the no voice solicitation
condition, another coworker, Sam, heard Paul’s comment and told him that it was wrong and
offensive. In the voice solicitation condition, Sam not only told Paul that his comment was
wrong and offensive, but also turned to the participant and said “You think that’s sexist, right?
You should say something about it to Paul”. I adapted the language for this manipulation from a
set of participants’ responses in a pilot study (see Supplemental Study 1).
Measures
All items used a seven-point scale from 1=“strongly disagree” to 7=“strongly agree”
2
.

2
I also collected two control variables. Since this is an experiment with random assignment, the differences between
these measures should be evenly distributed across conditions. However, following a protocol similar to Trawalter,
Hoffman, & Waytz (2012), I included these measures out of concerns raised by previous work that age and ethnicity
could be significant predictor of feelings of emotional burden in prejudice confrontations. First, I collected the
participant’s reported age, as past work has shown that women across different ages report differing desires to
respond to sexism themselves, shaping their view of allies who confront for them (Lott, Asquith, & Doyon, 2001),
and how they feel when their voices are solicited during a prejudice confrontation. Second, I controlled for ethnicity,
as extant work has discussed how women’s interpretations and responses to prejudice differ by their racial identity
(e.g., Remedios & Snyder, 2018).

22

Emotional burden. Participants indicated the amount of emotional burden they felt using
four items adapted from the emotional burden subscale of the Caregiver Burden Inventory
(Novak & Guest, 1989; α=0.96). The four items were: “Sam’s behavior made me
uncomfortable,” “Sam’s behavior embarrassed me,” “I resent Sam’s actions,” and “Sam’s
actions made me feel angry.”
Status conferral. Participants reported how much status they would confer to the ally
using a four-item measure adapted from Jachimowicz et al. (2019; α=0.98). The four items were:
“I would admire Sam more,” “I would hold Sam in higher esteem,” “Sam would have higher
status in my eyes,” and “I would respect Sam more.”
Allyship competence. I collected a three-item measure of the ally’s perceived
competence, adapted from Fiske et al. (2002; α=0.91). Items included “Based on Sam’s
response, in terms of being an ally, I think that he is…competent, confident, independent”.
Job Rewards. Participants indicated the extent to which they would recommend Sam for
the following job rewards using a four-item measure adapted from Allen & Rush (1998; α=0.95):
“Salary increase”, “Promotion”, “High-profile project”, and “Public recognition”.
I also collected two one-item measures. I wanted to understand if the ally’s voice
solicitation behaviors inspired the participant to support their colleague’s allyship in other
domains. Specifically, I wanted to know if the ally’s voice solicitation inspired them to support
the ally’s efforts to improve diversity, or if they perceived the ally’s behavior as an identity-
safety cue, thus signaling the ally’s capacity to support other women (Hildebrand et al., 2018).
To that end, I presented participants with the following items: “If Sam led a ‘diversity and
inclusion’ committee at work, I would respect his decisions”, and “I would recommend to other
women that they approach Sam if they encounter sexism in the workplace”.

23

Results
In the following analyses, I coded my no voice solicitation condition as 0 and my voice
solicitation condition as 1. Supporting Hypothesis 1, participants in the voice solicitation
condition reported feeling greater emotional burden (M=3.19, SD=1.70) than participants in the
no voice solicitation condition (M=1.82, SD=1.20); t(333)=-8.56, p <.001, d =-0.94). Supporting
Hypothesis 2a, participants in the voice solicitation condition conferred less status on the ally
(M=4.41, SD=1.73) than participants in the no voice solicitation condition (M=5.75, SD=1.24, t
(333)=8.12, p<.001, d=0.89). Supporting Hypothesis 4a, participants in the voice solicitation
condition perceived the ally as less competent (M=5.02, SD=1.49) than participants in the no
voice solicitation condition (M=5.95, SD=0.97; t(333)=6.73, p<.001, d=0.74).
Supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4b, respectively, the effect of the voice solicitation
manipulation on status conferral was driven, separately, by participants’ feelings of emotional
burden (10,000 bootstraps, 95% C.I.[-1.32, -0.79]) and competence (95% C.I.[-1.09, -0.60]).
Supporting Hypothesis 4c, results from a parallel mediation analysis indicated that the voice
solicitation condition was indirectly related to status conferral through its relationship with both
feelings of emotional burden (95% C.I.[-0.83, -0.42]) and perceptions of the ally’s competence
(95% C.I.[-0.74, -0.36]).
I found support for my hypotheses when including my control variables. See Table 2 for
full regression results (H1: b=1.36, SD=0.16, p<.001; H2a: b=-1.32, SD=0.16, p<.001; H4a: b=-
0.93, SE=0.14, p<.001; H3: 95% C.I.[-1.31, -0.78]; H4a: 95% C.I.[-1.11, -0.61]; H4c: emotional
burden: 95% C.I.[-0.81, -0.42], competence: 95% C.I.[-0.75, -0.36]).

24

Exploratory Analyses
Additionally, I examined the impact of the voice solicitation manipulation on the
exploratory variables. Participants in the voice solicitation condition saw the ally as less worthy
of occupational rewards (M=4.17, SD=1.39), were less likely to respect Sam’s decisions if he
were leading a diversity and inclusion committee (M=5.13, SD=1.57), and were less likely to
recommend to other women that they approach Sam if they encounter sexism in the workplace
(M=4.44, SD=1.71) than participants in the no voice solicitation condition (Mjob rewards=4.72,
SDjob rewards=1.18, tjob rewards (333)=3.91, pjob rewards<.001, djob rewards=0.43; Mdiversity committee=5.57,
SDdiversity committee=1.21; tdiversity committee(333)=2.86, pdiversity committee=.004, ddiversity committee=0.31;
Mrecommend=4.98, SDrecommend=1.32; trecommend(333)=3.23, precommend=.001, drecommend=0.35). These
effects held when including control variables (rewards: b=-0.55, SE=0.14, p<.001; diversity
committee: b=-0.43, SE=0.15, p<.001; recommend: b=-0.54, SE=0.17, p<.001).
Without controls, my measure of emotional burden drove the effect of my manipulation
on participant’s willingness to confer job rewards to Sam (95% C.I.[-0.79, -0.41]), respect Sam’s
decisions on the diversity committee (95% C.I.[-1.02, -0.56]) and recommend other women to
approach Sam if they encountered sexism (95% C.I. [-0.85, -0.42]). These effects still emerged
with controls (job rewards: 95% C.I.[-0.79, -0.40]; diversity committee: 95% C.I.[-1.01, -0.55];
recommend: 95% C.I.[-0.85, -0.41]).
Finally, without control variables, my measure of competence also drove the effect of my
manipulation on my measure of job rewards (95% C.I.[-0.70, -0.34]), as well as participant’s
willingness to respect Sam’s decisions on the diversity committee (95% C.I.[-0.90, -0.46]) and
recommend other women to approach Sam if they encountered sexism (95% C.I.[-0.91, -0.45]).
These effects also emerged with control variables (rewards: 95% C.I.[-0.70, -0.35]; diversity
committee: 95% C.I.[-0.90, -0.46]; recommend: 95% C.I.[-0.93, -0.46]).

25

Discussion
These results provide preliminary support for my hypotheses: women felt greater
emotional burden when a man solicited (vs. did not solicit) their voice as he confronted
prejudice. Moreover, they also saw him as less competent when he solicited their voice. These
feelings of emotional burden (and perceptions of his competence as an ally) not only reduced
how much status they conferred to him, but also mitigated the social rewards they would grant to
him. Specifically, they were less likely to recommend him for job rewards, less likely to respect
his decisions if he were to lead a diversity and inclusion committee, and less likely to encourage
other women to approach him if they also encountered sexism in the workplace.
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study 1

Table 2: Regression Results for Study 1

Variable Scale Mean Scale SD Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Age 34.84 11.48 34.15 11.37 35.55 11.59
2 Emotional Burden 2.49 1.62 1.82 1.20 3.19 1.70 0.05
3 Status Conferral 5.09 1.64 5.75 1.24 4.41 1.73 -0.04 -0.79***
4 Allyship Competence 5.49 1.34 5.95 0.97 5.02 1.49 0.02 -0.68*** 0.80***
5 Occupational Rewards 4.45 1.31 4.72 1.18 4.17 1.39 0.02 -0.52*** 0.68*** 0.57***
6 Diversity Committee 5.36 1.41 5.57 1.21 5.13 1.57 0.02 -0.60*** 0.72*** 0.66*** 0.66***
7 Recommend 4.72 1.55 4.98 1.33 4.44 1.71 0.02 -0.46*** 0.63*** 0.61*** 0.68*** 0.68***
No Voice Solicitation Voice Solicitation
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE
Voice Solicitation
0 = No Voice Solicited
1 = Voice Solicited 1.36*** (0.16) -1.32*** (0.16) -0.93*** (0.14) -0.55*** (0.14) -0.43*** (0.15) -0.54*** (0.16)
Racial Identity 0.02 (0.04) -0.04 (0.04) -0.02 (0.03) -0.03 (0.03) -0.06 (0.03) 0.00 (0.04)
Age 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01)
Constant 1.65*** (0.28) 5.94*** (0.29) 5.82*** (0.24) 4.67*** (0.25) 5.61*** (0.27) 4.86*** (0.28)
N 335 335 335 335 335 335
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Recommend Ally
To Other Women
Emotional
Burden
Perceived
Status
Perceived
Competence
Job
Rewards
Diversity
Committee

26

Figure 1. Study 1 Results.

STUDY 2
In my second study, I moved beyond the vignette context of Study 1 by asking
participants to imagine a realistic prejudice confrontation situation. This increased the credibility
of their responses, as they reflected on a scenario that was more relevant to their own
experiences (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014), further increasing the psychological realism of the
scenario (Isaakyan et al., 2021; Sherf & Venkataramani, 2015). The pre-registration for this
study is available here: https://osf.io/arntm.

27

Participants and procedures
I initially recruited 450 participants on Prolific Academic: two-hundred and twenty-five
people of color (i.e., women of color, non-binary people of color, and men of color) and two-
hundred and twenty-five women (i.e., women of color and White women)
3
. I excluded
participants who failed an attention check (N=42) or identified as a White man (N=6). My final
sample included four-hundred and twenty-five participants (Mage=34.27, SDage=13.56; 84.71%
women, 1.2% non-binary; 52.94% racially marginalized).
After soliciting demographic information, I sorted participants into one of three
categories: women of color, White women, and men of color. I asked participants to think of two
things. First, I asked for them to think of a coworker who is a member of an advantaged group
and identify that person by their first name. For White women, I specified that the coworker
should be a man; for men of color, I specified that the coworker should be White; for women of
color, I randomly assigned them to think of a male coworker or a White coworker. I asked
participants of color that imagined a White coworker to also indicate the coworker’s gender.
Then, on the next page, so as to not influence participants’ choice of coworker, I asked
participants to think of a moderately prejudiced comment that someone could realistically direct
at them (or another person who shares their disadvantaged identity). I encouraged participants to
think about the comment and imagine the circumstances under which the comment may be
made. Then, I asked participants to describe a) the comment, b) whether anyone has said that
particular comment to them in the past, and c) how offensive they found the comment to be.

3
I pre-registered that my final sample would have two-hundred and one participants per condition. After initially
opening the study, my “no voice solicitation” condition only had one-hundred and ninety-three participants.
Therefore, I re-opened the study to twenty more participants (again in two phases) to reach my pre-registered
amount.

28

Next, I described a workplace scenario involving an act of prejudice committed by a
hypothetical coworker (i.e., the “perpetrator”) and subsequent confrontation by the coworker the
participant had previously identified (i.e., the “ally”). Specifically, I asked participants to
imagine a situation involving the perpetrator and the ally after a work meeting. During a free-
flowing conversation about current events, work, and other topics, the perpetrator turned to the
participant and said the prejudiced comment that the participant previously reflected on. I then
introduced the manipulation. In the no voice solicitation condition, the ally confronts the
perpetrator, telling him that what he said was wrong and offensive. In the voice solicitation
condition, the ally not only confronts the perpetrator, but also turns to the participant and asks
them to explain how the situation should be resolved so that all parties involved can move
forward. Participants then responded to my measures.
Measures
All items used a seven-point scale from 1=“strongly disagree” to 7=“strongly agree”.
Emotional burden. Participants completed the same measure as in Study 1 (adapted from
Novak & Guest, 1989; α= 0.93).
Status conferral. Participants completed the same measure as in Study 1 (adapted from
Jachimowicz et al., 2019; α= 0.97).
Allyship competence. I collected the same three-item measure of ally’s competence from
Study 1 (α=0.90).
Perceived autonomy. I collected a three-item measure of the ally’s perceived autonomy,
adapted from Morgeson, Hemingway, & Delany-Klinger (2005; α=0.85). Participants responded
to the prompt: “Based on {ally’s} response, in terms of being an ally, I think that
he/she/they…take(s) autonomy in determining how to address prejudice, can decide on

29

his/her/their own how to go about addressing prejudice” and “…is independent in how
he/she/they address(es) prejudice”.
Control variables. I collected the perceived offensiveness of the imagined comment
(1=“Not offensive at all”, 10=“Very offensive”), whether or not anyone has said the prejudiced
comment to the participant in the past, the extent to which the ally solicits the participant’s voice
in everyday life (e.g., “Seeks out task-related knowledge from me”; Fast et al., 2014, α=0.88),
the participant’s general sentiment towards the ally (pre-scenario: -3=“very negative”, 3=“very
positive”), relationship length with the ally (in years), and the participant’s, ally’s, and
perpetrator’s (imagined) rank in the organizational hierarchy (1=highest rank, 10=lowest rank).
I included these variables to account for important elements of the confrontation that I
would not be able to control for in the experiment. Namely, this design does not allow me to
account for the specific type of comment the participant imagines, nor how they perceive the
ally. To that end, I want to ensure that my results are not impacted by the participants’
relationship with either the prejudiced comment or the ally. I controlled for participants’
evaluations of the comments’ offensiveness to keep their sensitivity to the comment constant in
my analyses. Their evaluations of the comments’ offensiveness could provide an alternative
explanation for my findings: if they did not find the comment offensive (or, perhaps, were
relatively less sensitive to it because they had heard it before), they may be less uncomfortable
participating in the confrontation for two reasons. First, they may feel better equipped to address
it. Second, more offensive or surprising (compared to less offensive or surprising) comments
could be associated with more fraught confrontations, leading the participant to feel even more
uncomfortable when their voices are solicited.

30

I accounted for the participants’ relationship with the ally, too, because their pre-existing
relationships with the ally could play a key role in how they evaluate the confrontation, and the
ally’s subsequent voice solicitation – an issue I return to in Study 6. It is possible that
participants who like the ally (or who are not surprised by the ally’s behavior; albeit whether
they solicit voice or confront prejudice more generally) will evaluate the ally less harshly than
participants who do not like the ally. Indeed, participants who like the ally more may feel less
anxious about the ally’s voice soliciting behavior, given that the ally has already demonstrated
their perceived instrumental value to the participant. In part, this influenced my decision to
control for the rank of the participant, perpetrator, and ally, too – it is possible that voice-
soliciting confrontations where the ally or perpetrator hold a higher (relative to a lower) rank
than the participant could be more anxiety-inducing. In sum, I included variables to account for
participants’ relationship with the transgression and the ally, as I was not able to keep these
factors constant in this study. In turn, including these control variables in my analyses helped me
to rule out the possibility of alternative explanations for my findings.
Results
In the following analyses, I coded my no voice solicitation condition as 0 and my voice
solicitation condition as 1. Supporting Hypothesis 1, participants in the voice solicitation
condition reported feeling greater emotional burden (M=2.53, SD=1.28) than participants in the
no voice solicitation condition (M=1.98, SD=1.18; t (423)=-4.62, p<.001, d=-0.45). Supporting
Hypothesis 2a, participants in the voice solicitation condition conferred less status on the ally
(M=5.21, SD=1.27) than participants in the no voice solicitation condition (Mstatus=5.66,
SDstatus=1.25; tstatus (423)=3.68, pstatus<.001, dstatus=0.36). Supporting Hypothesis 4a, participants
in the voice solicitation condition perceived the ally as less competent (M=6.09, SD=0.80) than

31

participants in the no voice solicitation condition (Mcompetence=5.66, SDcompetence=1.09; tcompetence
(423)=4.74, pcompetence<.001, dcompetence=0.46).
Supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4b, the effect of the voice solicitation condition on status
conferral was driven by participants’ feelings of emotional burden (10,000 bootstraps, 95% C.I.[-
0.56, -0.22]), and competence (10,000 bootstraps, 95% C.I.[-0.52, -0.22]). Supporting
Hypothesis 4c, results from a parallel mediation analysis indicated that the voice solicitation
condition was indirectly related to status conferral through its relationship with emotional burden
(95% C.I.[-0.40, -0.15]) and competence (95% C.I.[-0.31, -0.11]).
Additionally, I found evidence supporting my hypotheses when including my control
variables. See Table 4 for full regression results (H1: b=0.55, SD=0.11, p<.001; H2a: b=-0.45,
SD=0.11 p<.001; H3: 95% C.I.[-0.47, -0.20]; H4a: b=-0.43, SD=0.08, p<.001; H4b: 95% C.I.[-
0.43, -0.19]; H4c: emotional burden: 95% C.I. [-0.36, -0.14], competence: 95% C.I.[-0.27, -
0.11]).
Exploratory analyses
I found that participants in the no voice solicitation condition viewed the ally as
significantly more autonomous (M=5.82, SD=0.85) than participants in the voice solicitation
condition (M=5.01, SD=1.16, t(423)=8.24, p<.001, d=0.80). These effects held after including
the control variables in the model (b=-0.80, SD=0.10, p<.001). Then, I ran a mediation analysis
(with 10,000 bootstraps) with the voice solicitation variable as the independent variable,
autonomy as the mediator, and the measure of status conferral as the dependent variable. The
indirect effect of condition on status conferral through autonomy did not cross zero without
controls (95% C.I.[-0.62, -0.32]) and with controls (95% C.I.[-0.51, -0.24]).

32

Discussion
In Study 2, I found that employees from disadvantaged groups experienced greater
emotional burden and conferred less status when advantaged group allies solicited (vs. did not
solicit) disadvantaged employees’ voice while confronting an act of prejudice in the workplace.
Furthermore, emotional burden and perceptions of allyship competence drove the effect of voice
solicitation on status conferral independently and when included in the model together. Overall,
these results provide causal evidence that soliciting voice from the target of a prejudicial act in
the context of a prejudice confrontation may have unintended negative consequences for both the
solicitee and the solicitor. These results extend the results from the past study in two ways. First,
I find that this effect generalizes to disadvantaged group members who experience racism, and
not just sexism. Additionally, by using participant-generated prejudiced comments that could
realistically occur in the workplace, the current study offers a more externally valid test of my
hypotheses compared to the previous study.
Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study 2

Table 4: Study 2 Regression results
Variable Scale Mean Scale SD Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Emotional Burden 2.25 1.26 1.98 1.18 2.53 1.28
2 Status Conferral 5.44 1.28 5.66 1.25 5.21 1.27 -0.70***
3 Allyship Competence 5.88 0.98 6.09 0.80 5.66 1.09 -0.62*** 0.65***
4 Ally Autonomy 5.42 1.09 5.82 0.85 5.01 1.16 -0.48*** 0.49*** 0.69***
5 Offensiveness 7.19 2.32 7.23 2.31 7.15 2.33 -0.13** 0.17*** 0.16*** 0.10*
6 Voice Solicitation 4.36 1.44 4.34 1.40 4.39 1.48 -0.14** 0.19*** 0.23*** 0.16** 0.04
7 Sentiment 1.41 1.31 1.35 1.38 1.48 1.23 -0.34*** 0.38*** 0.36*** 0.14** -0.03 0.50***
8 Years Known 3.20 1.77 3.12 1.78 3.27 1.77 0.02 -0.01 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.10* 0.09
9 Likelihood Confronter Confronts 4.50 1.76 4.62 1.71 4.39 1.81 -0.38*** 0.38*** 0.38*** 0.25*** 0.11* 0.31*** 0.42*** 0.05
10 Participant Rank 6.04 1.95 5.99 1.99 6.10 1.91 -0.12* 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.10* -0.11* -0.02 -0.16 0.02
11 Confronter Rank 5.62 1.98 5.54 1.91 5.70 2.05 -0.05 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.06 -0.02 0.06 0.39***
12 Perpetrator Rank 5.56 2.29 5.53 2.31 5.58 2.27 -0.01 0.04 -0.03 0.07 0.06 -0.02 -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.24*** 0.35***
No Voice Solicitation Voice Soliciation
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

33

B SE B SE B SE B SE
Voice Solicitation Manip.
0 = No Voice Solicited
1 = Voice Solicited 0.55*** (0.11) -0.45*** (0.11) -0.43*** (0.08) -0.80*** (0.10)
Previously Said 0.10 (0.11) -0.07 (0.11) -0.09 (0.08) 0.04 (0.10)
Perceived Offensiveness -0.05* (0.02) 0.08*** (0.02) 0.06*** (0.02) 0.04+ (0.02)
Voice Solicitation 0.07 (0.04) -0.04 (0.04) 0.03 (0.03) 0.06 (0.04)
Sentiment -0.28*** (0.05) 0.32*** (0.05) 0.19*** (0.04) 0.05 (0.05)
Years Known 0.00 (0.03) 0.00 (0.03) 0.00 (0.02) -0.01 (0.03)
Likelihood of Confronter -0.18*** (0.03) 0.17*** (0.03) 0.13*** (0.03) 0.10*** (0.03)
Participant Rank -0.07* (0.03) 0.02 (0.03) 0.03 (0.02) 0.01 (0.03)
Confronter Rank 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.03) -0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.03)
Perpetrator Rank 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) -0.01 (0.02) 0.03 (0.02)
Identity - White Women 0.18 (0.16) -0.42** (0.16) -0.06 (0.12) -0.04 (0.14)
Identity - Women of Color -0.06 (0.17) -0.20 (0.17) -0.19 (0.13) -0.17 (0.15)
(Intercept) 3.49*** (0.35) 4.18 (0.35) 4.79*** (0.27) 4.56*** (0.31)
N 425 425 425 425
*** p < .001
** p < .05
** p < .01
+ p < 0.10
Perceived
Competence
Ally's
Autonomy
Emotional
Burden
Perceived
Status
Emotional
Burden
B
SE
B B B SE SE SE
Perceived
Status
Perceived
Competence
Ally’s
Autonomy

34

Figure 2. Study 2 Results.

STUDY 3
I had three goals for Study 3. First, I asked participants to recall (rather than imagine) a
specific prejudice confrontation in which an ally solicited their voice (or not) to examine how
participants evaluate allies’ actual prejudice confrontation behavior. This design, in turn, allowed
me to achieve my second goal, which was to understand how frequently allies solicit (or do not
solicit) disadvantaged group members’ voices during prejudice confrontations in the real world,
providing me with the basis to claim this phenomenon occurs frequently enough to warrant
theoretical and empirical attention. Third, I prompted participants to consider different types of
voice solicitation to address concerns that my previous results may be contingent on the language
I used to describe the ally’s voice solicitation. The pre-registration for this study is available
here: https://osf.io/24zjm.

35

Participants and procedures
I initially recruited 470 participants on Prolific Academic. I opened the study to 235
people of color (i.e., women of color, non-binary people of color, and men of color) and 235
women (i.e., women of color and White women)
4
. I excluded participants who failed an attention
check (N=61) or identified as a White man (N=6). My final sample included four hundred and
twenty-six participants (Mage=34.27, SDage=13.26; 82.86% Women, 0.01% non-binary; 51.64%
racially marginalized). As in Study 2, I sorted participants into one of three categories after
soliciting their demographic information: women of color, White women, and men of color.
Next, I asked participants to recall a time that they witnessed an advantaged group member
confront prejudice. Specifically, I asked White women to recall a sexism confrontation, men of
color to recall a racism confrontation, and I randomly assigned women of color to recall either a
sexism or a racism confrontation.
I randomly assigned participants to recall one of two different prejudice confrontation
situations. In the no voice solicitation condition, I asked participants to recall the following:
First, a coworker (the “perpetrator”) said or did something that you perceived as
sexist [racist] to you (or in your presence). Then, a “confronter” (a White person
[man]) responded by calling out or otherwise standing up against the perpetrator
in some way.
In the voice solicitation condition, I asked participants to recall the following:
First, a coworker (the “perpetrator”) said or did something that you perceived
as sexist [racist] to you (or in your presence). Then, a “confronter” (a White

4
I pre-registered that my final sample would have two-hundred and two participants per condition. However, after
my first round of data collection, my no voice solicitation condition only had two-hundred and one participants. I re-
opened the study to twenty more participants (again in two phases) to reach my pre-registered amount.

36

person [man]) responded by calling out or otherwise standing up against the
perpetrator, and, in some way, involved you in the confrontation. By “involved
you in the confrontation,” I mean the confronter did one of the following:
• asked for your voice about how to resolve the situation involving the
[sexist/racist] comment
• volunteered you to share your perspective on the situation involving the [sexist/
racist]comment
• asked for you to provide feedback on how they handled the situation
• suggested that you explain to the perpetrator why their comment was
inappropriate
• asked you to describe to the perpetrator or others how the [sexist/racist]
comment made you feel
• actively solicited your voice on the [sexist/racist] situation in some other way
Among participants who were able to recall the specified confrontation (N=145, 34.04%
of overall sample; 31% in the no voice solicitation condition and 37% in the voice solicitation
condition), I asked them to provide the first name of the ally who confronted. Then, I instructed
them to take a few moments to think about the prejudiced comment that they recalled before
describing how the ally responded to the perpetrator in an open-ended response field.
Among participants who were not able to recall the specified confrontation (N=281,
65.96% of overall sample; 69% in the no voice solicitation condition and 63% in the voice
solicitation condition), I asked them to provide the first name of a coworker who is a member of
an advantaged group. Then, I instructed these participants to think about a moderately prejudiced
comment that someone might realistically direct to them at work before presenting them with the

37

same vignette as in Study 2. For participants in the voice solicitation condition, I varied my
descriptions of how the ally solicited voice. I told them to imagine that the ally solicited the
participant’s voice in one of the following ways (taken from the voice solicitation prompt
described above): asked for their input about how to resolve the situation, volunteered them to
share their perspective on the situation, asked for them to provide feedback on the situation,
suggested that they explain to the perpetrator why their comment was inappropriate, or asked for
them to describe to the perpetrator or others how the comment made them feel.
Measures
All items used a seven-point scale from 1=“strongly disagree” to 7=“strongly agree”.
Emotional burden. Participants completed the same measure as in prior studies (adapted
from Novak & Guest, 1989; α= 0.93).
Status conferral. Participants completed the same measure as in prior studies (adapted
from Jachimowicz et al., 2019; α= 0.97).
Allyship competence. I used the same three-item measure of ally’s competence from
previous Studies 1 and 2 (α=0.91).
Perceived autonomy. I used the same three-item measure of the ally’s perceived
autonomy from Study 2 (α=0.87).
Control variables. Additionally, participants responded to the same set of control
variables that I used in Study 3 (i.e., offensiveness of the imagined comment, extent the ally
solicits the participant’s voice in everyday life; Fast et al., 2014: α= 0.89, general sentiment
towards the ally, relationship length, and the participant’s, ally’s, and perpetrator’s rank in the
organizational hierarchy).

38

Results
In the following analyses, I coded my no voice solicitation condition as 0 and my voice
solicitation condition as 1. Supporting Hypothesis 1, participants in the voice solicitation
condition experienced greater emotional burden (M=2.94, SD=1.57) than those in the no voice
solicitation condition (M=2.11, SD=1.21; t(424)=-6.09, p<.001, d=-0.59). Supporting
Hypothesis 2a, participants in the voice solicitation condition conferred less status on the ally
(M=4.94, SD=1.52) than those in the no voice solicitation condition (M=5.51, SD=1.36;
t(424)=4.06, p<.001, d=0.39). Supporting Hypothesis 4a, participants in the voice solicitation
condition saw the ally as less competent (M=5.34, SD=1.24) than participants in the no voice
solicitation condition (Mcompetence=5.84 , SDcompetence=1.10; tcompetence (424)=4.44, pcompetence<.001,
dcompetence=0.43).
Supporting Hypothesis 3 and 4b, respectively, the effect of the voice solicitation
condition on status conferral was driven by participants’ feelings of emotional burden (95%
C.I.[-0.77, -0.38]), and perceptions of the ally’s competence (95% C.I.[-0.66, -0.26]). Supporting
Hypothesis 4c, results from a parallel mediation analysis indicated that the voice solicitation
condition is indirectly related to status conferral through its relationship with both feelings of
emotional burden (95% C.I. [-0.41, -0.16]) and competence (95% C.I. [-0.49, -0.18]).
I found support for my hypotheses when including my control variables. See Table 6 for
full regression results (H1: b =0.81, SE=0.13, p<.001; H2a: b =-0.49, SE=0.13, p<.001; H3: 95
% C.I. [-0.67, 0.33], H4a: b=-0.44, SD=0.10 p<.001; H4b: 95% C.I.[-0.54, -0.21]; H4c:
emotional burden – 95% C.I.[-0.41, -0.17]; competence – 95% C.I. [-0.38, -0.14] ).

39

Exploratory Analyses
Additionally, participants in the no voice solicitation condition viewed the ally as
significantly more autonomous (M=5.64, SD=0.98) than participants in the voice solicitation
condition (M=5.13, SD=1.22, t(424)=4.78, p<.001, d=0.46). These effects held after including
the control variables in the model (b=-0.49, SD=0.10, p<.001). I also tested if autonomy drove
the effect of the manipulation on the dependent variable. I ran a mediation analysis (10,000
bootstraps) where I specified the voice solicitation condition as the independent variable, status
conferral as the dependent variable, and autonomy as the mediator. The indirect effect of the
voice solicitation condition on status conferral through autonomy did not cross zero without
controls (95% C.I.[-0.50, -0.21]) and with controls (95% C.I.[-0.40, -0.15]).
Discussion
This study provides initial evidence that it is as likely for disadvantaged group members
to recall their voice being solicited in confrontations as it is for their voice to not be solicited.
Additionally, I find evidence supporting my main effect and mediation hypotheses. Participants
who recalled (or imagined) a voice solicitation incident felt more uncomfortable when their
voice was solicited, and consequently saw the ally soliciting their voice as less worthy of status
conferral.
Table 5: Study 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variable Scale Mean Scale SD Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Emotional Burden 2.51 1.46 2.11 1.21 2.94 1.57
2 Status Conferral 5.23 1.47 5.51 1.36 4.94 1.52 -0.69***
3 Allyship Competence 5.60 1.19 5.84 1.10 5.34 1.24 -0.67*** 0.76***
4 Ally Autonomy 5.39 1.13 5.64 0.98 5.13 1.22 -0.51*** 0.55*** 0.71***
5 Offensiveness 6.95 2.01 6.93 2.01 6.97 2.02 -0.05 0.07 0.04 0.02
6 Voice Solicitation 4.38 1.41 4.45 1.43 4.30 1.39 -0.19*** 0.38*** 0.35*** 0.23*** -0.06
7 Sentiment 1.27 1.30 1.29 1.33 1.25 1.27 -0.28*** 0.40*** 0.46*** 0.29*** -0.09 0.51***
8 Years Known 3.30 1.75 3.30 1.86 3.30 1.63 -0.03 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.15** 0.17***
9 Participant Rank 6.00 2.03 6.05 1.95 5.94 2.11 -0.04 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 -0.12* -0.05 -0.13**
10 Confronter Rank 5.61 1.93 5.46 1.88 5.77 1.97 0.02 -0.02 -0.05 -0.01 -0.01 -0.09 -0.03 -0.13** 0.54***
11 Perpetrator Rank 5.81 2.20 5.82 2.18 5.80 2.21 0.01 -0.03 -0.07 -0.05 0.00 -0.12* -0.06 -0.07 0.43*** 0.42***
No Voice Solicitation Voice Solicitation
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

40

Table 6: Study 3 regression results

Figure 3. Mean differences in outcomes by condition in Study 3.

B SE B SE B SE B SE
Voice Solicitation Manip.
0 = No Voice Solicited
1 = Voice Solicited 0.81*** (0.13) -0.49*** (0.13) -0.44*** (0.10) -0.49*** (0.00)
Recall
1 = Yes
0 = No -0.07 (0.28) 0.06 (0.26) 0.01 (0.21) -0.16 (0.22)
Previously Said -0.19 (0.16) 0.03 (0.16) 0.03 (0.12) -0.03 (0.13)
Voice Solicitation -0.05 (0.05) 0.25*** (0.05) 0.13** (0.04) 0.08* (0.04)
Sentiment towards confronter -0.27*** (0.06) 0.31*** (0.06) 0.34*** (0.04) 0.19*** (0.05)
Years Known 0.02 (0.04) -0.04 (0.04) -0.03 (0.03) -0.03 (0.03)
Participant's Rank -0.05 (0.04) 0.06 (0.04) 0.07* (0.03) 0.01 (0.03)
Confronter's Rank 0.01 (0.04) -0.01 (0.04) -0.04 (0.03) 0.02 (0.03)
Perpetrator's Rank 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.03) -0.03 (0.03) -0.02 (0.03)
Identity - White woman -0.03 (0.19) 0.28 (0.18) 0.08 (0.14) 0.02 (0.15)
Identity - Women of color 0.03 (0.20) -0.01 (0.19) -0.15 (0.15) -0.19 (0.15)
Constant 3.11*** (0.74) 3.64*** (0.71) 4.85*** (0.56) 5.44*** (0.58)
N 426 426 426 426
Emotional
Burden
Perceived
Status
Perceived
Competence
Ally's
Autonomy
+ p < .10,* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

41

STUDY 4
In Study 4, I followed an identical procedure to Study 3. However, I included measures
of trust in the ally and conflict aversion, allowing me to test my fifth hypothesis. Specifically, I
sought to determine if participants’ relationship with the ally, or their aversion to engaging in
conflict, impacted how much emotional burden they felt when their voices were solicited (vs. not
solicited) and, therefore, whether these variables moderated the indirect effect of voice
solicitation on status conferral through emotional burden.
Participants and procedures
I opened the survey to five-hundred women on Prolific Academic. I excluded participants
who failed an attention check (N=63) or did not identify as a woman (N=10). My final sample
included four-hundred and twenty-seven participants (Mage=36.07, SDage=12.59; 19.91% racially
marginalized). The link to the pre-registration is here: https://aspredicted.org/JNF_14B
I followed an identical procedure as in Study 3. First, I asked participants to recall a time
that they witnessed an advantaged group member confront prejudice. Specifically, I asked White
women to recall a sexism confrontation, men of color to recall a racism confrontation, and I
randomly assigned women of color to recall either a sexism or a racism confrontation.
I randomly assigned participants to recall one of two different prejudice confrontation situations:
the no voice solicitation or the voice solicitation condition. If participants were not able to recall
the specified confrontation, I asked them to provide the first name of a coworker who is a
member of an advantaged group. Then, I instructed these participants to think about a moderately
prejudiced comment that someone might realistically direct at them at work before presenting
them with the same vignette as in Study 2.

42

Measures
All items used a seven-point scale from 1=“strongly disagree” to 7=“strongly agree”.
Emotional burden. Participants completed the same measure as in prior studies (adapted
from Novak & Guest, 1989; α= 0.93).
Status conferral. Participants completed the same measure as in prior studies (adapted
from Jachimowicz et al., 2019; α= 0.97).
Allyship competence. Participants completed the same measure as in prior studies
(α=0.91).
Participant’s Trust in Ally. Participants reported the extent to which they trusted the ally,
using a three-item measure adapted from Van Lange, Vinkhuyzen, & Posthuma (2014; α=0.95).
Items included: “Generally, I trust {ally} completely”, “Generally, when push comes to shove, I
trust {ally} has my best interests at heart”, and “Generally, I trust that {ally} wants the best for
me”.
Participant’s Feelings of Conflict Avoidance. Participants reported the extent to which
they typically engage in conflict at work, using a six-item measure adapted from Cai & Fink
(2002; α=0.95). Example items included: “I usually avoid open discussions of differences with
my peers”, “I try to stay away from disagreement with my peers”, and “I avoid conflict situations
with my peers”.
Control variables. Like in Study 3, I controlled for a number of variables including the
offensiveness of the imagined comment (from 1=“Not offensive at all” to 10=“Very offensive”),
the extent to which the ally solicits the participant’s voice in everyday life (Fast, Burris, &
Bartel, 2014; 4 items, α=0.86; 1=“Strongly disagree”, 7=“Strongly agree”), the participant’s
general sentiment towards the ally (before they read the scenario; from -3=“very negative” to
3=“very positive”), relationship length in years, and the participant’s, ally’s, and perpetrator’s

43

(imagined) rank in the organizational hierarchy (from 1=highest rank in the hierarchy to
10=lowest rank in the hierarchy).
Results
In the following analyses, I coded my no voice solicitation condition as 0 and my voice
solicitation condition as 1. Supporting Hypothesis 1, participants in the voice solicitation
condition experienced greater emotional burden (M=3.07, SD=1.53) than those in the no voice
solicitation condition (M=2.02, SD=1.19; t(425)=-7.79, p<.001, d=-0.75). Supporting
Hypothesis 2a, participants in the voice solicitation condition conferred less status on the ally
(M=4.88, SD=1.54) than those in the no voice solicitation condition (M=5.75, SD=1.12;
t(425)=6.69, p<.001, d=0.65). Supporting Hypothesis 4a, participants in the voice solicitation
condition saw the ally as less competent (M=5.31, SD=1.38) than those in the no voice
solicitation condition (M=5.90, SD=0.92; t(425)=5.14, p<.001, d=0.50).
Supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4b, respectively, the effect of the voice solicitation
condition on status conferral was driven by participants’ feelings of emotional burden (95%
C.I.[-0.88, -0.46]), and perceptions of the ally’s competence (95% C.I.[-0.66, -0.29]). Supporting
Hypothesis 4c, results from a parallel mediation analysis indicated that the voice solicitation
condition is indirectly related to status conferral through its relationship with both feelings of
emotional burden (95% C.I. [-0.54, -0.23]) and competence (95% C.I. [-0.46, -0.19]).
I found support for my hypotheses when including my control variables. See Table 8 for
full regression results (H1: b =1.05, SE=0.13, p<.001; H2a: b =-0.89, SE=0.12, p<.001; H3: 95
% C.I.[-0.78, -0.40], H4a: b=-0.54, SD=0.11, p<.001; H4b: 95% C.I.[-0.58, -0.26]; H4c:
emotional burden – 95% C.I.[-0.51, -0.21]; competence – 95% C.I. [-0.51, -0.17]).

44

Moderated mediation analyses
I conducted first-stage moderated mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro in SPSS
(Model 7). I ran two sets of models. In my first set of models, I specified the voice solicitation
manipulation variable as the independent variable, emotional burden as the mediator, trust in the
ally as the moderator, and status conferral as the dependent variable. The interval for the index of
moderated mediation crossed zero without control variables (95% C.I.[-0.01, 0.26]) and with
control variables (95% C.I.[-0.01, 0.25]). These results suggest that Hypothesis 5a was not
supported. In my second set of models, I specified the voice solicitation manipulation variable as
the independent variable, emotional burden as the mediator, conflict avoidance as the moderator,
and status conferral as the dependent variable. The interval for the index of moderated mediation
crossed zero without controls (95% C.I.[-0.14, 0.08]) and with controls (95% C.I.[-0.13 , 0.06]).
These results suggest that Hypothesis 5b was also not supported.
Exploratory analyses
In a set of exploratory analyses, I tested for second-stage moderated mediation. While I
did not pre-register these predictions, I would expect that higher (vs. lower) levels of trust in the
ally and lower (vs. higher) levels of conflict avoidance would attenuate the influence of
emotional burden on status conferred to the ally. It is possible that these factors serve to buffer
the deleterious impact of emotional burden on evaluations of allies by “softening the blow” of
the confrontation on disadvantaged group members; in other words, I argue that higher (vs.
lower) levels of trust in the ally and lower (vs. higher) levels of conflict avoidance could protect
the ally against losing status. I discuss each prediction in more detail below.
Higher levels of trust in the ally could weaken the impact of heightened emotional
burden on status conferral relative to lower levels of trust in the ally, because disadvantaged

45

group members are more inclined to give trustworthy allies the benefit of the doubt. First, trust –
in part – is conceptualized as the extent to which an actor is vulnerable to another’s actions
(Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). To that end, disadvantaged group members who are more
vulnerable to an ally’s actions feel more comfort that the ally’s actions will reduce the
perpetrator’s prejudice display. As a result, they may not lose as much respect or admiration for
the ally as they would if they did not trust the ally. Moreover, trust reduces intrateam conflict
(Peterson & Behfar, 2003) for two reasons: first, in part, trust reduces teammates’ feelings of
defensiveness when exchanging inputs. Second, there is reduced friction between teammates
who trust each other, making it more difficult to address conflict (Curseu & Schruijer, 2010). As
a result, when disadvantaged group members are brought into a fraught interaction with an ally
they trust more (such as a prejudice confrontation), they likely feel less attacked by the ally’s
voice solicitation behaviors, and could perceive the ally as trying to help (rather than hurt) them.
Increased discomfort towards engaging in conflict, too, may increase the deleterious
impact of emotional burden on status conferral. I theorize that disadvantaged group members
likely feel greater emotional burden when their voices are solicited, in part because the ally is
drawing them into a charged and uncomfortable interaction. Indeed, those who have high levels
of conflict avoidance are more likely to be mindful of the costs imposed by the perpetrator in
correcting their behavior (Cortina & Magley, 2009) or consider the benefits of getting involved
to be too small to be worth the risk (Cai & Fink, 2002), leading them to actively attempt to avoid
the confrontation (Hershcovis et al., 2018). People seek to avoid stressful situations (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984), and disadvantaged group members who have high levels of conflict avoidance
may see the confrontation as particularly stressful. As a result, when the ally draws them into the
confrontation, the disadvantaged group member’s feelings of emotional burden could be

46

exacerbated because they resisted getting involved in the confrontation in the first place. This
heightened experience of emotional burden may lead them to hold particularly strong feelings of
resentment towards the ally, as the ally’s actions increase feelings of discomfort and anxiety in
the disadvantaged group member. However, if the disadvantaged group member holds lower
levels of conflict avoidance, they may feel less resentment towards the ally, since they feel more
comfort within the confrontation. As a result, they will evaluate the ally less, in part because they
may not hold strong sentiments that the ally is acting against the disadvantaged group members’
interests.
I ran two second-stage moderated mediation analyses using the PROCESS macro in
SPSS (Model 14). In my first analysis, I specified the voice solicitation manipulation variable as
the independent variable, emotional burden as the mediator, trust in the ally as the second-stage
moderator, and status conferral as the dependent variable. The interval for the index of
moderated mediation did not cross zero without control variables (95% C.I. [0.02, 0.11]). The
indirect effect for the voice solicitation variable on status conferral through emotional burden
was weaker at higher levels of trust (+1SD, or 6.33; indirect effect=-0.42, SE=0.09, 95% C.I.[-
0.62, -0.26]) relative to lower levels of trust (-1SD, or 4.00; indirect effect=-0.60, SE=0.10, 95%
C.I.[-0.80, -0.41]). I replicated this effect when including control variables (interval for the index
of moderated mediation: 95% C.I.[0.03, 0.12]). Again, the indirect effect for the voice
solicitation variable on status conferral through emotional burden was weaker at higher levels of
trust (+1SD, or 6.33; indirect effect=-0.39, SE=0.09, 95% C.I.[-0.58, -0.23]) relative to lower
levels of trust (-1SD, or 4.00; indirect effect=-0.60, SE=0.10, 95% C.I.[-0.79, -0.41]).
Then, I specified the voice solicitation manipulation variable as the independent variable,
emotional burden as the mediator, conflict avoidance as the second-stage moderator, and status

47

conferral as the dependent variable. The interval for the index of moderated mediation did not
cross zero without control variables (95% C.I.[0.01, 0.14]). Surprisingly, the indirect effect of the
voice solicitation manipulation on status conferral through emotional burden was weaker at
higher levels of conflict avoidance (+1SD, or 6.26; indirect effect=-0.61, SE=0.12, 95% C.I.[-
0.85, -0.39]) than lower levels of conflict avoidance (-1SD, or 3.42; indirect effect=-0.81,
SE=0.12, 95% C.I.[-1.06, -0.58]). The interval for the index of moderated mediation crossed
zero with control variables (95% C.I. [-0.01, 0.12]). These results were unexpected. I return to
them in more depth in the following section.
Discussion
In Study 4, I wanted to make the case that not all disadvantaged group members
experience allies’ voice-soliciting confrontations in the same way. In that sense, I intended to
provide empirical evidence hinting that disadvantaged group members’ relationships with the
ally, as well as their own comfort with engaging in the confrontation, shaped their feelings of
emotional burden – which, in turn, impacted the amount of status they conferred on the ally. I did
not find evidence supporting my predictions directly: participants’ extant trust in the ally, and
their desire to avoid conflict, did not serve as a first-stage moderator of the indirect effect of
voice solicitation on status conferral through emotional burden.
In an exploratory analysis, though, I found preliminary evidence supporting second-stage
moderated mediation: specifically, I found that the influence of emotional burden on status
conferred to the ally was diminished by how much trust participants felt toward the ally. In other
words, participants’ feelings of trust in the ally buffered the ally against the deleterious
evaluative consequences of soliciting voice – but do not buffer disadvantaged group members
against the deleterious affective consequences of having their voices solicited.

48

Additionally, I found that my measure of conflict avoidance also served as a second-stage
moderator of the indirect effect of voice solicitation on status conferral on emotional burden.
However, surprisingly, I found that the indirect effect was stronger at lower levels (rather than
higher) levels of conflict avoidance. Originally, I expected that the negative indirect effect of the
voice solicitation manipulation on status conferral through emotional burden would be
exacerbated at higher (relative to lower) levels of conflict avoidance. Instead, I found that it was
attenuated.
While this relationship did not hold when I included my control variables, it illustrates an
important consideration in future theorizing: namely, how participants’ desire to speak up varies
as a function of the topic that their voices are being solicited for. My measure of conflict
avoidance captured the participant’s reluctance to engage in fraught conversations more
generally, rather than their reluctance to engage in fraught conversations about prejudice,
specifically. It is likely the case that speaking up about sexism or racism promotes more backlash
for disadvantaged group members than speaking up about more general topics at work – in part
because of the controversial nature associated with speaking up about prejudice (Auger-
Dominguez, 2019). To that end, a more accurate assessment of my conflict avoidance measure
would characterize it as measuring conflict avoidance towards general topics at work, rather than
topics surrounding bias and diversity. It could be that disadvantaged group members do not
consider more general work topics as important to engage in, or perceive them as valuable, thus
making them less likely to engage in conversations around these issues, leading them to report
being conflict avoidant in this study. However, though, they may rank improving diversity in
organizations as being more important to them – so when an ally solicits their voice, they are
more welcoming of the ally’s voice solicitation than they would be if they did not prioritize

49

concerns about prejudice as highly. To that end, it is important to consider what type of
confrontation the disadvantaged group member is being called into, because it may be the case
that some disadvantaged group members are more willing to speak up during more general
confrontations, relative to prejudice-related confrontations. I return to this issue in Study 6.
While I did not find evidence supporting my moderated mediation predictions, these
findings suggest that there is empirical value in further investigating when disadvantaged group
members could approve (or disapprove) of a confrontation. Other internal and external factors
(beyond the participants’ trust in the ally, or their aversion to engaging in conflict) may influence
how much they welcome having their voices solicited by an ally during a prejudice
confrontation. To that end, understanding when (and why) disadvantaged group members
welcome having their voices solicited will be central to an ally’s ability to discern when they
should or should not request a coworkers’ input.
Table 7: Study 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variable Scale Mean Scale SD Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Emotional Burden 2.54 1.49 2.02 1.19 3.07 1.57
2 Status Conferral 5.32 1.41 5.75 1.12 4.88 1.54 -0.69***
3 Allyship Competence 5.61 1.21 5.90 0.92 5.31 1.38 -0.64*** 0.72***
4 Trust in Confronter 5.10 1.37 5.16 1.34 5.05 1.40 -0.40*** 0.51*** 0.50***
5 Conflict Avoidance 4.84 1.42 4.86 1.43 4.82 1.41 0.19*** -0.04 -0.04 -0.04
6 Offensiveness 6.85 1.89 6.88 1.86 6.81 1.92 -0.05 0.14** 0.08 -0.06 -0.05
7 Voice Solicitation 4.24 1.34 4.24 1.34 4.25 1.35 -0.18*** 0.25*** 0.23*** 0.43*** -0.14** 0.01
8 Sentiment 1.33 1.22 1.35 1.18 1.31 1.27 -0.31*** 0.38*** 0.38*** 0.65*** -0.04 -0.07 0.29***
9 Years Known 3.32 1.65 3.43 1.83 3.20 1.44 -0.09 0.12* 0.18*** 0.17*** -0.06 0.01 0.11* 0.14**
10 Participant Rank 6.15 2.00 6.14 2.00 6.15 2.00 0.01 -0.05 -0.04 -0.08 0.14** 0.01 -0.08 -0.04 -0.05
11 Confronter Rank 5.55 2.03 5.52 2.04 5.58 2.02 0.06 -0.04 -0.03 -0.08 0.05 0.02 -0.07 -0.05 -0.02 0.47***
12 Perpetrator Rank 5.74 2.21 5.77 2.18 5.72 2.25 0.02 -0.06 -0.01 0.01 0.08 -0.02 -0.04 0.00 -0.02 0.46*** 0.46***
* p <.05 ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
No Voice Solicitation Voice Solicitation

50

Table 8: Study 4 Regression results

Figure 4. Mean differences in outcomes by condition in Study 4.

STUDY 5
Study 5 builds on my previous results in four ways. First, I add two additional conditions
to rule out alternative explanations for my findings. In one condition, the ally invokes, but does
B SE B SE B SE
Voice Solicitation Manip.
0 = No Voice solicited
1 = Voice Solicited 1.05*** (0.13) -0.87*** (0.12) -0.57*** (0.10)
Recall
1 = Yes
0 = No -0.08*** (0.27) -0.06 (0.25) -0.04*** (0.22)
Previously Said -0.18 (0.16) 0.13 (0.15) 0.07 (0.13)
Voice solicitation -0.09+ (0.05) 0.14** (0.05) 0.11** (0.04)
Sentiment towards confronter -0.34*** (0.06) 0.38*** (0.05) 0.31*** (0.04)
Years Known -0.01 (0.04) 0.03 (0.04) 0.07 (0.03)
Participant's Rank -0.03 (0.04) -0.01 (0.04) -0.01 (0.03)
Confronter's Rank 0.03 (0.04) 0.02 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03)
Perpetrator's Rank 0.01 (0.03) -0.05 (0.03) 0.00 (0.03)
Identity - Women of Color -0.01 (0.16) -0.12 (0.15) -0.24+ (0.13)
Constant 3.14*** (0.72) 4.77*** (0.67) 4.87 (0.59)
Observations 427 427 427
Emotional Burden Perceived Status Perceived Competence
+ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

51

not explicitly solicit the voice of, a disadvantaged group member. In the other condition, the ally
solicited voice from the group as a whole instead of from a disadvantaged group member in
particular—thus ruling out the possibility that my previous findings can be explained by allies
soliciting voice in a general sense. These conditions are important to include because prejudice
transgressions do not always solely occur with just the transgressor, an ally, and the
disadvantaged group member present – some transgressions occur with other people present, too.
When there are other people present, allies may not decide to solicit voice from solely the
disadvantaged group member. Rather, they may solicit voice from the other witnesses present –
if not the group as a whole. My theorizing has implicitly suggested that disadvantaged group
members experience greater emotional burden when their voices are directly solicited by the ally
during the prejudice confrontation, but they would not feel less emotional burden if other’s
voices were solicited. I theorize that this occurs because participants are likely to feel a bright
“spotlight” on them (as in, the attention of all who are present is focused on them) when the ally
directly solicits their voice, given that the ally is turning the focus of the conversation towards
them. However, this spotlight is likely to not feel as “bright” if the ally does not turn it directly
on them, and turns it towards other people, or even the group more broadly.
Thus, in this study, I increase the salience of other people present during the
transgression and subsequent confrontation. In my past studies, I either alluded to other people
being present during the confrontation (e.g., Studies 1 and 2) or did not specify that there were
other people present (Studies 3 and 4). I predict that participants would feel the most emotional
burden (and confer the least status) when only their voices are directly solicited from the ally,
relative to when the ally does not solicit their voice, when the ally indirectly solicits their voice
(but does not call on them specifically), or solicits voice from the group, generally. Together,

52

including both of these conditions permits me to rule out the possibility that my previous
findings can be explained by the ally’s voice solicitation alone; rather, I predict that it is the act
of soliciting voice and explicitly singling out the disadvantaged group member that supports my
predictions.
Second, I created a novel email exchange paradigm in which the perpetrator, a male
coworker, unintentionally shares a sexist comment with a female coworker by accidentally
copying the project team on his email response to another male coworker. This paradigm
allowed me to test my hypotheses in a more subtle and realistic context. Third, in addition to
assessing emotional burden and status conferral, I included three new outcomes to better
understand how disadvantaged group members evaluate allies who solicited their voice during a
prejudice confrontation, thus testing Hypotheses 2b-2d. Finally, I used a stimulus sampling
strategy to increase generalizability and improve construct validity (Wells & Windschitl, 1999),
further demonstrating that my observed effects are robust to different types of voice solicitation
and sexist comments. The pre-registration for this study is available here:
https://aspredicted.org/9GD_CKB
Participants and procedures
In total, seven-hundred and nine CloudResearch approved women participants (Litman,
et al., 2017; www.CloudResearch.com) participated through Amazon Mechanical Turk. I
excluded participants who failed an attention check (N=121).
5
I also excluded participants who

5
I pre-registered that I would exclude participants who failed an attention and/or manipulation check. However, the
two exclusion questions that I included in the study are more accurately categorized as a general attention check,
unrelated to the manipulation, and a specific attention check that was related to the manipulation language, but was
not a manipulation check per se. The general attention check asked: “How would you best describe your feelings
right now?” of the six response options; I asked participants to select the “none of the above” option (N=76
responded incorrectly). The specific attention check asked: “In the email exchange you read, who made the sexist
comment?” (Paul or Jeff, N=45 responded incorrectly). Thus, the total number of attention failures is N=121.

53

reported a non-binary gender identification (N=9)
6
, as my focus in the current study is on
women’s reactions to a sexist comment targeting women in particular. My final sample included
579 participants (Mage=40.99, SDage=13.02; 100% female, 22% racially marginalized).
I asked participants to imagine that they worked as an analyst at a company called
DesignTech. I further explained that their role requires them to work on a wide range of tasks
and interact with other members of their project team. Next, I asked participants to form an
opinion of their project team members while reading a sequence of emails that project team
members exchanged and on which the participant was copied. The topic of the email exchange
was the department’s recent decision to hire a new manager. All of the emails were exchanged
among the same six employees: Paul (the perpetrator), Jeff (the ally), the participant (the only
woman included on the emails), and three other male coworkers who were not directly involved
in making or responding to the sexist comment (Brian, Justin, and John).
In all conditions, the email exchange began with Brian copying all six project team
members to an email with the following question: “How many applications do you think I will
receive for the new job posting?” Then, Paul (the perpetrator) wrote back to the whole group
with the following: “No idea, but it’s a leadership [highly quantitative] [highly stressful] position
so I doubt very many women will apply. And the women who do apply probably won’t be very
strong.” Following a stimulus sampling approach, I randomly presented participants with one of
the three aforementioned sexist comments to determine if my findings are robust to comments
based on three different sexist stereotypes—i.e., relating to women’s fitness for leadership,

6
CloudResearch only provides “male” and “female” gender identity response options, leading nine participants who
identified as non-binary to enter my survey. I did not anticipate this issue and therefore did not pre-register
excluding non-binary participants. Importantly, including these participants in my sample do not meaningfully
change the nature and magnitude of my reported effects.

54

quantitative, and stressful positions.
7
Then, in all conditions, Paul (the perpetrator) immediately
wrote back to the whole group saying: “Please disregard my previous email…I didn’t realize that
I copied the whole team.”
Prejudice confrontation manipulations
Next, I randomly assigned participants to one of four prejudice confrontation conditions
in which Jeff (the ally) replied to Paul (the perpetrator) and copied the other employees. In all
four conditions, Jeff began confronting Paul by writing: “Your comment about women is pretty
messed up.” In the no voice solicitation condition, Jeff did not write anything further. In the
invoking disadvantaged group member without soliciting voice condition, Jeff added:
“…[Participant’s name] probably doesn’t appreciate it either.” In the general voice solicitation
condition, Jeff added: “…What did others think of Paul’s comment?” Finally, in the targeted
voice solicitation condition, I again followed a stimulus sampling approach and randomly
displayed one of three voice solicitation messages to participants to increase the generalizability
of my findings. In one version, Jeff added “…[Participant’s name]—what do you think of Paul’s
comment?” In the second version, Jeff added “…[Participant’s name]—will you describe how
Paul’s comment made you feel?” In the third version, Jeff added “…[Participant’s name]—will
you explain why Paul’s comment was discriminatory?”
8
After reviewing the entire email
exchange, participants completed the outcome measures.
Measures
All items used a seven-point scale from 1=“strongly disagree” to 7=“strongly agree”.

7
I conducted a one-way ANOVA on the perceived offensiveness of the sexist comment and found no significant
effect of sexist stereotype invoked, F(2, 576)=1.08, p=0.34, η2=0.004. Thus, I do not discuss the nature of the sexist
comment further.
8
I conducted a one-way ANOVA on all five outcomes measures described below and found no significant effects of
voice solicitation type (p’s ranged from 0.20-0.88). Thus, I do not discuss voice solicitation type further.

55

Emotional burden. Participants completed the same measure as in prior studies (adapted
from Novak & Guest, 1989; α= 0.95).
Status conferral. Participants completed the same measure as in prior studies (adapted
from Jachimowicz et al., 2019; α= 0.98).
Willingness to work with ally in future. I asked participants: “How willing would you be
to continue to work with Jeff in the future?” (1=Not willing at all, 7=Very willing).
Willingness to spend time with ally outside of work. I asked participants: “How willing
would you be to spend time with Jeff outside of work in the future?” (1=Not willing at all,
7=Very willing).
Desire for ally to lead organizational DEI efforts. Finally, I asked participants: “To what
extent would you want Jeff to lead Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts at your
organization?” (1=Not at all, 7=Very much).
Control variables. I collected a number of control variables used in prior studies
including the participant’s age, perceived offensiveness of the sexist comment (1=Not offensive
at all, 10=Very offensive), and the participant’s, ally’s, and perpetrator’s (imagined) rank in the
organizational hierarchy (1=highest rank, 10=lowest rank).
Results
See Table 10 for means and standard deviations of all outcome variables by condition.
Women in the targeted voice solicitation condition anticipated experiencing more emotional
burden and indicated they would confer less status on the ally compared to: a) women in the no
voice solicitation condition (emotional burden: t(283)=-7.70, p< .001, d=-0.91; status conferral:
t(283)=5.53, p< .001, d=0.66), b) women in the invoking disadvantaged group member without
soliciting voice condition (emotional burden: t(287)=-5.53, p< .001, d=-0.65; status conferral:

56

t(287)=3.04, p=.003, d=0.36), and c) women in the general voice solicitation condition
(emotional burden: t(277)=-6.24, p< .001, d=-0.75; status conferral: t(277)=4.31, p< .001,
d=0.52). These results support Hypotheses 1 and 2a. Additionally, participants in the no voice
solicitation condition felt less emotional burden and conferred more status on Jeff than
participants in the invoking disadvantaged group member without soliciting voice condition:
(emotional burden: t(298)=-2.11, p=.04, d=-0.24; status conferral: t(298)=2.57, p =.01, d=0.30).
There were no other significant differences in emotional burden and status conferral across
conditions (p’s>0.19).
Next, I examined three variables representing other downstream consequences of voice
solicitation. Women in the targeted voice solicitation condition expressed less interest working
with the ally in the future, less desire to spend time with the ally outside of work, and a weaker
desire for the ally to lead DEI efforts in the organization, compared to a) women in the no voice
solicitation condition (t(281)=4.42, p< .001, d=0.53; t(281)=4.99, p< .001, d=0.59; and
t(283)=2.56, p< .001, d=0.30, respectively), b) women in the invoking disadvantaged group
member without soliciting voice condition (t(286)=3.89, p< .001, d=0.46; t(286)=2.55, p=0.01,
d=0.30; and t(287)=2.92, p< .001, d=0.34, respectively), and c) women in the general voice
solicitation condition (t(277)=4.72, p< .001, d=0.57; t(276)=4.66, p<.001, d=0.56; and
t(277)=2.88, p=.004, d=0.35, respectively). These results support Hypotheses 2b-d. Additionally,
participants in the invoking disadvantaged group member without soliciting voice condition
reported that they were less willing to spend time with the ally in the future than participants in
the no voice solicitation condition, t(297)=2.45, p=0.02, d=0.28, and the general voice
solicitation condition, t(292)=-2.23, p=0.03, d=-0.26. There were no other significant differences
across conditions (p’s>0.34).

57

Finally, I tested whether emotional burden significantly mediated the relationships
between the targeted voice solicitation condition (vs. each of the other three conditions) and
status conferral, willingness to work with the ally in future, willingness to spend time with the
ally outside of work, and desire for the ally to lead organizational DEI efforts. First, when
specifying status conferral as the outcome, I found that the confidence interval for the indirect
effect of the targeted voice solicitation condition relative to each of the other three conditions did
not cross zero (no voice solicitation: 95% C.I.[-0.90, -0.42]; invoking participant without
soliciting voice: 95% C.I.[-0.74, -0.30]; general voice solicitation: 95% C.I.[-0.80, -0.33]).
Second, when specifying willingness to work with the ally in the future as the outcome, I found
that the confidence interval for the indirect effect of the targeted voice solicitation condition
relative to each of the other three conditions did not cross zero (no voice solicitation: 95% C.I.[-
0.81, -0.36]; invoking participant without soliciting voice: 95% C.I.[-0.71, -0.30]; general voice
solicitation: 95% C.I.[-0.70, -0.29]). Third, when specifying willingness to spend time with the
ally outside of work as the outcome, I found that the confidence interval for the indirect effect of
the targeted voice solicitation condition relative to each of the other three conditions did not
cross zero (no voice solicitation: 95% C.I.[-0.78, -0.30]; invoking participant without soliciting
voice: 95% C.I.[-0.66, -0.23]; general voice solicitation: 95% C.I.[-0.68, -0.25]). Fourth, when
specifying desire for the ally to lead DEI efforts as the outcome, I found that the confidence
interval for the indirect effect of the targeted voice solicitation condition relative to each of the
other three conditions did not cross zero (no voice solicitation: 95% C.I.[-0.82, -0.34]; invoking
participant without soliciting voice: 95% C.I.[-0.68, -0.25]; general voice solicitation: 95% C.I.[-
0.68, -0.24]). In sum, these results support Hypothesis 3.

58

I replicated these effects when including my control variables: the participant’s age, the
perceived offensiveness of the comments, the participant’s rank, the ally’s imagined rank, and
the perpetrator’s imagined rank. See Table 10 for ANCOVA results, and see Table 11 for
confidence intervals of my mediation analyses which contain my control variables.
Discussion
Study 5 compared women’s perceptions of allies who directly solicited their voice during
a prejudice confrontation to women’s perceptions of allies who solicited voice more broadly (or
not at all) during a prejudice confrontation. Importantly, women’s emotional burden was
strongest when allies solicited their voice – specifically – while confronting a perpetrator, rather
than soliciting voice from the group as a whole or singling them out without directly soliciting
their voice. Results also revealed a host of negative interpersonal outcomes associated with voice
solicitation—all related to how much a disadvantaged group member sees the ally as someone
worth engaging with further. The effects of voice solicitation on these interpersonal outcomes
were mediated by feelings of emotional burden. Finally, by using a stimulus sampling approach,
I demonstrated that my findings are robust to different types of voice solicitation and sexist
comments.
Table 9: Study 5 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Table 10: Study 5 ANCOVA results
Variable Scale Mean Scale SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Emotional Burden 2.56 1.71 3.55 1.85 2.05 1.42 2.42 1.61 2.27 1.57
2 Status Conferral 5.39 1.50 4.78 1.80 5.77 1.18 5.37 1.50 5.58 1.28 -0.49***
3 Willingness to work with ally 6.02 1.32 5.48 1.54 6.20 1.17 6.12 1.23 6.25 1.17 -0.52*** 0.72***
4 Spending time with ally outside of work 4.90 1.60 4.32 1.65 5.24 1.44 4.81 1.59 5.22 1.56 -0.36*** 0.64*** 0.64***
5 Ally to lead DEI efforts 5.21 1.70 4.75 2.04 5.29 1.49 5.38 1.63 5.37 1.53 -0.37*** 0.69*** 0.67*** 0.62***
6 Age 40.99 13.02 39.84 12.48 41.53 12.27 41.73 13.89 40.73 13.39 -0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.11**
7 Offensiveness 8.55 1.84 8.55 1.88 8.43 1.99 8.63 1.74 8.60 1.74 -0.10* 0.31*** 0.23*** 0.18*** 0.28*** -0.05
8 Participant Rank 5.65 1.94 5.52 1.92 5.43 2.12 5.76 1.90 5.90 1.78 0.01 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.07
9 Confronter Rank 5.44 2.07 5.34 2.19 5.39 1.97 5.32 2.11 5.70 2.03 -0.03 0.05 0.04 0.09* 0.05 0.15*** 0.04 0.20***
10 Perpetrator Rank 5.56 2.49 5.51 2.44 5.74 2.37 5.49 2.61 5.47 2.54 -0.07 0.05 0.05 0.12** 0.08* -0.05 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p <0.001
Directed Voice
Solicitation
No Voice
Solicitation
Invoking w/o
Soliciting Voice
General Voice
Solicitation

59

Table 11: Study 5 Confidence intervals for indirect effects with control variables

Figure 5. Mean differences in outcomes by condition in Study 5.

STUDY 6
Study 6 sought to address two goals. First, I examined if soliciting voice in a prejudice
confrontation (relative to soliciting voice for a more general topic) evoked greater feelings of
Comparison Condition
(vs. Direct Voice Solicitation) F η2 F η2 F η2 F η2 F η2
No Voice Solicitation 56.66*** 0.17 32.83*** 0.11 19.00*** 0.06 24.43*** 0.08 6.27* 0.02
Invoking Participant Without Soliciting Voice 29.58** 0.10 8.55** 0.03 13.67*** 0.05 5.47* 0.02 7.24** 0.03
General Voice Solicitation 38.12*** 0.12 18.80*** 0.07 22.13*** 0.08 20.86*** 0.07 8.11** 0.03
Status
Conferral
+ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Support Ally
Leading DEI Efforts
Desire to Work
With Ally
Desire to Spend
Time with Ally
Emotional
Burden
Comparison Condition LLCI UCLI LLCI UCLI LLCI UCLI LLCI UCLI
No Voice Solicitation -0.89 -0.38 -0.77 -0.33 -0.73 -0.25 -0.76 -0.29
Invoking Participant without Soliciting Voice -0.71 -0.29 -0.70 -0.29 -0.62 -0.22 -0.64 -0.23
General Voice Solicitation -0.78 -0.33 -0.68 -0.28 -0.65 -0.24 -0.65 -0.23
Status
Conferral
Ally to Lead
DEI Efforts
Willingness to
Work with Ally
Spending Time with
Ally Outside of Work
Dependent Variables

60

emotional burden. It is possible that voice solicitation in any context is emotionally burdensome.
However, I want to demonstrate in this study that it is uniquely burdensome for disadvantaged
group members when it is in the context of a prejudice confrontation (rather than a conversation
that is less relevant to their identity). Second, I developed a chat paradigm where participants
were led to believe that they would interact with two other “participants” in an online chat. In
reality, though, participants did not interact with anyone else during the study. Rather, the online
chat was a video I created which was made to appear like an online chat. This study builds on
past studies by going beyond the imagined (Studies 1, 2, and 5) and retrospective (Studies 3 and
4) settings and leading participants to believe they may actually need to express voice in real
time. While this study is not a strict test of my primary hypotheses (which situate my theory in
the prejudice confrontation context), it allows me to identify an important boundary condition for
my theory: namely, that advantaged group members who solicit voice from disadvantaged group
members about prejudice confrontations (rather than more general topics) evoke more emotional
burden (and thus, receive less status). Identifying this boundary condition helps illustrate that my
theory is specific to prejudice-related issues, but not work-related issues in general.
Participants and procedures
I recruited four-hundred women participants on Connect Research
(https://connect.cloudresearch.com/; which is owned by CloudResearch.com). I chose this
platform because it was launched in May 2022, suggesting that some participants using this
platform may be relatively naïve, and thus less susceptible to being suspicious of the other
participants “participating” in the chat. I excluded participants who indicated that they were not
comfortable having their data used after being informed that the study used deception (N=10),

61

and retained three-hundred-ninety participants (Mage=45.14, SDage=13.47; 22.05% racially
marginalized).
After participants entered the survey, I informed them that they would engage in a chat
with two other participants. I told them that I am interested in how people talk to each other in
virtual spaces about work-related priorities. I asked for participants to indicate if they would be
comfortable participating in a chat with two other participants. After this page, I asked for them
to report their gender, age, and ethnicity. They were allowed to continue in the study if they
indicated that they were comfortable participating in a chat with two other participants, and
identified as a woman. If they said no, or identified as a man, I asked for them to return their
submission.
On the following page, I told participants that they will be collaborating with other users
to decide as a team about who to assign to a committee. After making decisions individually,
they would chat with their teammates about who they chose. I told them that, during the chat,
they may be asked to answer questions about their interaction partners during their discussion.
Upon completing a set of questions about their teammates, they would then be asked to continue
their discussion as a group.
I informed them that, before receiving further instructions for their task, they would
select an avatar to represent themselves to their teammates. This question was accompanied by a
note informing them that the other participants in the survey will be shown the avatar that they
choose, along with their anonymous identifier which I would assign on the following page. On
the next page, I presented a loading wheel asking participants to “Please wait a moment while
your conversation partners join the task and select their avatars. This may take a moment....”
Then, I told participants that I would assign them one of three anonymous identifiers: Conversant

62

A, Conversant B, or Conversant C. After their conversation partners “joined” the task (in reality,
I auto-advanced them to the next page after a pre-set amount of time to increase the realism of
the cover story), I told participants that they had been assigned the Conversant C identifier, and
then showed them the avatars for Conversants A and Conversant B. These avatars indicated
these “participants” had selected two White men.
I then used a paradigm inspired by other work (Tost, Osborne, Gino, & Roberson, 2022).
First, I instructed participants that they and their teammates were to assign one person to sit on
the planning committee for a company-wide retreat the following summer. The committee would
need to determine the budget, select speakers, develop an agenda, and coordinate transportation.
The participant and their teammates were then instructed to assign someone who has:
o demonstrated a capacity to develop and follow a budget
o held previous experience in event planning connections with highly visible people
that could be potential keynote speakers
o shown aptitude and desire at improving the workplace environment through social
events.
Then, I presented the list of candidates for participants to choose from. Of the four
candidates, three worked in Sales (Bill, Samantha[/Samuel]
9
, and Phil), and one worked in
Finance (Carl). I asked for participants to choose one candidate to lead the committee, then
describe why they selected that candidate in one to two sentences. I told them that what they
typed into this textbox could be a draft of what they plan to tell their teammates during the chat.
On the next page, I instructed participants to wait while the other participants finished
making their selections. I displayed a graphic to indicate that they were ready to enter the
chatroom, but that Conversants A and B were not yet ready. After a pre-specified amount of

9
I manipulated the gender of the female candidate. In the “General Confrontation condition”, the text displayed four
men (including Samuel). In the “Prejudice Confrontation condition”, the text displayed three men and one woman
(including Samantha).

63

time, I informed them that the other two Conversants were ready to enter the chatroom, and then
I advanced the page. I told them that some computers had plug-ins that slow down the ability of
the researchers’ servers to connect the participant to the chat interface. I warned that there may
also be loading errors because the researchers are beta-testing the application that the chat was
built on. I let participants know that once they are finished interacting with their partners, I
would provide a textbox for them to document any issues that arose while they used the
platform. After a few seconds, I told participants that the other participants were in the chatroom.
On the next page, I displayed a video simulating an online chat. Above the chat, I
displayed a loading gif, to make it appear to the participant that the chat program was attempting
to connect them to the chat. During the course of the chat, Conversant B engaged in a behavior
that led Conversant A to respond. I manipulated the content of the behavior: in the prejudice
solicitation condition, Conversant B makes a sexist statement about Samantha. He says that, as a
woman, Samantha would not be able to handle the stress of planning the retreat, and wouldn’t be
as good as the other guys. In this condition, Conversant A responds by saying “that comment
sounds kind of sexist”, and then solicits the participant’s voice by saying “@conversant c, youre
a woman, what do you think of B’s comment?” In the general solicitation condition, Conversant
B says that they don’t like Carl (the finance candidate) because they didn’t think he would be as
creative as the other candidates. In this condition, Conversant A responds by saying “that
comment sounds kind of ridiculous”, and then solicits the participant’s voice by saying
“@conversant c, what do you think of B’s comment?”
A few seconds after Conversant A’s confrontation, I told the participants that I had
interrupted their chat so that they could evaluate each of their interaction partners based on what
they had seen up to that point in the conversation. I let them know what they would return to the

64

chat after they completed these questions. I told them that they would first evaluate Conversant
A. On this same page, I presented another loading wheel, and told participants to wait a moment
while I generate the transcript of the chat thus far. After a few seconds, I auto-advanced to the
next page, where I presented my measures. At the top of this page, I displayed the chat transcript.
Graphics illustrating which avatars participants could choose from, the avatars that their
conversation partners chose, and the candidates participants could choose are in Appendix C.
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, all items used a five-point scale from 1=“strongly disagree” to
5=“strongly agree”.
Manipulation Check. To determine if my manipulation worked, I asked participants to
indicate the extent to which they agreed with the following statement: “During the chat thus far,
Conversant A confronted Conversant B about sexist/racist behavior”. I anticipated that
participants in the prejudice solicitation condition would indicate stronger agreement with this
measure than participants in the general solicitation condition. I embedded this item among six
other items with the same question stem. Example items included: “During the chat thus far,
Conversant A…was friendly to Conversant B, was hostile to Conversant B, and acted
unprofessionally towards Conversant B”.
Emotional burden. Participants completed the same measure as in prior studies (adapted
from Novak & Guest, 1989; α=0.92).
Status conferral. Participants completed the same measure as in prior studies (adapted
from Jachimowicz et al., 2019; α= 0.97).
Willingness to work with ally in future. I asked participants: “How willing would you be
to continue to work with Conversant A in the future?” (1=Not willing at all, 5=Very willing).

65

Willingness to spend time with ally outside of work. I asked participants: “How willing
would you be to spend time with Conversant A outside of work in the future?” (1=Not willing at
all, 5=Very willing).
Results
In the following analyses, I coded my general confrontation condition as 0 and my
prejudice confrontation condition as 1. To determine if my manipulation worked, I tested if
participants saw Conversant A’s statements as confronting prejudice in the prejudice solicitation
condition more so than participants in the general solicitation condition. Specifying the
manipulation as the independent variable and the manipulation check as the dependent variable, I
found that participants in the prejudice solicitation condition (M=4.68, SD=0.73) saw
Conversant A’s statements as more in service of addressing prejudice/sexism than participants in
the general solicitation condition (M=1.49, SD=0.92; t(388) =-38.00, p < .001, d=-3.85).
Then, I tested if participants in the prejudice solicitation condition felt greater emotional
burden than participants in the general solicitation condition. I found that participants in the
prejudice solicitation condition (M =1.68, SD =0.98) felt less emotional burden than participants
in the general solicitation condition (M=1.91, SD =1.02; t(388)=2.30, p=0.02, d=0.23). Next, I
tested if participants in the prejudice solicitation condition conferred more status to Conversant
A than participants in the general solicitation condition. I found that participants in the prejudice
solicitation condition (M=3.78, SD=1.09) conferred more status than participants in the general
solicitation condition (M=2.97, SD =1.02; t(388)=-7.63, p < .001, d=-0.77). I then tested if
participants in the prejudice solicitation condition reported being more willing to work with
Conversant A than participants in the general solicitation condition. I found that participants in
the prejudice solicitation condition (M=4.17, SD=1.05) were more willing to work with

66

Conversant A than participants in the general solicitation condition (M=3.65, SD=1.05; t(388)=-
4.59, p < .001, d=-0.47). Next, I tested if participants in the prejudice solicitation condition
reported wanting to spend more time with Conversant A than participants in the general
solicitation condition. I found that participants in the prejudice solicitation condition (M=3.85,
SD =1.14) wanted to spend more time with Conversant A than participants in the general
solicitation condition (M =3.17, SD =1.24; t(388)=-5.66, p < .001, d=-0.57).
Finally, I examined if emotional burden mediated the indirect effect of the voice-
solicitation-content variable on the amount of status the participant conferred to Conversant A,
the participant’s willingness to work with Conversant A again in the future, and the participant’s
willingness to spend time with Conversant A again in the future. I found that that emotional
burden partially mediated the indirect effect of the manipulation on status conferral (95%
C.I.[0.02, 0.28]), willingness to work with Conversant A again in the future (95% C.I.[0.02,
0.32]), and willingness to spend time with Conversant A again (95% C.I.[0.02, 0.30]).
Importantly, unlike in past studies, these indirect effects were positive, suggesting that the effect
of the prejudice confrontation manipulation (compared to the general confrontation
manipulation) increased status conferral through reducing emotional burden.
Discussion
Using a novel simulated chat paradigm, I find that participants whose voices are solicited
during a prejudice confrontation (relative to a more general confrontation) felt less emotional
burden, conferred more status to the ally, wanted to spend more time with the ally, and were
more willing to work with the ally again. These results run counter to my hypotheses and
theorizing overall. However, I postulate that participants welcomed the prejudice confrontation
more than the general confrontation for two reasons. First, in the prejudice confrontation

67

condition participants were likely surprised that the ally responded, and were just happy that he
had said something about a transgression that may have felt personally relevant to them.
Moreover, because it was clear that they were likely not going to be able to participate, they may
not have felt much pressure to respond, nor felt a bright spotlight focused on them. Second, in
the comments of the study, some participants even expressed disappointment at not being able to
respond, and noted that they would have liked the opportunity to say something. This suggests
that they were neither uncomfortable with participating in the chat, nor shying away from the
ally’s voice solicitation.
Yet, I think that these results are more indicative of the study paradigm, rather than my
theory. Both of my postulations above suggest that participants may not have been concerned
about being evaluated or punished by the other two participants for speaking up. If they had
concerns of evaluation or punishment, they may have felt more apprehensive about participating
in the interaction. In past studies, wherein participants either imagined or recalled a confrontation
at work, they were vulnerable to important evaluative consequences, provided they participated
in the confrontation. Awareness of these consequences, and the desire to avoid them, may then
influence participants’ feelings of discomfort and anxiety. In this study, participants did not face
the same evaluative consequences as participants in my other studies. If participants were wary
that they could face outcomes such as punishment or rewards in this study, it is feasible that
participants in the prejudice confrontation condition may feel greater anxiety or discomfort,
given the heightened possibility of repercussions. Indeed, when there are evaluative outcomes,
participants in the prejudice confrontation condition (relative to participants in the general voice
solicitation condition) could feel greater emotional burden and discomfort, given the inherently
fraught nature of identity-based discussions (e.g., Wu, Sánchez, & Perry, 2022), and the

68

possibility that speaking up about these issues could lead to backlash (Auger-Dominguez, 2016)
– which could become more salient with the potential of being evaluated by their peers.
Table 12: Study 6 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Figure 6: Mean differences in outcomes by condition in Study 6.

CHAPTER 3: GENERAL DISCUSSION
Across five pre-registered studies—using a variety of prejudice confrontation and voice
solicitation situations and different disadvantaged groups (i.e., women and racially marginalized
individuals)—I found that members of disadvantaged groups whose voices were directly
solicited (vs. not directly solicited) by an ally in the context of a prejudice confrontation felt a
Variable Scale Mean Scale SD Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3
1 Emotional Burden 1.79 1.01 1.91 1.02 1.68 0.98
2 Status Conferral 3.39 1.13 2.97 1.09 3.78 1.02 -0.60***
3 Willing to Work 3.92 1.13 3.65 1.16 4.17 1.05 -0.65*** 0.77***
4 Willing to Spend Time 3.52 1.24 3.17 1.24 3.85 1.14 -0.57*** 0.76*** 0.80***
General
Voice Solicitation
Prejudice
Voice Solicitation
*** p < .001

69

greater sense of emotional burden, and saw the ally as a less competent ally. These then drove
their negative perceptions of, and behavioral intentions toward, the ally. Specifically, members
of disadvantaged groups viewed allies who directly solicited (vs. did not directly solicit) their
voice during a prejudice confrontation as less deserving of status and, further, were less willing
to work with the ally in the future, less interested in spending time with the ally outside of work,
and less supportive of the ally leading organizational DEI efforts. Moreover, I demonstrated that
these effects only emerged when an ally directly solicited voice from a specific disadvantaged
group member, but not when an ally solicited voice from the group as a whole (without singling
out a disadvantaged group member) or when an ally merely invoked (but did not specifically
solicit voice from) a disadvantaged group member during a prejudice confrontation. I also found
that the indirect effect of the voice solicitation on status conferral through emotional burden was
influenced by the participants’ feelings of trust in the confronter, and their own conflict
avoidance. Taken together, the results of these five studies suggest that by soliciting voice from
members of disadvantaged groups during a prejudice confrontation, allies may unintentionally do
more harm than good to the very people they intend to help.
Notably, in my sixth study, I found that prejudice confrontations (compared to
confrontations around a more general topic) were seen as less emotionally burdensome, and
worthier of social rewards for the ally. These results, however, suggest that there may be
situations where soliciting voice is not as deleterious as I originally theorized – and, in fact,
could even be beneficial for the ally. To that end, this study points to the need for more
investigation around the psychological process behind disadvantaged group members’
evaluations of the ally who solicits their voice during prejudice confrontations – and the value of

70

understanding the differences between being solicited into a prejudice confrontation compared to
a more general confrontation.
Theoretical contributions
The current research makes a number of contributions to the voice and prejudice
confrontation literatures. First, I integrate the two literatures by conceptualizing prejudice
confrontation as a form of prohibitive voice. I use the insights generated from this integration to
center disadvantaged group members’ feelings when witnessing an ally respond to prejudice by
either independently expressing prohibitive voice or expressing prohibitive voice and soliciting
their voice.
Second, I advance theory related to how disadvantaged group members evaluate allies
who confront prejudice. Past work has primarily focused on understanding how confronting
prejudice can reduce prejudice in the perpetrator (e.g., Czopp et al., 2006) and when allies
choose to confront (e.g., Brown et al., 2021). To date, however, little work has examined how
disadvantaged group members view others (especially allies) who confront prejudice. To that
end, the present work responds to calls from social psychologists to study issues of racial
prejudice from racially marginalized group members’ perspectives (e.g., Shelton, 2000) and calls
from management scholars to scrutinize men’s roles in addressing sexism (e.g., Joshi et al.,
2015). These perspectives are important to consider for two reasons. First, an ally who confronts
prejudice on behalf of a disadvantaged group member could perpetuate undesirable social norms.
For example, men’s confrontations of sexism may inadvertently be viewed as benevolent sexism,
whereby women are treated as “weak individuals in need of men’s protection and support” (p.
764; Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007). Past work has illustrated that experiencing benevolent
sexism can damage women’s confidence and feelings of empowerment (e.g., Martin & Phillips,
2017). Similarly, there may be situations where a White person confronting an act of racism may

71

be agency-reducing for a racially marginalized person who is capable of advocating for
themselves. Thus, taking this perspective helps me understand when confrontations could lead
allies to perpetuate societal norms that disempower the very people they are working to uplift.
Third, my findings emphasize the fact that disadvantaged group members are not
monoliths: while almost every disadvantaged group member likely wants for prejudice to be
addressed, not all agree on how or even when they would want for it to be addressed. This work
suggests that allies who confront prejudice (and intend to solicit the voice of a disadvantaged
group member while doing so) should be mindful of the person whose voice they are soliciting.
Some disadvantaged group members may appreciate having their voice solicited in the context of
a prejudice confrontation. I argue that this is the case in two situations: when the disadvantaged
group member trusts the ally, and when the disadvantaged group member has high levels of
conflict avoidance. My original argument led me to predict that the indirect effect of voice
solicitation during a prejudice confrontation on status conferral through emotional burden would
vary as a function of the disadvantaged group member’s trust in the ally and conflict avoidance;
specifically, these two factors would influence the relationship between voice solicitation during
a prejudice confrontation and the amount of emotional burden participants felt. I predicted that
trusting the ally more (vs. less) or having lower (vs. higher) levels of conflict avoidance would
reduce the impact of voice solicitation during prejudice confrontations on feelings of emotional
burden, which in turn would drive how much status the disadvantaged group member conferred
to the ally.
While I do not find that these factors were first-stage moderators as I originally predicted,
I found that they served as second-stage moderators: in other words, the indirect effect of voice
solicitation during prejudice confrontations on status conferral through emotional burden did

72

vary as a function of the disadvantaged group member’s trust in the ally and the disadvantaged
group member’s desire to avoid conflict. However, I found that the indirect effect varied because
these factors influenced the link between emotional burden and status conferral (rather than
voice solicitation during prejudice confrontations and emotional burden as I originally
hypothesized). In other words: the indirect effect of soliciting voice during a prejudice
confrontation on status conferral through emotional burden is exacerbated when they trust the
ally less – surprisingly, though, I found that this same effect was attenuated when the
disadvantaged group member had higher levels of conflict avoidance.
Together, the results of my first- and second-stage moderated mediation analyses suggest
that soliciting voice ultimately burdens the disadvantaged group member (regardless of the
participant’s trust in the ally or their desire to avoid conflict), but – depending on how much
participants trust the confronter or consider themselves conflict avoidant – the negative
repercussions for the ally are reduced. Specifically, I found that the indirect effect of voice
solicitation during a prejudice confrontation on status conferral through emotional burden was
weaker for disadvantaged group members’ who had higher (compared to lower) levels of conflict
avoidance and trust in the ally. These results hint at the situational and dispositional
contingencies which could influence how disadvantaged group members experience voice-
soliciting prejudice confrontations. They suggest that, when seeking the disadvantaged group
member’s input during the prejudice confrontation, allies should be mindful of both their
relationship with the disadvantaged group member, as well as the disadvantaged group member’s
disposition. Moreover, this finding led me to theorize that the disadvantaged group member’s
feelings of conflict avoidance may be contingent on the topic of conflict that they are called into

73

– and it is possible that disadvantaged group members who feel more conflict avoidant about
general work topics are actually less conflict avoidant about work topics related to prejudice.
Fourth, my theorizing and results qualify the dominant view that organizational voice in
general (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert et al., 2013), and voice solicitation in particular (Fast
et al., 2014; McClean et al., 2013; Park et al., 2022; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012), have
positive individual and organizational effects. I documented negative effects of voice solicitation
for both the solicitee (i.e., emotional burden) and solicitor (e.g., lower status) under certain
conditions. These outcomes may offset the benefits associated with not only expressing voice,
but also having one’s voice solicited. Consequently, it is imperative to understand how allies can
productively solicit voice from disadvantaged group members. This is especially true in
potentially fraught workplace situations; even if they are invited or encouraged to speak up,
disadvantaged group members may worry that the costs of participating in the confrontation
could outweigh any potential benefits.
Fifth, by illustrating that disadvantaged group members see allies who solicit voice as
less competent than allies who do not solicit voice, I identify another factor that allies should
consider when deciding whether or not to solicit the voice of a disadvantaged group member
during a prejudice confrontation. Indeed, soliciting voice in this context may signal to the
disadvantaged group member that the ally does not know how to address the transgression
(Meleady et al., 2021) or does not have adequate social skill to navigate the interaction (e.g.,
Ferris et al., 2001). This diminishes the ally’s perceived instrumental social value to the
disadvantaged group member (Leary et al., 2014), which has important social and occupational
consequences for the ally. Additionally, I illustrate that perceptions of competence are not

74

contingent on feelings of emotional burden. Rather, they work in tandem to shape how
disadvantaged group members experience prejudice confrontations.
Limitations and future directions
The current work has two limitations that are worth noting. First, I relied primarily on
scenario paradigms to test my hypotheses, which may have seemed contrived to some
participants. I attempted to address this limitation by having participants reflect on their own
lived experiences (Studies 3 and 4), implementing a realistic email exchange paradigm (Study 5),
and simulating an online chat (Study 6). However, a more compelling experiment would have
manipulated voice solicitation in the context of a real-life, face-to-face prejudice confrontation
where participants have an opportunity to respond to the confronter, should their voice be
solicited.
Second, I only considered two types of prejudice: sexism and racism. More specifically, I
focus on sexism and racism affecting Black and Latine participants. While I predict that identical
effects would emerge in situations involving other forms of prejudice—such as ageism,
homophobia, transphobia, and ableism— and among other groups who hold racially oppressed
identities (such as Native American or Asian communities), these perspectives are worthy of
deeper, more focused investigation.
Future work should also examine the extent to which my findings can inform
disadvantaged group members’ reactions to their voices being solicited in other contexts.
Disadvantaged group members who are called on to participate in a prejudice confrontation may
have similar reactions to being asked to participate in other forms of diversity work, such as
spearheading diversity initiatives (e.g., Onyeador, Hudson, & Lewis, 2021), developing and
delivering anti-bias trainings (Carter, Onyeador, & Lewis, 2020), or creating anti-racism

75

resources (McCluney et al., 2020). Researchers could therefore study how disadvantaged group
members feel and respond when called on to facilitate and enact other types of diversity work.
Additionally, future work could explore organization-level and individual-level factors
that influence disadvantaged group members’ reactions to having their voice solicited by an ally
during a prejudice confrontation. This could include factors such as the culture of the
organization (e.g., the extent to which norm violations and/or candid feedback are typical of the
culture), the ratio of advantaged to disadvantaged group members who witness the confrontation,
the disadvantaged group member’s agreeableness, and other factors affecting disadvantaged
group members’ risk assessments when confronting prejudice (e.g., related to power, incentives,
etc.). In my second supplemental study, I considered one such boundary condition: whether the
perpetrator was present (vs. absent) when the ally solicited the disadvantaged group member’s
voice. While I replicated the results of my main studies (i.e., disadvantaged group members felt
more emotional burden when an ally solicited their voice vs. did not solicit their voice during a
prejudice confrontation, which drove status conferral regardless of the perpetrator’s presence), I
found mixed results related to the presence (versus absence) of the perpetrator. Specifically,
disadvantaged group members felt more emotional burden when an ally solicited their voice
when the perpetrator was present (versus absent), although the perpetrator’s presence (versus
absence) did not influence how much status they conferred to the ally. More work is needed to
uncover how observers (including the perpetrator) impact disadvantaged group members’
reactions to having their voice solicited by an ally during a prejudice confrontation.
Moreover, this project addresses when and (to some extent) how a disadvantaged group
member wants for prejudice to be addressed. However, equally important is understanding who
disadvantaged group members would want to address prejudice. I constrain myself to looking at

76

a specific situation: when disadvantaged group members witness an advantaged group ally
confront. It is possible that there are situations where disadvantaged group members would want
for another disadvantaged group member (whether this other disadvantaged group member
shares their identity or not) to speak up and solicit their voice.
Additionally, I only look at when voice solicitation is welcomed by disadvantaged group
members based on the disadvantaged group members’ relationship with the ally, and their
willingness to engage in conflict. Yet, it is also worth considering the perpetrator’s reaction to
having their prejudiced behavior called out. Not all perpetrators of prejudice are intentionally
seeking to undermine disadvantaged group members; in fact, in some situations, they may be
apologetic towards the disadvantaged group member after they hear what the disadvantaged
group member has to say. Indeed, disadvantaged group members’ confrontations may evoke
more guilt in the perpetrator, leading to further reductions in their bias (e.g., Chaney & Sanchez,
2018; Chaney et al., 2021). It is important to understand how perpetrators’ responses to
disadvantaged group members’ voices being solicited shape how disadvantaged group members
perceive the situation.
Other factors with stronger theoretical ties to competence perceptions should be
examined, too. For instance, future research could build on past work, which has shown that
competence perceptions are influenced by how much one seeks advice (e.g., Brooks, Gino, &
Schweitzer, 2015), and behaves morally (e.g., Stellar & Willer, 2018). These factors may
influence how disadvantaged group members perceive a voice-soliciting ally to be competent,
also, because they shape the disadvantaged group member’s perceptions of the ally’s ability to
address prejudice without further harming the people they hope to serve.

77

Practical implications
My findings also point to several practical implications for organizational leaders. First,
my findings suggest that leaders should prioritize diversity and inclusion. Whereas diversity
relates to the numerical representation of certain groups, inclusion involves fostering a culture
where employees can fully participate in organizational activities in a way that satisfies their
needs for both belongingness and uniqueness (Shore et al., 2011, 2018). Organizations that
prioritize diversity at the expense of inclusion risk encountering the types of situations described
in the present work—i.e., employees committing acts of prejudice and disadvantaged group
members experiencing emotional burden (see also, Anicich et al., 2021; Sherbin & Rashid,
2017). Thus, managers should invest in diversity management efforts that specifically promote a
climate of inclusion, which have been linked to positive outcomes for marginalized employees
and non-marginalized employees alike (Mor Barak et al., 2016; Park & Martinez, 2022).
Second, and related to fostering a climate of inclusion, it is important that organizations
create systems to gather disadvantaged group members’ input about how to address prejudice in
the organization. My findings should not discourage organizations from seeking disadvantaged
group members’ perspectives. Rather, they should encourage organizations to invest in gathering
input in a productive way that minimizes the burden put on disadvantaged group members. For
example, managers could administer employee surveys and hold regular check-ins to assess the
inclusion climate of the organization (Nishii, 2013). This is especially important because
members of disadvantaged groups vary in how they interpret and respond to prejudice (e.g.,
Hoggard, Jones, & Sellers, 2017).
Finally, to embody “true allyship,” members of advantaged groups should avoid “empty
activism” (Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019, p. 329), and focus instead on cultivating strong
relationships with, and meaningfully advocating for, members of disadvantaged groups.

78

Emerging work sheds light on how employees (and organizations) can do so, including
mindfully implementing diversity policies (Brown & Jacoby-Senghor, 2022), rewarding allies
who publicly endorse and enact egalitarian values (Sinclair, Kenrick, & Jacoby-Senghor, 2014),
encouraging interacting with disadvantaged group colleagues (e.g., the “LEAP” framework:
Creary, 2020), and acknowledging past organizational failures (Kraus, Torrez, & Hollie, 2021).
Although efforts to promote an inclusive environment often originate from organizational leaders
(e.g., Nishii & Mayer, 2009), everyone in organizations—from leaders (Bass, 1985) to lower-
ranking employees (Dannals et al., 2020)—plays a role in defining descriptive norms. In turn,
everyone can shape and transmit the cultural values that underpin inclusive organizations.

79

References
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and
objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data
in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592.
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and
implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research
Methods, 17(4), 351-371.
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on
performance judgments: a field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 247-260.
Alonso, N. M., & O’Neill, O. (2021). Going Along to Get Ahead: The Asymmetric Effects of
Sexist Joviality on Status Conferral. Organization Science, 1-22.
Amanatullah, E.T. & Tinsley, C.H. (2013a). Negotiating for me, you and us: Advocacy as a
moderator of backlash against female negotiators. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 102(1): 110-122.
Amanatullah, E. T., & Tinsley, C. H. (2013b). Ask and ye shall receive? How gender and status
moderate negotiation success. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(4),
253-272.
Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A., & Kennedy, J. A. (2012). A status-enhancement account
of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 718.
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental
human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological bulletin, 141(3), 574.
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Sharps, D. L. (2020). The Possession of High Status
Strengthens the Status Motive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(12),
1712–1723.
Anderson C., Kilduff G.J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face
groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96(2), 491–503.
Anicich, E. M., Jachimowicz, J. M., Osborne, M. R., & Phillips, L.T. (2021). Design Physical
and Digital Spaces to Foster Inclusion. Harvard Business Review, August 11.
https://hbr.org/2021/08/design-physical-and-digital-spaces-to-foster-inclusion.
Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process.
Organizational Dynamics, 25(2), 24-38.

80

Ashburn-Nardo, L., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2008). The confronting prejudiced
responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 7(3), 332-342.
Auger-Dominguez, D. (2019). Getting over your fear of talking about diversity. Harvard
Business Review Digital Articles, 2-5.
Ayres, M. M., Friedman, C. K., & Leaper, C. (2009). Individual and situational factors related to
young women’s likelihood of confronting sexism in their everyday lives. Sex Roles,
61(7), 449-460.
Bain, K., Kreps, T. A., Meikle, N. L., & Tenney, E. R. (2021). Amplifying voice in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1288-1312.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan.
Becker, J. C., & Barreto, M. (2019). Personal, collective, and group-distancing motives
underlying confrontation of prejudice. In Mallet, R. K. & Monteith, M. J. Confronting
Prejudice and Discrimination: The Science of Changing Minds and Behaviors (pp. 141-
158). Academic Press.
Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. Basic concepts of
intercultural communication: Selected readings, 1, 1-34.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch Jr, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction.
American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241-255.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Boykin, C. M., Brown, N. D., Carter, J. T., Dukes, K., Green, D. J., Harrison, T., … & Williams,
A. D. (2020). Anti-racist actions and accountability: Not more empty promises. Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 39(7), 775-786.
Brehm, S. S. (1981). Psychological reactance and the attractiveness of unobtainable objects: Sex
differences in children’s responses to an elimination of freedom. Sex Roles, 7(9), 937-
949.
Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of
usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930.
Brooks, A. W., Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Smart people ask for (my) advice: Seeking
advice boosts perceptions of competence. Management Science, 61(6), 1421-1435.
Brown, N. D., & Jacoby-Senghor, D. S. (2022). Majority members misperceive even "win-win"
diversity policies as unbeneficial to them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
122(6), 1075–1097.

81

Brown, R. M., Craig, M. A., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2021). European Americans' intentions to
confront racial bias: Considering who, what (kind), and why. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 95, 104123.
Burns, M. D., & Monteith, M. J. (2019). Confronting stereotypic biases: Does internal versus
external motivational framing matter? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(7),
930-946.
Cai, D., & Fink, E. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists.
Communication Monographs, 69(1), 67-87.
Carter, E.R., Onyeador, I.N., & Lewis, N.A., Jr. (2020). Developing & delivering effective anti-
bias training: Challenges & recommendations. Behavioral Science & Policy 6(1), 57-70.
Champely, S., Edstrom, C., Dalgaard, P., Gill, J., Weibelzahl, S., Anandkumar, A., ... & De
Rosario, M. H. (2018). Package ‘pwr’. R package version, 1(2).
Chaney, K. E., & Sanchez, D. T. (2018). The endurance of interpersonal confrontations as a
prejudice reduction strategy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 418-429.
Chaney, K. E., & Wedell, E. (2022). How lay theories of prejudice shape prejudice
confrontations: Examining beliefs about prejudice prevalence, origins, and
controllability. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(4), e12658.
Chen, G., Hambrick, D. C., & Pollock, T. G. (2008). Puttin on the Ritz: Pre-IPO enlistment of
prestigious affiliates as deadline-induced remediation. Academy of Management Journal,
51(5), 954-975.
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the
workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 272–288.
Creary, S. J. (2020). How to be a better ally to your Black colleagues. Harvard Business Review.
Crosby, J. R., King, M., & Savitsky, K. (2014). The minority spotlight effect. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 5(7), 743-750.
Curseu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate
conflict? Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 14(1), 66-79.
Czopp, A. M., & Monteith, M. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to
confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
29(4), 532-544.
Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: reducing bias
through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5),
784-803.

82

Dannals, J. E., Reit, E. S., & Miller, D. T. (2020). From whom do I learn group norms? Low-
ranking group members are perceived as the best sources. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 161, 213-227.
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism:
consequences for women's performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
93(5), 764-779.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really
open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869 – 884.
Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., Harrison, D. A., & Martin, S. R. (2013). Voice flows to and around
leaders: Understanding when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 58(4), 624-668.
DiPrete, T. A., & Soule, W. T. (1988). Gender and promotion in segmented job ladder systems.
American Sociological Review, 53, 26-40.
Djurdjevic, E., Stoverink, A. C., Klotz, A. C., Koopman, J., da Motta Veiga, S. P., Yam, K. C.,
& Chiang, J. T.-J. (2017). Workplace status: The development and validation of a scale.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1124–1147.
Dorison, C. A., & Minson, J. A. (2022). You can’t handle the truth! Conflict counterparts over-
estimate each other’s feelings of self-threat. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 170, 104147. Advance Online Publication.
Duguid, M. (2011). Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group
diversification? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 104-
115.
Drury, B. J., & Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting
sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 637-652.
Edwards, J. R. (1988). The determinants and consequences of coping with stress. In C. L. Cooper
& R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work (pp. 233-263).
New York: Wiley.
Eliezer, D., & Major, B. (2012). It’s not your fault: The social costs of claiming discrimination
on behalf of someone else. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(4), 487-502.
Ely, R. J. (1994). Organizational demographics and the dynamics of relationships among
professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 203–238.

83

Erskine, S. E., & Bilimoria, D. (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.
Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-
efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(4), 1013-1034.
Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill and general
mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6),
1075.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and
competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.
Fitzgerald L. F., Swan S., Fischer K. (1995). Why didn't she just report him? The psychological
and legal implications of women's responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social
Issues, 51, 117–138.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological bulletin, 51(4), 327.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. 1980. An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 219-239.
Forsyth, J., & Carter, R. T. (2012). The relationship between racial identity status attitudes,
racism-related coping, and mental health among Black Americans. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(2), 128.
Fragale, A. R. (2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task
interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 101(2), 243-261.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in
the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
Gervais, S. J., & Hillard, A. L. (2014). Confronting sexism as persuasion: Effects of a
confrontation's recipient, source, message, and context. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4),
653-667.
Gervais, S. J., Hillard, A. L., & Vescio, T. K. (2010). Confronting sexism: The role of
relationship orientation and gender. Sex Roles, 63(7), 463-474.
Good, J. J., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Sanchez, D. T. (2012). When do I confront? Perceptions of
costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of the self and others.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(2), 210–226.

84

Hahl, O., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2014). The Denigration of Heroes? How the Status Attainment
Process Shapes Attributions of Considerateness and Authenticity. American Journal of
Sociology, 120(2), 504–554.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Dovidio, J. (2009). How Does Stigma “Get Under
the Skin”?: The Mediating Role of Emotion Regulation. Psychological Science, 20(10),
1282–1289.
Haynes-Baratz, M., Bond, M. A., Allen, C. T., Li, Y. L., & Metinyurt, T. (2022). Challenging
gendered microaggressions in the academy: A social–ecological analysis of bystander
action among faculty. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(4), 521-535.
Hershcovis, M. S., Cameron, A., Gervais, L., & Bozeman, J. (2018). The effects of confrontation
and avoidance coping in response to workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 23(2), 163-174.
Hildebrand, L. K., Jusuf, C. C., & Monteith, M. J. (2020). Ally confrontations as identity‐safety
cues for marginalized individuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1318-
1333.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hodgson, K. (2019). Stop telling women to fix sexist workplaces. UX Collective.
https://uxdesign.cc/stop-telling-women-to-fix-sexist-workplaces-bb042525e160
Hoggard, L. S., Jones, S. C. T., & Sellers, R. M. (2017). Racial Cues and Racial Identity:
Implications for How African Americans Experience and Respond to Racial
Discrimination. Journal of Black Psychology, 43(4), 409–432.
Huang, X., Xu, E., Huang, L., & Liu, W. (2018). Nonlinear consequences of promotive and
prohibitive voice for managers’ responses: The roles of voice frequency and
LMX. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1101.
Hughes, D., & Dodge, M. A. (1997). African American women in the workplace: Relationships
between job conditions, racial bias at work, and perceived job quality. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 25(5), 581-599.
Hussain, I., Tangirala, S., & Sherf, S. (in press). Signaling legitimacy: Why mixed-gender
coalitions outperform single-gender coalitions in advocating for gender equity. Academy
of Management Journal.
Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 673–704.
Isaakyan, S., Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Guenter, H. (2021). Keeping it between us:
Managerial endorsement of public versus private voice. Journal of Applied Psychology,
106(7), 1049-1066.

85

Jachimowicz, J. M., To, C., Agasi, S., Côté, S., and Galinsky, A. D. (2019). The Gravitational
Pull of Expressing Passion: When and How Expressing Passion Elicits Status Conferral
and Support from Others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 153,
41-62.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The Effect of Physical Height on Workplace Success and
Income: Preliminary Test of a Theoretical Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3),
428–441.
Joshi, A., Neely, B., Emrich, C., Griffiths, D., & George, G. (2015). Gender research in AMJ: an
overview of five decades of empirical research and calls to action: thematic issue on
gender in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1459-1475.
Kayaalp, A. Page, K. J., & Rospenda, K. M. (2021) Caregiver burden, work-family conflict,
family-work conflict, and mental health of caregivers: A mediational longitudinal study.
Work & Stress, (35)3, 217-240.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions
to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254-263.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2003). Derogating the Victim: The Interpersonal Consequences of
Blaming Events on Discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(3), 227–
237.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2004). A stress and coping perspective on confronting sexism.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(2), 168-178.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics:
Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear:
The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 29, 163-193.
Kraus, M. W., Torrez, B., & Hollie, L. (2022). How narratives of racial progress create barriers
to diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43,
108-113.
Kreps, T. A., Laurin, K., & Merritt, A. C. (2017). Hypocritical flip-flop, or courageous
evolution? When leaders change their moral minds. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 113(5), 730.
Kundro, T. G., & Nurmohamed, S. (2021). Understanding when and why cover-ups are punished
less severely. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3), 873-900.
Lam, C. F., Johnson, H. H., Song, L. J., Wu, W., Lee, C., & Chen, Z. (2022). More depleted,
speak up more? A daily examination of the benefit and cost of depletion for voice
behavior and voice endorsement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(6), 983-1000.

86

Lam, C. F., Rees, L., Levesque, L. L., & Ornstein, S. (2018). Shooting from the hip: a habit
perspective of voice. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 470-486.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, coping, and adaptation. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Leary, M. R., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Diebels, K. J. (2014). The pursuit of status: A self-
presentational perspective on the quest for social value. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C.
Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 159 –178). New York, NY:
Springer.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust
development. Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal
of Management, 32, 991–1022.
Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and
prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management journal, 55(1), 71-
92.
Lin, S. H. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion
away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus
and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1381.
Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2017). TurkPrime. com: A versatile crowdsourcing
data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior research methods, 49(2),
433-442.
Liu, P. J., Rim, S., Min, L., & Min, K. E. (2022). The surprise of reaching out: Appreciated more
than we think. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Lott, B., Asquith, K., & Doyon, T. (2001). Relation of ethnicity and age to women's responses to
personal experiences of sexist discrimination in the United States. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 141(3), 309-322.
Louis, W. R., Amiot, C. E., Thomas, E. F., & Blackwood, L. (2016). The “activist identity” and
activism across domains: A multiple identities analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 72(2),
242-263.
Louis, W. R., Thomas, E., Chapman, C. M., Achia, T., Wibisono, S., Mirnajafi, Z., &
Droogendyk, L. (2019). Emerging research on intergroup prosociality: Group members'
charitable giving, positive contact, allyship, and solidarity with others. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 13(3), e12436.
Loyd, D. L., & Amoroso, L. M. (2018). Undermining diversity: Favoritism threat and its effect
on advocacy for similar others. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 22(3),
143-155.
Mallett, R., & Monteith, M. (Eds.). (2019). Confronting prejudice and discrimination: The
science of changing minds and behaviors. Academic Press.

87

Mallet, R. K., & Wagner, D. E. (2011). The unexpectedly positive consequence of confronting
sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 215–220.
Martin, A. E., & Phillips, K. W. (2017). What “blindness” to gender differences helps women
see and do: Implications for confidence, agency, and action in male-dominated
environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 28-44.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
McClean, E., Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2013). When does voice lead to exit? It depends on
leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 525-548.
McCluney, C. L., Bryant, C. M., King, D. D., & Ali, A. A. (2017). Calling in Black: A dynamic
model of racially traumatic events, resourcing, and safety. Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion: An International Journal, 36(8), 767-786.
McCluney, C. L., King, D. D., Bryant, C. M., & Ali, A. A. (2020). From “Calling in Black” to
“Calling for Antiracism Resources”: the need for systemic resources to address systemic
racism. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal.
Meleady, R., Seger, C. R., & Vermue, M. (2021). Evidence of a dynamic association between
intergroup contact and intercultural competence. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 24(8), 1427-1447.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems
of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee
silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of
Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.
Mor Barak, M. E., Lizano, E. L., Kim, A., Duan, L., Rhee, M. K., Hsiao, H. Y., & Brimhall, K.
C. (2016). The promise of diversity management for climate of inclusion: A state-of-the-
art review and meta-analysis. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership &
Governance, 40(4), 305-333.
Morgeson, F. P., Hemingway, M. A. & Delany-Klinger, K. (2005). The Importance of Job
Autonomy, Cognitive Ability, and Job-Related Skill for Predicting Role Breadth and Job
Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 399-406.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research.
Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725.

88

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta‐analytic test of the
conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216-
234.
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(6), 1754-1774.
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse
groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover
relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412-1426.
Noh, S., & Kaspar, V. (2003). Perceived discrimination and depression: Moderating effects of
coping, acculturation, and ethnic support. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 232-
238.
Novak, M. & Guest, C. I. (1989). Application of a multidimensional caregiver burden inventory.
Gerontologist, 29, 798-803.
Ohaeri, J. U. (2003). The burden of caregiving in families with a mental illness: a review of
2002. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 16(4), 457-465.
Onyeador, I. N., Hudson, S. T. J., & Lewis, N. A. (2021). Moving Beyond Implicit Bias
Training: Policy Insights for Increasing Organizational Diversity. Policy Insights from
the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(1), 19–26.
Park, H., Tangirala, S., Hussain, I., & Ekkirala, S. (2022). How and when managers reward
employees’ voice: The role of proactivity attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Advance Online Publication.
Park, L. S., & Martinez, L. R. (2022). Fifty shades of pray: Faith diversity management
approaches impact employee satisfaction, support perceptions, and turnover. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 43(6), 1103-1120.
Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., Priester, J. R., & Feinstein, A. H. (2001). Individual versus group
interest violation: Surprise as a determinant of argument scrutiny and persuasion. Social
Cognition, 19(4), 418–442.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance
feedback, trust and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 92, 102–112.
Radke, H. R. M., Kutlaca, M., Siem, B., Wright, S. C., & Becker, J. C. (2020). Beyond Allyship:
Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged
Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291–315.
Ramsey, V. J., & Latting, J. K. (2005). A typology of intergroup competencies. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 41(3), 265-284.

89

Rasinski, H. M., & Czopp, A. M. (2010). The effect of target status on witnesses’ reactions to
confrontation of bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 8–16.
Rattan, A. & Dweck, C.S. (2010). Who Confronts Prejudice? The Role of Implicit Theories in
the Motivation to Confront Prejudice. Psychological Science, 21(7), 952-959.
Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2018). What happens after prejudice is confronted in the workplace?
How mindsets affect minorities’ and women’s outlook on future social relations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 103(6), 676.
Remedios, J. D., & Snyder, S. H. (2015). How women of color detect and respond to multiple
forms of prejudice. Sex Roles, 73(9), 371-383.
Richeson, J.A., Trawalter, S. and Shelton, J.N. (2005), “African Americans’ implicit racial
attitudes and the depletion of executive function after interracial interactions”, Social
Cognition, 23(4), pp. 336-352.
Roberts, S. O., & Rizzo, M. T. (2021). The psychology of American racism. American
Psychologist, 76(3), 475–487.
Rokeach, M., & McLellan, D. D. (1972). Feedback of information about the values and attitudes
of self and others as determinants of long-term cognitive and behavioral change. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 2(3), 236 –251.
Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2021). Toward an understanding of structural racism:
Implications for criminal justice. Science, 374(6565), 286-290.
Sanchez, D. T., Himmelstein, M. S., Young, D. M., Albuja, A. F., & Garcia, J. A. (2016).
Confronting as autonomy promotion: Speaking up against discrimination and
psychological well-being in racial minorities. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(9), 1999-
2007.
Schultz, J. R., & Maddox, K. B. (2013). Shooting the messenger to spite the message? Exploring
reactions to claims of racial bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3), 346-
358.
Shelton, J. N. (2000). A reconceptualization of how I study issues of racial prejudice. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 4(4), 374-390.
Shelton, J. N., & Stewart, R. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: the inhibitory
effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 215-223.
Sherbin, L., & Rashid, R. (2017). Diversity doesn’t stick without inclusion. Harvard Business
Review, 1, 1-5.
Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Weber, K. C. (2017). It is not my place! Psychological standing
and men’s voice and participation in gender-parity initiatives. Organization Science,
28(2), 193-210.

90

Sherf, E. N., & Venkataramani, V. (2015). Friend or foe? The impact of relational ties with
comparison others on outcome fairness and satisfaction judgments. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 128, 1–14.
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and
model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176-189.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G.
(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research.
Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289.
Sinclair, S., Kenrick, A. C., & Jacoby-Senghor, D. S. (2014). Whites’ Interpersonal Interactions
Shape, and Are Shaped by, Implicit Prejudice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 1(1), 81–87.
Sivanathan, N., & Kakkar, H. (2017). The unintended consequences of argument dilution in
direct-to-consumer drug advertisements. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 797-802.
Smith, W. H. (2010, February 10). The impact of racial trauma on African Americans. African
American men and boys advisory board. The Heinz Endowment. Available at:
www.heinz.org/ userfiles/impactofracialtraumaonafricanamericans.pdf (accessed June 22,
2022).
Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Ladge, J. J., & Carlton, P. (2018). Interviews with 59 Black
female executives explore intersectional invisibility and strategies to overcome it.
Harvard Business Review, 1-9.
Society for Human Research Management (2021, May 24). SHRM Report: Racial Inequity
Persists, Costs American Workplaces Billions Annually. https://www.shrm.org/about-
shrm/press-room/press-releases/Pages/SHRM-Report-Racial-Inequity-Persists-Costs-
American-Workplaces-Billions-Annually.aspx
Stellar, J. E., & Willer, R. (2018). Unethical and inept? The influence of moral information on
perceptions of competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(2), 195–
210. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000097
Swim, J. K., Gervais, S. J., Pearson, N., & Stangor, C. (2009). Managing the message: Using
social influence and attitude change strategies to confront interpersonal discrimination. In
F. Butera & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Coping with minority status: Responses to exclusion and
inclusion (pp. 55–81). Cambridge University Press.
Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?!: Women's public and
private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1),
68-88.
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., Fitzgerald, D. C., & Bylsma, W. H. (2003). African
American college students' experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and
responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29(1), 38–67.

91

Swim, J. K., & Thomas, M. A. (2006). Responding to Everyday Discrimination: A Synthesis of
Research on Goal-Directed, Self-Regulatory Coping Behaviors. In S. Levin & C. van
Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 105–
126). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2012). Ask and you shall hear (but not always): Examining the
relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology,
65(2), 251-282.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72(2), 271–324.
Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K. B., & Webster, J. R. (2021). Because you’re worth the risks:
Acts of oppositional courage as symbolic messages of relational value to transgender
employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 399.
Tinsley, C. H., O’Conner, K. M., & Sullivan, B. A. (2002). Tough guys finish last: The perils of
a distributive reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88,
621–642.
Tinsley, C. H., Wade, J. B., Main, B. G., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2017). Gender diversity on US
corporate boards: Are I running in place? ILR Review, 70(1), 160-189.
Tita-Reid, N. (2020, June 8). Beware of burning out your Black employees. Fortune.
https://fortune.com/2020/06/08/black-people-workplace-racism-diversity/
Tost, L. P., Osborne, M. R., Gino, F., Roberson, J. W. (2022). Sending the wrong signal: The
dysfunctional effects of representation goals in the presence of a pipeline problem.
Unpublished Manuscript.
Trawalter, S., Hoffman, K. M., & Waytz, A. (2012). Racial bias in perceptions of others’ pain.
PloS one, 7(11), e48546.
Van Lange, P. A., Vinkhuyzen, A. A., & Posthuma, D. (2014). Genetic influences are virtually
absent for trust. PloS one, 9(4), e93880.
Van Zomeren, M. (2013). Four core social‐psychological motivations to undertake collective
action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(6), 378-388.
Vitaliano, P. P., DeWolfe, D. J., Maiuro, R. D., Russo, J., & Katon, W. 1990. Appraised
changeability of a stressor as a modifier of the relationship between coping and
depression: A test of the hypothesis of fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59(3), 582–592.
Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus Sampling and Social Psychological
Experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1115–1125.

92

Wilson, B. L. (2020, June 8). I’m your Black friend, but I won’t educate you about racism.
That’s on you. Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/08/black-friends-educate-racism/
Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-
performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 809.
Wu, D., Sánchez, S., & Perry, S. (2022). “Will Talking about Race Make my Child Racist?”
Dispelling Myths to Encourage Honest White US Parent-Child Conversations about Race
and Racism. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101420.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and
lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 132.
Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice,
interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 93-105.

93

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Supplemental Studies
Supplemental Study 1: Pilot Study
Introduction
To better understand what strategies disadvantaged group members prefer allies use
during prejudice confrontations, I collected qualitative reports. I used the critical incident
technique (Flanagan, 1954) to gather descriptions about real world confrontations from
disadvantaged group members. I asked for them to recall a prejudice transgression, how an
advantaged group member confronted the transgression, and then describe how the confrontation
made them feel, as well as how it shaped their perceptions of the ally. The critical incident
technique involves instructing employees to recall specific events in the workplace, and discuss
key elements of how they experienced the event. This approach allows researchers to capture
employee’s perceptions of their actual experiences, rather than asking for them to engage in a
hypothetical scenario (Kundro & Nurmohamed, 2021). This technique has been previously
utilized to understand how disadvantaged group members respond to (e.g., Thoroughgood &
Sawyer, 2021) and challenge prejudice (e.g., Haynes-Baratz et al., 2022).
Participants and Procedures
I recruited 300 participants on Prolific Academic who worked full- or part-time. I
recruited 150 participants who identified as women and 150 participants who identified as Black
or Latino/Hispanic. My final sample included data from 126 women of color, 124 White women,
and 50 men of color (Mage=32.75, SDage=11.12).
Participants first reported their age, gender identity, and race. I sorted participants into
one of three categories based on their responses to these questions: women of color (WoC),
White women (WW) and men of color (MoC). I sorted participants who identified as women and

94

as being racially marginalized/multi-racial into the WoC category. I sorted women who
identified as being White into the WW category, and men who identified as being racially
marginalized/multi-racial into the MoC category.
Next, I asked participants if they were able to recall a time that a coworker (the
“perpetrator”) said or did something prejudiced, and an advantaged group coworker (the “ally”)
responded by calling out or otherwise standing up against the perpetrator in some way.
Specifically, I asked White women if they could recall an instance of sexism where a male ally
confronted the perpetrator. For men of color, I asked if they could recall a racist incident when a
White ally confronted the perpetrator. For women of color, I asked if they could recall an
instance of either sexism or racism. Women of color who responded “Yes” further indicated if
the incident they recalled involved a male ally who confronted sexism, or a White ally who
confronted racism. Based on their response, women of color were then asked to describe a
sexism or racism confrontation with a male or White ally, respectively.
In total, 48.33% of participants (N=145) were able to recall an actual incident where an
advantaged group member confronted a perpetrator. I asked these participants three questions.
First, I asked for them to describe the perpetrator’s sexist (or racist) behavior and how the male
(or White) ally responded. Second, I asked them to report how they felt after witnessing the
ally’s response. Third, I asked them if the ally’s response was ideal and provided the following
two response options: “Yes, the confronter responded in the ideal way in this particular situation.
I would not change anything about the way they responded.” Or “No, the confronter did NOT
respond in the ideal way in this particular situation. I would have preferred that they respond
differently in some way.” I asked those who indicated that the confrontation was not ideal

95

(N=28, 19.31%) to describe the ideal confrontation in their view, including what the ally should
have done in the situation.
I asked the remaining 51.66% of participants (N=155) who were not able to recall an
actual incident to also imagine a hypothetical situation that could realistically happen where a
sexist (or racist) event occurred, and a male (or White) coworker would realistically respond.
After describing this hypothetical event, I asked participants to describe how they would feel
after witnessing the ally’s response, and how an advantaged group coworker would ideally
respond to the situation that they imagined.
Undermining confrontations. Additionally, I asked all participants “What types of
behaviors or reactions from a majority group confronter may ironically frustrate, undermine, or
harm the victim of sexism/racism in the workplace (rather than help)?”
Finally, I collected demographic information, such as the participant’s current
employment status (full-time, part-time, or unemployed/retired), how long (in years) they had
been employed in their current role at their job, as well as their occupation.
Results
I began by reading responses to “What types of behaviors or reactions from a majority
group confronter may ironically frustrate, undermine, or harm the victim of sexism/racism in the
workplace (rather than help)?” In doing so, a common theme emerged: oftentimes, when
describing confrontations that were not ideal, participants described how the ally would involve
the participant in the confrontation. Participants cited multiple concerns about getting involved in
the confrontation, including anxieties about being put on the spot, experiencing backlash from
the perpetrator, or feeling that they are being made responsible to address prejudice based on
their identity (See Table 14 for representative quotes).

96

Participants who expressed concerns about being put on the spot noted that they did not
want for the confronter to make a bigger scene than they felt necessary. For instance, Participant
24 said that they felt that potentially counterproductive confrontations could occur if the
confronter got “overly angry or aggressive, calling more attention to the incident and the woman
involved which is not welcome”, while Participant 73 predicted that a confrontation “may
embarrass the woman if she would rather not have the whole office know what happened to her.
She might just want to move on and forget it”. Participant 41 suggested that these confrontations
may also cause unintended consequences, for example, “if the white person was too defensive, it
would paint the black person as a victim in my opinion”.
Other participants were worried about experiencing backlash from the perpetrator. For
instance, Participant 149 warned that “Making a huge deal out of something sometimes puts
more of a target on the victims back”. Some participants specified how retaliation by the
perpetrator could impact them. Participant 58, for example, expected that a confrontation “might
instigate further sexist confrontation”. Participant 23 made a similar point, indicating that “If the
reaction from the confronter was angry and hostile towards the perpetrator as this may just cause
the perpetrator to become more angry and hostile”. These responses suggest that participants are
wary of how the perpetrator will respond to the confrontation, as well as the potential for
retaliation by the perpetrator.
Another group of participants identified flawed confrontations as ones that put the onus
on them to address the perpetrator. Participant 222 pointed out that “I think it would be
frustrating for example, in my previous situation, if the ‘confronter’ had tried to involve me in
the conversation…I don’t want any part of that argument. It’s hurtful.” Participant 183 preferred
that the confronter handled the confrontation independently, rather than “if the men look to the

97

women to be the ones to stand up (not that the women shouldn’t, but they shouldn’t be the only
ones)”. Participant 33 pointed out that “calling the victims to speak, such as saying “right___?”
further undermined the disadvantaged group member.
Together, these responses indicate that disadvantaged group members do not always feel
comfortable witnessing an ally’s confrontation, as it may make them feel embarrassed,
uncomfortable, or concerned about retaliation from the perpetrator. I was curious if similar
themes emerged in participants’ descriptions of confrontations that they were able to recall.
While the previous set of responses outlined what disadvantaged group members would
hypothetically not want, I now focus on what disadvantaged group members have experienced,
and their perceptions of those experiences. Thus, I turned to participants’ reports about a
prejudice confrontation that they were able to recall.
Participants who were able to recall a confrontation provided additional insight into why
they did not welcome confronters involving them in the confrontation (see Table 15 for
representative quotes). Reading these responses, I was able to identify similar themes from the
previous set: specifically, participants described their worries about being put on the spot and
experiencing backlash from the perpetrator as elements that dominated the recollection of these
events. For instance, some participants discussed how they were not initially able to respond, in
part because they were not sure what precisely to say, or did not plan to get involved in the
confrontation. For example, Participant 160 explained that they were “so shocked by the
comment it actually took me a while to figure out exactly what was said”. Indeed, they were so
shocked that when their coworker asked them how they were doing, they were “just quiet”.
Participant 240 described feelings of guilt in not speaking up about sexism in the workplace, but
embraced an “out of sight out of mind headspace”, to avoid interacting with the perpetrator.

98

Participants also mentioned being concerned about backlash due to the confrontation. For
instance, Participant 159 was “afraid of the customer either verbally or physically assaulting my
coworker for simply speaking out.” Other participants talked about feeling put on the spot,
adding to my understanding of how confrontations may make some participants feel
uncomfortable. Participant 284 mentioned that she “felt really scared, like [she] was going to get
into trouble” while watching a man confront on her behalf. Some participants mentioned that
they did not want to be around during the confrontation, such as Participant 199 who stated that
if it were up to them, “I would have preferred if the confront[er] confront the other employee
when I wasn’t around. This I [sic] have embarrassed me so much”.
Discussion
Together, these responses provide evidence that disadvantaged group members are wary
of allies’ confrontations which require their input or involvement. In reading participant
responses while referring to the literature, I began to notice parallels between how participants
described being drawn into confrontations, and how the voice literature discussed “voice
solicitation”, wherein a colleague invites their coworker to offer their input or perspective about
a situation.” Participants noted that allies who turned to them during the confrontation
undermined or harmed them; in part due to concerns about the perpetrator’s response, as well as
concerns about consequences for being involved in the confrontation. As the author team
discussed these findings further, the connection between voice solicitation and confronting
prejudice became more intriguing. Largely, soliciting voice has been approached as a positive
strategy; indeed, work in the organizational voice literature oftentimes encourages managers and
coworkers to solicit voice from their colleagues (e.g., Bain et al., 2022; Fast et al., 2014). Yet,
my responses revealed a situation where employees may not want for their voices to be solicited:

99

when they are being drawn into a situation which carries social (and, in some cases, physical)
risk. These responses provide the groundwork for my research, as I sought to develop theory
around the impact of soliciting voice in prejudice confrontations.
Table 13: Representative Quotes in response to Q1: What types of behaviors or reactions
from a majority group confronter may ironically frustrate, undermine, or harm the victim of
sexism/racism in the workplace (rather than help)?

Theme
Participant
ID
Participant
Demographic
What types of behaviors or reactions from a
majority group confronter may ironically
frustrate, undermine, or harm the victim of
sexism/racism in the workplace (rather than
help)?

Puts
Disadvantaged
Group Member
on The Spot

24
White
Woman

They get overly angry or aggressive, calling
more attention to the incident and the woman
involved which is not welcome.

73
White
Woman

It may embarrass the woman if she would rather
not have the whole office know what happened
to her. She might just want to move on and
forget it.

91 Black Man

I think it would be insulting for the white person
to be over the top, if that makes sense. For
instance, if the white person was too defensive,
it would paint the black person as a victim in my
opinion.

Receiving
Backlash
23
White
Woman

If the reaction from the confronter was angry
and hostile towards the perpetrator as this may
just cause the perpetrator to become more angry
and hostile.

100

58
White
Woman

Being forceful with the perpetrator that might
instigate further sexist confrontation. Taking
action without consulting the victim first.

149
Latina
Woman

Making a huge deal out of something sometimes
puts more of a target on the victims back.
Making someone uncomfortable for what they
said is effective because it discourages from
verbalizing those thoughts, and then you can
quietly take the issue to HR.

165 Black Woman

It depends on the parties involved. If the
perception of women are disrespectful, than
there will be backlash to the victim. If women
are respected and valued as equal , than there
will not be any backlash. It really depends on
the organizational culture of that company.

Confrontations
That Rely on
Disadvantaged
Group
Member’s
Identity
146
Latina
Woman

Any emphasis placed on me being a woman or
being hispanic would probably not help the
situation.

183
White
Woman

they have to be clear about how what the person
said is wrong, and not say anything jokingly or
mockingly. It needs to be addressed in a serious
manner, and in a way that can’t be
misinterpreted. Anytime it’s approached
jokingly, or they approach it in a wishy-washy
manner, or if the men look to the women to be
the ones to stand up (not tha’ the women
shouldn’t, but they shouldn’t be the only ones)

101

222 Black Woman

...I think it would be frustrating for example, in
my previous situation, if the “confronter” had
tried to involve me in the conversation. I don’t
want anything to do with that argument. It’s an
argument about my right to exist in “normal
media” and in extension the “normal world.” I
don’t want any part of that argument. It’s
hurtful. If the confronter had tried to involve me
or ask me questions about my experience or
anything, it would have defeated the purpose of
getting that burden off my back entirely.

30
White
Woman

If the male or white confronter centers
themselves – “I would never do something like
that!”, or oversteps by explaining how they
percieve how I feel – “Something like this is
humiliating to her/black women!” or again, a
check in that requires me to extend emotional
labor to the confronter – “Wow, I can’t believe
something like that could happen? How are you
feeling?”

Table 14: Representative Quotes in Response to: How did you feel after witnessing the
confronter’s response – and – In your opinion, how should the confronter have ideally
responded to the perpetrator in this situation

Theme
Participant
ID
Participant
Demographic
How did you feel
after witnessing the
confronter’s response?
What was your initial
reaction (e.g., thoughts
you had, emotions you
felt)? Why did you have
this particular reaction?
In your opinion, how
should the
confronter ideally have
responded to the
perpetrator in this
situation?

102

Placed on
The Spot
199 White Woman
I was embarrassed. I
would rather just let the
comment slide. I I feel
like I needed to be
protected.

If it was up to me I would
have preferred if the
confronter confront the
other employee when I I
around.This I have
embarrassed me so much.
295
Hispanic
Woman

I felt on the spot,
awkward and
embarrassed. I would
rather not confront such
items in public
especially at work.

Honestly in my own
situation I would have
preferred he had not done
anything at all and if he
must confront my boss on
issues of how he treats me,
maybe ask me how I feel
about it first privately and
then confront my boss
privately. That way no one
is on the spot and the whole
display is not a public
affair.
239 White Woman

It was pretty surreal at
first considering I pass
totally white for the
most part. The way the
confronter defended us
was actually very
insulting. I have nothing
but respect for
immigrants even the
ones who aren’t here
legally, so for our
defense to be ‘we’re the
good ones’ was very
gross.
Honestly? Just tell the
guy off for being a jerk. I
see know reason to actually
challenge his statements in
the first place – just tell him
to leave. The way I
confonrter made it sound
was that if we actually were
illegal, then the perpetrator
I be justified in treating us
poorly.

103

284 Black Woman

I at first felt really
scared, like I was going
to get in trouble. Then I
felt ashamed that I was
wearing a blouse that
would cause such
conflict. I ran to the
bathroom in order to
look more closely in the
mirror. Then it occurred
to me that I had done
nothing wrong and that I
did not deserve such
commentary.

Maybe not do it so
publically, so that I was the
center of attention, maybe I
would have felt less
embarrassed, considering
that I was already
concerned about my bloud
being see through.

Reluctant to
address the
perpetrator’s
actions
160 White Female

I was so shocked by the
comment it actually took
me a while to figure out
exactly what was said. It
all felt like a blur and
when my coworker
asked me how I was
dealing with everything
I was just quiet.
Eventually I told him I
appreciated him saying
that as I know my boss
wouldnâ€™t react
negatively to him.

231 White Female

I was not surpirsed that
Cody popped off
because I knew that he
was seeing the victim for
the last three months and
it was going to be a
mater of time before it
all came to a head.
Though it did irk me
with some guild that I
knew about Kate’s

104

behaviour and yet did
nothing about it. I relly
embraced that “out of
sight out of mind”
headspace

Receiving
Backlash
159 White Female

I felt afraid at first
because I donâ€™t like
confrontation. So when
my coworker started
talking back to the
customer, I was
beginning to conjure up
an escape plan or a way
to mitigate the situation.
I was also afraid of the
customer either verbally
or physically assaulting
my coworker for simply
speaking out.

227 Black Woman

It was not a good
reaction overall I
couldn’t do nothing
cause the people were
the higher ups.

254 Black Woman

I felt really upset and
shocked at the racist and
undermining remark but
relieved at the
confronter’s response. It
made me feel assured
that I was right to be
angry about their remark
and also less alone in the
situation. I hadn’t even

105

considered what kind of
further backlash I could
have got from the
perpetrator or HR if I
was the one who talked
back to try and defend
myself but now I know
there is less of a risk of
the white confronter
getting in trouble than
me.
280 Hispanic Man

I felt pretty good
knowing that my
coworker called out
what he said. I didn’t say
much because I didn’t
want to escalate things.

Supplemental Study 2
I have argued that soliciting voice generates emotional burden, in large part, due to the
risks inherent to navigating the perpetrator’s response. I predict, then, that if the perpetrator was
absent when the ally solicited voice, then the disadvantaged group member would feel less
emotional burden than if the perpetrator were present. The perpetrator’s absence reduces the
likelihood for backlash against the participant, thus leading participants to feel less anxiety and
discomfort than they would otherwise. However, I still anticipate that not soliciting voice (versus
soliciting voice when the perpetrator is present) will evoke less emotional burden for witnesses.
Since the nature of soliciting voice puts a spotlight on the disadvantaged group witness, I do
suspect that, even if you solicit voice when the perpetrator is absent, participants will still feel
mindful about navigating their relationship with the ally. Even when allies solicit voice when the

106

perpetrator is present (rather than absent), the very act of soliciting voice increases the
participant’s experienced emotional burden.
To test this, I ran a study where I manipulated the perpetrator’s presence when the ally
solicited voice. I predicted that disadvantaged group members will experience greater emotional
burden when their voices are solicited and the perpetrator is present compared to when the
perpetrator is absent. In this study, I also included a no voice solicitation condition, since I
hypothesized that not soliciting voice will be evaluated as less burdensome than soliciting voice,
generally. In terms of status conferral, I predict that confronting prejudice without soliciting
voice will merit the most status, followed by confrontations where the perpetrator is absent, then
where the perpetrator is present.
I made one additional change to my paradigm. I theorize that a motivation for an ally to
solicit voice is that they do not feel they possess the requisite psychological standing to confront
prejudice alone. To reflect this possibility, when participants were assigned to a condition where
the ally solicited voice, I told participants that the ally felt that, as a woman, the participant was
better suited for confronting. The pre-registration for this study is available here:
https://osf.io/7vyhj.
Participants and procedures
I collected data from four hundred and seventy-two participants who identified as
working women from Prolific Academic. I excluded participants who failed an attention check
(N=17) and identified as a man (N=12). I retained a final sample of four hundred and forty-three
(Mage=38.61, SDage=13.14; 20% racially marginalized). First, participants reported their age,
gender, and racial identity. Adapting a scenario from Isaakyan et al. (2021), I then instructed
participants to imagine that they were a marketing manager at Xantippe, a company which

107

specializes in frozen fast food. I told participants that their role is to help set the marketing
strategy of the company, and coordinate marketing projects from start to finish. To do this, they
work on a team with 12 other employees. While at work, they walk into an open office space and
notice that some of their coworkers are having a conversation. As the conversation was wrapping
up, one of their male coworkers (Paul) said something moderately sexist while looking in the
participant’s direction. Another male coworker (Sam) heard this, and told Paul that his comment
was wrong and offensive. I then sorted participants into one of three conditions: the no voice
solicitation condition, the voice solicitation – perpetrator absent condition, and the voice
solicitation – perpetrator present condition.
In the no voice solicitation condition, I did not provide participants any other information
about the interaction, beyond Sam’s confrontation. In the voice solicitation – perpetrator present
condition, I told participants that, while he is talking to Paul, Sam turns to the participant and
says, “As a woman, can you explain to us how Paul’s comment was wrong or offensive?” In the
voice solicitation – perpetrator absent condition, I told participants that the room cleared out
after the conversation, leaving just the participant and Sam – after which Sam asked, “As a
woman, can you explain to me how Paul’s comment was wrong or offensive?” I adapted the
language for both voice solicitation conditions from Sherf et al.’s (2017) psychological standing
measure. After reading the scenario, I then presented my measures.
Measures
I used identical measures as in Studies 1 through 4. Unless otherwise noted, all items
were presented on a seven-point scale from 1=“strongly disagree” to 7=“strongly agree”. I also
collected the participant’s age and ethnicity as control variables.

108

Emotional burden. Participants completed the same measure of emotional burden as in
previous studies (α= 0.96).
Status conferral. Participants completed the same measure of status conferral as in
previous studies (α= 0.99).
Allyship competence. Participants completed the same measure of competence as in
previous studies (α=0.91).
Results
I began by testing Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 4b: that soliciting voice (compared to not
soliciting voice) made disadvantaged group members feel significantly greater emotional burden
and conferred less status on the ally. To test this, I coded both of my voice solicitation conditions
as 1, and my no voice solicitation condition as 0. I found that participants in the voice solicitation
conditions experienced significantly more emotional burden (M=3.35, SD=1.64), conferred
allies significantly less status (M=4.34, SD=1.60), and saw the ally as significant less competent
(M=5.90, SD=0.94) than participants in my no voice solicitation condition (Mburden=1.95,
SDburden=1.13; tburden(441)=-9.20, p<.001, d=-0.94; Mstatus conferred=5.75, SDstatus conferred=1.10; tstatus
conferred (441)=9.42, p<.001, d=0.96; Mcompetence=4.81, SDcompetence=1.41; tcompetence (441)=8.39,
pcompetence<.001, dcompetence=0.86). Supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4b, respectively, the effect of the
voice solicitation manipulation on status conferral was driven by participants’ feelings of
emotional burden (10,000 bootstraps, 95% C.I.[-1.27, -0.83]) and competence (95% C.I.[-1.06, -
0.67]). Supporting Hypothesis 4c, results from a parallel mediation analysis indicated that my
manipulation is indirectly related to status conferral through its relationship with both feelings of
emotional burden (95% C.I. [-0.95, -0.61]) and competence (95% C.I. [-0.61, -0.33]).

109

These effects held after including my control variables in the model (see Table 17 for full
regression results: (H1: b=1.40, SE=0.15, p< .001; H2a: b=-1.40, SE=0.15, p< .001; H3: 95%
C.I.[-1.27, -0.82]; H4a: b=-1.08, SD=0.13, p<.001; H4b: 95% C.I.[-1.06, -0.66]; H4c: emotional
burden: 95% C.I.[-0.62, -0.33], competence: 95% C.I.[-0.95, -0.57]).
Then, I tested if the voice solicitation conditions significantly differed both from the no
voice solicitation condition and each other. To test this, I conducted three one-way ANOVAs,
specifying all three conditions as my independent variable. First, I specified my measure of
emotional burden as my dependent variable. There was a statistically significant difference in
emotional burden between at least two of my conditions F(2, 440)=49.14, p<.001, η
2
=0.18). I
conducted follow-up Tukey’s HSD tests for multiple comparisons. The mean value of emotional
burden was significantly lower in the no voice solicitation condition compared to both the voice
solicitation – perpetrator present condition (M=3.65, SD=1.71; p<.001, 95% C.I.=[-2.10, -1.29])
and the voice solicitation – perpetrator absent conditions (M=3.07, SD=1.52; p<.001, 95%
C.I.=[-1.52, -0.71]); finally, the mean value of emotional burden was significantly lower in my
voice solicitation – perpetrator absent and my voice solicitation – perpetrator present conditions
(p=.002, 95% C.I.=[-0.98, -0.18]). These effects held when including control variables, with my
no voice solicitation condition as my reference variable (bpresent=1.69, SDpresent=0.17,
ppresent<.001; babsent=1.11, SDabsent=0.17, pabsent<.001).
In my second ANOVA, I specified status conferral as my dependent variable. There was
a statistically significant difference in status conferral between at least two of my conditions F(2,
440)=44.76, p<.001, η
2
=0.17). Follow-up Tukey’s HSD tests for multiple comparisons revealed
that the mean value of status conferral was significantly higher in the no voice solicitation
condition compared to both the voice solicitation – perpetrator present condition (M=4.27, SD

110

=1.69; p<.001, 95% C.I.=[1.08, 1.88]), and voice solicitation – perpetrator absent conditions
(M=4.42, SD =1.51; p<.001, 95% C.I.=[0.93, 1.73]). However, the mean value of status
conferral was not significantly different between the voice solicitation – perpetrator present and
my voice solicitation – perpetrator absent conditions (p=0.65, 95% C.I.=[-0.55, 0.25]). These
effects held when including my control variables, with my no voice solicitation condition as my
reference variable (bpresent=-1.48, SDpresent=0.17, ppresent<.001; babsent=-1.33, SDabsent=0.17,
pabsent<.001).
In my third ANOVA, I specified perceptions of the ally’s competence as my dependent
variable. I found that there was a statistically significant difference in perceptions of the
perpetrator’s competence in at least two conditions F(2, 440)=40.52, p<.001, η
2
=0.16. I
conducted follow-up Tukey’s HSD tests for multiple comparisons. Follow-up Tukey’s HSD tests
for multiple comparisons revealed that the mean value of status conferral was significantly
higher in the no voice solicitation condition compared to both the voice solicitation – perpetrator
present condition (M=5.04, SD=1.36; p<.001, 95% C.I.[0.52, 1.22]) and more competent than
participants in my voice solicitation – perpetrator absent condition (M=4.59, SD=1.43; p<.001,
95% C.I.[0.97, 1.66]). Finally, the mean value of perceptions of competence was significantly
lower in my voice solicitation – perpetrator absent and my voice solicitation – perpetrator
present conditions (p=.007, 95% C.I.[0.10, 0.79]). These effects held when including my control
variables (bpresent=-0.86, SDpresent=0.15, ppresent<.001; babsent=-1.30, SDabsent=0.15, pabsent<.001).
The effect of the manipulation (including all three conditions) on status conferred was
mediated by the effect of my emotional burden measure without controls (95% C.I.: -0.80, -
0.51]) and with controls (95% C.I.: -0.80, -0.51]). The effect of the three conditions on status
conferral was also driven, in part, by competence without (95% C.I.[-0.46, -0.23]) and with

111

controls (95% C.I.[-0.46, -0.23]). Additionally, emotional burden drove the effect of the
perpetrator’s presence (vs. absence) on conferring status to the ally, without (95% C.I.: -0.75, -
0.17]) and with controls (95% C.I.: -0.75, -0.17]). Moreover, within the voice solicitation
conditions, the effect of the perpetrator’s presence (compared to their absence) on status
conferral was explained, in part, by competence without controls (95% C.I. [0.11, 0.62]) and
with controls (95% C.I. [0.10, 0.62]). Finally, both variables mediated the effect of the
manipulation on status conferral in tandem without controls (burden: 95% C.I.[-0.57, -0.34];
competence: 95% C.I.[-0.27, -0.12]) and with controls (burden: 95% C.I.[-0.57, -0.34];
competence: 95% C.I.[-0.27, -0.12]).
Discussion
While I did not find support for one of my predictions (that the perpetrator’s presence or
absence impacted the amount of status conferred on the ally), I provide evidence that the
perpetrator’s presence (vs. absence) while the ally solicits voice impacts the disadvantaged group
member’s feelings of emotional burden. This study demonstrates how the perpetrator’s presence
(or absence) impacts disadvantaged group members’ perceptions of the confrontation and the
ally. When the perpetrator is present (vs. absent), disadvantaged group members feel more
emotional burden, and see the ally as less competent. However, this study provides initial
evidence that disadvantaged group members do not welcome voice solicitation, generally, even
when the perpetrator is absent. This suggests that soliciting voice places an overall burden on
disadvantaged group members, and shapes how they view those who solicit their voice.

112

Table 15: Supplemental Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Table 16: Supplemental Study 2 Regression results

Figure 7: Supplemental Study 2 Results

Variable Scale Mean Scale SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3
1 Emotional Burden 2.91 1.63 1.95 1.13 3.65 1.71 3.07 1.52
2 Status Conferral 4.79 1.60 5.75 1.10 4.27 1.69 4.42 1.51 -0.80***
3 Allyship Competence 5.16 1.37 5.90 0.94 5.04 1.36 4.59 1.43 -0.64*** 0.73
4 Age 38.61 13.14 38.51 13.81 38.98 12.80 38.33 12.91 0.03 -0.03 0.03
** p < .01, *** p < .001
No Voice
Solicitation
Voice Solicitation
Perpetrator Present
Voice Solicitation
Perpetrator Absent
B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE
Voice Solicitation Manip.
1 = Voice solicited
0 = No Voice Solicited 1.40*** (0.15) -1.08*** (0.13) -1.40*** (0.15)
Perpetrator Present
+
1.69*** (0.17) -0.86*** (0.15) -1.48*** (0.17)
Perpetrator Absent
+
1.11*** (0.17) 1.30*** (0.15) -1.33*** (0.17)
Age 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.01)
Race 0.01 (0.04) -0.05 (0.03) -0.01 (0.04) 0.02 (0.04) -0.05 (0.03) -0.01 (0.04)
Constant 1.78*** (0.27) 5.93*** (0.23) 5.92*** (0.26) 1.77*** (0.26) 5.92*** (0.22) 5.92*** (0.26)
N 443 443 443 443 443 443

+
Reference variable: No Voice Solicited
Emotional Burden Perceived Status Perceived Competence Emotional Burden Perceived Status Perceived Competence
+ p < .10,* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

113

114

Appendix B: Measures across studies
Measures roadmap

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 SS 2
Emotional Burden X X X X X X X
Allyship Competence X X X X X
Status Conferral X X X X X X X
Willingness to Work
with Ally in Future
X X
Willingness to Spend
Time with Ally
Outside of Work
X X
Desire for Ally to
Lead DEI Efforts
X
Trust in the Ally X
Conflict Avoidance X
Control
Variable
Voice Solicitation X X X
Job Rewards X
If Sam led a ‘diversity and inclusion’
committee at work,
I would respect his decisions
X
I would recommend to other women that
they approach Sam if they encounter sexism
in the workplace
X
Perceived Autonomy X X
Mediators
Outcome
Variables
Moderator
Variables
Exploratory Variables

115

Mediators
Emotional Burden
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
• {Ally}'s behavior made me uncomfortable
• {Ally}'s behavior embarrassed me
• I resent {Ally's} actions
• {Ally's} actions made me feel angry
Allyship Competence
Based on {the ally}'s response, in terms of being an ally, I think that she/he is/they are…
• Competent
• Confident
• Independent
Outcome Variables
Status Conferral
What is your impression of {the ally} after this interaction?
• I would admire {the ally} more.
• I would hold {the ally} in higher esteem.
• {the ally} would have higher status in my eyes.
• I would respect {the ally more}

Willingness to Work with Ally in Future
How willing would you be to continue to work with {the ally} in the future?

Willingness to Spend Time with Ally Outside of Work
How willing would you be to spend time with {the ally} outside of work in the future?

Desire for Ally to Lead DEI Efforts
To what extent would you want {the ally} to lead Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts at
your organization?
Moderator Variables
Trust in the Ally
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
• Generally, I trust {the ally} completely.
• Generally, when push comes to shove, I trust {the ally}
• Generally, I trust that {the ally } wants the best for me.

Conflict Avoidance
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

116

• I usually avoid open discussions of differences with my peers.
• I try to stay away from disagreement with my peers.
• I avoid conflict situations with my peers.
• I try to keep my disagreement with my peers to myself in order to avoid hard feelings.
• I try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with my peers.
• I keep disagreements with my peers to myself to prevent disrupting our relationship.
Control Variables
Voice Solicitation
Generally, in my organization, {the ally}…
• Asks me personally to tell him/her/them about things that I think would be helpful for
improving this organization
• Asks me personally to tell him/her/them about how things have been done in my previous
job(s)
• Seeks out task-related knowledge from me
• Asks me personally what skills I have that he/she/them may not know about that might
contribute to our performance

117

Appendix C: Manipulations and materials
Note: I italicized the question stems, where applicable.
Study 1 Manipulations and materials
Study 1 Intro
You are an account manager at a design company. You and your teammates help set the strategy
for different projects, coordinating the projects from start to finish. During work, you walk into
an open office space and notice that some of your coworkers are having a conversation.
As the conversation is wrapping up, one of your coworkers (Paul) says: “I’m really surprised at
the types of people who are working here... with all of this ‘diversity’ hiring—women,
minorities, foreigners, etc., I wonder how long this company will stay on top?”
No Voice Solicitation Condition
Another coworker (Sam) hears this, and tells Paul that his comment was wrong and offensive.
Voice Solicitation Condition
Another coworker (Sam) hears this, and tells Paul that his comment was wrong and offensive.
Sam then turns to you and asks "You think that's sexist, right? You should say something about it
to Paul."
Study 2 Manipulations and materials
Study 2 Intro
Take a moment to think of one of your male/White coworkers. Once you have identified this
person, please insert their first name into the box below.
(If participants identified as a man of color, or if participants who identified as women of color
were assigned to consider a racism transgression and confrontation)
What is the gender of the {ally}?
Now, take some time to think of a moderately sexist/racist comment that you believe someone
might realistically direct at you (or another woman/person of color) in your organization.

Please take a few moments to really imagine the circumstances under which the sexist/racist
comment might be made and how you would feel in response.

In the textbox below, please take a few seconds to describe the comment that you imagined and
how it would make you feel.

118

Please take a moment to answer some questions about the comment you just imagined:
Has anyone said this remark to you before?
• Yes
• No

How offensive do you think the remark would be? (1=Not offensive at all → 10=Very offensive)

On the following pages you will read a short scenario. Please read the scenario carefully. Later in
the survey, we will ask you about important elements of the scenario to ensure that you
understood it.

Imagine that you and {ally} are casually talking with a few other coworkers after a work
meeting. It’s a free-flowing conversation, where everyone is discussing current events, issues at
work, and other topics.

One of your White male coworkers turns to you and says the moderately sexist/racist comment
that you reflected on earlier.

No voice solicitation condition:
{ally} begins to confront the perpetrator, telling him that what he said was wrong and offensive.
Voice solicitation condition:
{ally} begins to confront the perpetrator, telling him that what he said was wrong and offensive.

During the confrontation, {ally} turns to you and asks you to explain how the situation should be
resolved so that all parties involved can move forward.

Studies 3 and 4 Manipulations and materials
Note: I bolded and italicized the language in the voice solicitation condition.

Q1: Can you recall a time when a coworker (the “perpetrator”) said or did something that you
perceived as {sexist/racist} to you (or in your presence), and a confronter {male/White}
coworker (the “confronter”) responded by calling out or otherwise standing up against the
perpetrator{, and involved you in the confrontation?}
By “involved you in the confrontation”, we mean the “confronter” did one of the following:
• asked for your input about how to resolve the situation involving the sexist/racist
comment
• volunteered you to share your perspective on the situation involving the sexist/racist
comment
• asked for you to provide feedback on how they handled the situation
• suggested that you explain to the perpetrator why their comment was inappropriate

119

• asked you to describe to the perpetrator or others how the racist/sexist comment made
you feel
• actively solicited your input on the racist/sexist situation in some other way
Please indicate your response below:
o Yes
o No

(If women of color respond “Yes” to the question above, they saw this text) How would you
characterize the incident that you recalled?
• The incident I recalled involves a male coworker who confronted sexism in the
workplace.
• The incident I recalled involves a White coworker who confronted racism in the
workplace.

Block 2: If they respond “Yes” to Q1
Now please respond to the following questions about the incident when:
A coworker (the “perpetrator”) said or did something that you perceived to be {sexist/racist} to
you (or in your presence), and a {male/White} coworker (the “confronter”) responded by calling
out or otherwise standing up against the perpetrator. {./while also involving you in the
confrontation.}.

The more you write about this incident, the more we can learn about your experiences and
perspectives. Additionally, in-depth responses will be more useful for our research.
Please insert the first name of the confronter who responded to the perpetrator into the box
below.

What is {ally’s} gender?
• Man
• Woman
• Non-binary/other

In the textbox below, please take a few seconds to describe the {sexist/racist} comment that you
recalled and how it made you feel.

In terms of the {sexist/racist} comment you just recalled: How offensive do you find the comment
that the perpetrator made? {1=not offensive at all; 10=very offensive}

Please describe how {ally} responded to the perpetrator{./, and involved you in the
confrontation}.

Block 2: If they respond “No” to Q1
You indicated that you could NOT recall an incident when:
A coworker (the “perpetrator”) said or did something that you perceived to be sexist/racist to you
(or in your presence), and a male/White coworker (the “confronter”) responded by calling out or
otherwise standing up against the perpetrator in some way {(while also involving you in the

120

confrontation)}, we are interested to know how this situation could hypothetically unfold given
your knowledge and personal experiences.
On the following pages, we will ask you to describe a hypothetical situation that could
realistically happen where a {sexist/racist} event occurs and a {male/White} coworker responds
to it. The more you write about this situation, the more we can learn about your experiences and
perspectives. Additionally, in-depth responses will be more useful for our research.
Take a moment to think of one of your {male/White} coworkers.

Once you have identified this person, please insert their first name into the box below.
What is {ally’s} gender?
• Man
• Woman
• Non-binary/other

Now, take some time to think of a moderately {sexist/racist} comment that you believe someone
might realistically direct at you (or another {woman/person of color}) in your organization.
Please take a few moments to really imagine the circumstances under which the {sexist/racist}
comment might be made and how you would feel in response.

Please take a moment to answer some questions about the comment you just imagined:
Has anyone said this comment to you before?
- Yes
- No

How offensive do you find this comment? (1=Not offensive at all → 10=Very offensive)

On the following pages you will read a short scenario. Please read the scenario carefully. Later in
the survey, we will ask you about important elements of the scenario to ensure that you
understood it.

Imagine that you and {ally} are casually talking with a few other coworkers after a work
meeting. It’s a free-flowing conversation, where everyone is discussing current events, issues at
work, and other topics.

During the conversation, one of your White male coworkers turns to you and says the moderately
{sexist/racist} comment that you reflected on earlier.

No Voice Solicitation Condition
{ally} begins to confront the perpetrator, telling him that what he said was wrong and offensive.

Voice Solicitation Condition
{ally} begins to confront the perpetrator, telling him that what he said was wrong and offensive.
During the confrontation, {ally} turns to you and asks you to explain how the situation should
be resolved so that all parties involved can move forward.

121

Study 5 Manipulations and materials
First email

Second Email – Transgression Emails
Leadership Transgression

Quantitative Transgression

Stressful Transgression

Third Email: Disregard

122

Fourth Email: Confrontation
Invoking disadvantaged group member without soliciting voice condition

General Voice Solicitation

Direct Voice Solicitation – {Participant, what do you think about Paul’s comment}

Direct Voice Solicitation – {Participant, will you describe how Paul’s comment made you
feel?}

Direct Voice Solicitation – {Participant, will you explain why Paul’s comment was
discriminatory?}

123

Study 6 Manipulations and materials
Avatars participants can choose from.

Avatars that representing the other “Conversants” in the survey

124

Candidates that participant can choose from

Samuel/
Samantha

125

Manipulation: Transcripts for the general confrontation condition

Manipulation: Transcripts for the prejudice confrontation condition

126

Supplemental Study 2 Manipulations and materials
Supplemental Study 2 Intro
You are a marketing manager at Xantippe, a company specializing in frozen fast food. You help
set the marketing strategy of the company, coordinate marketing projects from start to finish, and
work on a team with 12 other employees.
During work, you walk into an open office space and notice that some of your coworkers are
having a conversation.
As the conversation is wrapping up, one of your male coworkers (Paul) says something
moderately sexist while looking in your direction.
No Voice Solicitation Condition
Another male coworker (Sam) hears this, and tells Paul that his comment was wrong and
offensive.
Voice Solicitation – Perpetrator Present Condition
Another male coworker (Sam) hears this, and tells Paul that his comment was wrong and
offensive.
As he is talking to Paul, Sam turns to you and says, “As a woman, can you explain to us how
Paul’s comment was wrong or offensive?”
Voice Solicitation – Perpetrator Absent Condition
Another male coworker (Sam) hears this, and tells Paul that his comment was wrong and
offensive.
After the room clears out, only you and Sam remain. Sam turns to you and says, “As a woman,
can you explain to me how Paul’s comment was wrong or offensive?”

Abstract (if available)

Abstract When confronting acts of prejudice in the workplace, allies may solicit input—or voice—from marginalized employees, thereby involving them (potentially against their will) in the confrontation. Across six studies (five of which were pre-registered; N=2,864) and two supplemental studies (N=772)—using multiple prejudice confrontation and voice solicitation situations, as well as different disadvantaged groups (i.e., women and racially marginalized individuals)—I find that soliciting voice from disadvantaged group members has negative affective consequences for the disadvantaged group member and negative evaluative consequences for the ally. Specifically, members of disadvantaged groups whose voices are directly solicited (vs. not directly solicited) by an ally during a prejudice confrontation experience more emotional burden; in turn, they view the ally as less deserving of status and seek to minimize their future exposure to the ally. Integrating insights from the prejudice confrontation and organizational voice literatures, these findings highlight the theoretical value and practical importance of examining prejudice confrontations from the disadvantaged group member’s perspective.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Working-class advantages: when interdependent cultural norms can decrease threat in interpersonally uncertain interactions

Asset Metadata

Creator Osborne, Merrick (author)

Core Title A costly penny for your thoughts?: Allies cause harm by soliciting disadvantaged group members' voice when confronting prejudice

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Business Administration

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 10/25/2022

Defense Date 10/07/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag allyship,competence,emotional burden,OAI-PMH Harvest,prejudice confrontation,prohibitive voice,status,voice,voice solicitation

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Anicich, Eric (committee chair), Dehghani, Morteza (committee member), Fast, Nathanael (committee member), Tost, Leigh (committee member), Townsend, Sarah (committee member)

Creator Email merricko@marshall.usc.edu,merricko@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112195798

Unique identifier UC112195798

Identifier etd-OsborneMer-11283.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-OsborneMer-11283

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Osborne, Merrick

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20221026-usctheses-batch-988 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu