Performative or authentic? How affordances signal (in)authentic digital allyship

Kyla N. Brathwaite & David C. DeAndrea

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication2025https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaf012article
AJG 3
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

This study examines the paradoxical relationship between prosocial content on social media and the self-promotional nature of many social media platforms. Specifically, our study examines how differences in two perceived affordances—persistence and visibility—affect how women viewers evaluate the authenticity of men who post allyship messages on Instagram. Additionally, we examine how viewer perceptions of comment deletion and comment restriction impact source evaluations. Results indicate that greater perceived persistence and visibility led women viewers to rate ostensible allies as more authentic and less self-interested. Moreover, comment deletion and restriction were found to partially affect how viewers evaluated ally authenticity and motive, providing additional support to warranting theory. Implications for promoting prosocial messaging and digital allyship online are discussed.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaf012

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{kyla2025,
  title        = {{Performative or authentic? How affordances signal (in)authentic digital allyship}},
  author       = {Kyla N. Brathwaite & David C. DeAndrea},
  journal      = {Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaf012},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Performative or authentic? How affordances signal (in)authentic digital allyship

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.