arbiter
JournalsAccount

Trust, But Verify: How (In)consistent Allyship Shapes Disadvantaged Group Members’ Perceptions

Patricia Ciordaş et al.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin2026https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672261432440article
AJG 4ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Advantaged group members can play a significant role in advocating for social change on behalf of disadvantaged groups. Drawing on Kelley's covariation model and the attribution-identity model of ally sincerity, we argue that allyship that is inconsistent over time raises doubt about advantaged group members' motives. In four studies conducted in theUnited States, we found that Black Americans (Study 1, N = 330) perceived White Americans who participated consistently in protests for racial equality as more internally motivated and as better allies than those protesting for the first time, and that LGBTQIA+ individuals viewed inconsistent (i.e., decreasing or alternating) participation over time by straight allies as less internally motivated and less trustworthy than consistent participation (Study 2, 3, and 4, Ns = 287, 601, 434) or a control condition (Study 3). Our results highlight the importance of sustained allyship for positive perceptions of advantaged group allies.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672261432440

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{patricia2026,
  title        = {{Trust, But Verify: How (In)consistent Allyship Shapes Disadvantaged Group Members’ Perceptions}},
  author       = {Patricia Ciordaş et al.},
  journal      = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672261432440},
}

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

Flag this paper

Trust, But Verify: How (In)consistent Allyship Shapes Disadvantaged Group Members’ Perceptions

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

Evidence weight

0.50

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

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
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.