See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353776936

Male Allies at Work: Gender-Equality Supportive Men Reduce Negative

Underrepresentation Effects Among Women

Article  in  Social Psychological and Personality Science · August 2021

DOI: 10.1177/19485506211033748

CITATION READS

1 610

2 authors:

Charlotte Moser Nyla R. Branscombe

University of Kansas University of Kansas
1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION    217 PUBLICATIONS   20,526 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

What Does it Mean to be Undocumented?: A Multi-Site, Phenomenological Study of Undocumented Hispanic Immigrants in the United States View project

Injustice Standards View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Charlotte Moser on 09 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Male allies at work: Gender-equality supportive men reduce negative underrepresentation effects

among women

Charlotte E. Moser

Nyla R. Branscombe

University of Kansas

Author Note

Corresponding Author: Charlotte Moser, M.A. Department of Psychology, Social Psychology

Program, Fraser Hall 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA,

email: cemoser@ku.edu. Work phone: 785-864-4131.

Author Biography:

Charlotte E. Moser, M.A. is currently a Ph.D. student in Social Psychology at the University of

Kansas.

Nyla R. Branscombe, Ph.D. is a Distinguished Professor of Social Psychology at the University

of Kansas.
 1

Abstract

Does commitment to allyship from a dominant group member cue identity safety for women in

male-dominated environments? We examine this question by assessing women’s perceptions of

workplaces that included the presence (vs absence) of a male ally (Studies 1, 2, and 3) or a

female ally (Study 3) and determine the impact of Black versus White allies for Black and White

women. Across three studies and an integrative data analysis (N=1,032), we demonstrate that an

equality-supportive male ally reduces anticipated isolation and workplace hostility, and increases

anticipated support, respect, and gender-equality norms for women in general populations

(Studies 1 and 2) and women in STEM (Study 3). These results represent a possible strategy to

help retain women in male dominated fields.

Keywords: allyship, gender, intergroup relations, STEM, underrepresentation

 2

Male allies at work: Gender-equality supportive men reduce negative underrepresentation effects

among women

Women remain underrepresented in science, technology, and math (STEM) fields (NSF,

2021). Much research has been dedicated to understanding women’s low interest (Cheryan et al.,

2009; Heilman, 2001) and retention in STEM fields (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Stout et al., 2011),

often focusing on gender stereotypes and lack of belonging in explaining these effects. Given the

current overrepresentation of men in STEM fields, it is useful to consider how male allies can

signal identity safety, cues suggesting one’s identity is valued (Davies et al., 2005), to women

entering such fields. Allies are individuals who champion egalitarian ideals and strive to promote

inclusivity (Ashburn-Nardo, 2018). Allyship can manifest in different ways, including collective

action (Radke et al., 2020), confrontation (Hildebrand et al., 2020), and dedication to

marginalized individuals’ success (Johnson et al., 2019).

We examine the novel question of whether signaling commitment to allyship decreases

negative effects of underrepresentation and perceptions of identity threat for women in male-

dominated environments. Across three studies, we show that allyship intentions from men reduce

key effects of underrepresentation for women in male-dominated fields.

Social Identity Threat and Underrepresentation

The negative impact of women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields has been well-

documented (Betz et al., 2013; Cohen & Swim, 1995; Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Drury et al.,

2011; Heilman, 2001; Murphy et al., 2007; Shaffer et al., 2013; Stout, et al., 2011). These

consequences for women in male-dominated fields are partly due to social identity threat, which

individuals experience when anticipating negative evaluations or treatment based on their social

identity (Branscombe et al., 1999; Murphy et al., 2007). STEM fields are perceived as highly
 3

masculine (Nosek et al., 2002) and consistent with male, but not female, gender role stereotypes

(Fiske, et al., 2007; Cheryan & Markus, 2020). These discrepancies between gender role

expectations and norms surrounding male-dominated environments lead women to feel out of

place (Cheryan et al., 2009) and decrease sense of belonging (Stout et al., 2011).

Social identity threat can be elicited by subtle situational cues, such as the gender

composition of a group. Women shown videos with low gender representation displayed greater

vigilance for social identity threat cues and reported decreased sense of belonging compared to

those shown a video with equal gender representation (Murphy et al., 2007). Underrepresented

contexts result in feelings of isolation and greater pressures to prove competence (Jackson et

al.,1995). These added pressures lead underrepresented group members to feel overly visible and

distinctive in comparison to other employees, decreasing job satisfaction (Niemann & Dovidio,

1998).

Overcoming Underrepresentation

One straightforward intervention to increase women’s interest and retention in STEM

fields is to remove the solo-status of women in such workplaces. Women performed better on

math-related tasks when in a group with equal numbers of women and men compared to groups

that were male-dominated (Beaton et al., 2007). In gender-balanced contexts, individuals are less

likely to self-categorize in terms of gender compared to groups in which one is underrepresented

(Oakes et al., 1991), and are therefore less likely to experience stereotype threat (Shaffer et al.,

2013; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Similarly, altering an environment to cue gender neutrality

increased women’s interest and anticipated belonging in male-dominated fields (Cheryan et al.,

2009).
 4

Exposure to role models in STEM-related fields also mitigates the impacts of

underrepresentation (Cheryan et al., 2012). Positive female role models increase women’s

interest in STEM fields (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016; Stout et al., 2011), protect women’s identity

within STEM workplaces (Shapiro et al., 2013; Pietri et al., 2019), and increase retention (Drury

et al., 2011). Likewise, exposure to role models with similarly stigmatized identities serve as an

identity-safety cue that increases women’s belonging (Johnson et al., 2019).

Although these strategies are beneficial, they are not always possible to implement. Male-

dominated workplaces may not be able to alter the gender-composition of their employees and

may not have female role models for incoming female employees to look up to. Given that men

are over-represented in STEM fields, it is useful to look to ways in which men can help the

advancement of women in male-dominated contexts.

Men as Allies

Men acting as allies for women may be a powerful means of reducing the effects of

underrepresentation. Rather than simply being motivated to self-regulate prejudice toward

marginalized others, allies engage in behavior that supports social justice (Brown & Ostrove,

2013). Men may be more effective allies than women. Although women weigh the perceived

benefits versus consequences when deciding to advocate for gender equality or confront sexism

(Kaiser & Miller, 2001), men are less hindered by anticipated consequences. This reflects the

reality where women are more likely than men to experience backlash when advocating for

gender equality or confronting sexism (Eliezer & Major, 2012; Hekman et al., 2017). The more

positive view of men than women who advocate for gender equality may lead others to be more

receptive to men’s messages of gender equality than messages delivered by women.

Confrontations against sexism were seen as more legitimate when the message was delivered by
 5

a man than by a woman (Gulker et al., 2013; Drury & Kaiser, 2014). Observers expressed

greater surprise when a man, compared to a woman, confronted sexism (Gervais & Hillard,

2014), and were more likely to focus on the sexist act rather than aspects of the confronter.

Allyship has shown positive effects for women in various ways. Black undergraduate

women who perceived a White woman professor as an ally invested in their success experienced

identity-safety (Johnson et al., 2019). Women who experienced unfair hiring decisions

experienced higher self-esteem and performed better on a stereotypically male task when the

hiring decision was labeled as sexist by a man compared to when it was not addressed (Cihangir

et al, 2014). Similarly, identity threat was decreased for women when a sexist comment was

addressed by a male confronter and affirmed by a bystander (Hildebrand et al., 2020) compared

to when the comment was not confronted. Much of the previous research has examined allyship

behaviors within the context of an explicitly sexist event. However, women draw from multiple

cues to infer sense of belonging and identity threat within environments that are not explicitly

derogatory toward women, such as environments that perpetuate masculine defaults (Cheryan &

Markus, 2020; Murphy et al., 2007). Signaling allyship intentions may be one such way to

increase women’s sense of belonging in environments that are otherwise unwelcoming.

Individuals who enter an environment in which their group is negatively stereotyped are often

vigilant for cues of identity threat (Walton et al., 2015). Allyship signals may be especially

impactful for women entering highly masculine, male-dominated environments. Although

positive interactions with male coworkers can increase women’s well-being (Hall et al., 2019),

new employees do not have these established supports. A fellow coworker signaling allyship

commitment may increase identity safety within the organization.

Overview of Current Studies

 6

We present three experiments that examine how male allies cue identity-safety for

women in male-dominated fields. In Study 1, we examine the impact of male allyship in

reducing negative underrepresentation effects among women, and how this compares to gender-

balanced work contexts. Study 2 examines how the race of the participant and the race of the ally

impact the extent to which the ally is seen as an identity-safety cue. Lastly, Study 3 replicates

and extends Study 1 and 2 by examining the potentially differential impact of the gender of the

ally with women in STEM participants. Data, code, and supplemental materials for all studies are

available at https://osf.io/ejn2d/.

Study 1

We tested whether male allyship intentions reduce underrepresentation effects among

women joining male-dominated fields. We hypothesized that a male ally reduces the effects of

underrepresentation, including feelings of isolation and perceived lack of support. We predicted

a two-way interaction between the context (underrepresented vs gender-balanced) and the

presence (vs absence) of an ally with a pattern of mean differences such that women shown a

solo-status context without an ally will anticipate more isolation and less support compared to

the gender-balanced context, or the solo-status context with an ally. The solo-status ally

condition and gender-balanced conditions were not expected to differ.

Method

Participants. A G*Power (3.1.9.2) analysis (ANOVA: Fixed effects, special, main

effects and interactions; effect size=.25, α=.05, power=.80, number of groups=4) indicated that

260 participants were necessary. Nineteen participants failed both the manipulation and attention

checks and were dropped from analysis resulting in a final sample size of 241 White women
 7

from TurkPrime, paid $1.50 (Mage=45.36, SD=17.01). For this study, only White women were

recruited to encourage intergroup comparisons based on gender underrepresentation and not race.

Design. This experiment employed a 2(coworker composition: gender underrepresented

vs gender-balanced) x 2(male ally: present vs absent) between-subjects design.

Procedure. The study was ostensibly about people’s ability to immerse themselves in a

workplace after imagining receiving a job offer at a chemistry company. After providing

consent, participants completed a questionnaire with items related to feminist and gender

identification to ensure gender was salient. Participants were randomly assigned to view a

slideshow of their future coworkers with either all male coworkers or gender-balanced

coworkers, and either an ally or no ally among the coworkers. In the “ally” condition, one of the

men expressed gender equality support whereas no coworker mentioned gender equality in the

no-ally condition (see supplemental materials for wording of the ally manipulation). Participants

completed all dependent measures using a 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree” Likert

scale and were debriefed.

Measures. We chose measures related to common negative effects of

underrepresentation that had not been previously included within identity safety measures

(Hildebrand et al., 2020).

Isolation. Seven items measured anticipated workplace isolation (e.g., “I would feel

isolated at this company.”).

Support from coworkers. Four items measured anticipated support from coworkers (e.g.,

“My coworkers would work to empower each other”).

 8

Manipulation checks. At the end of the study, participants reported whether they were

shown a gender-balanced or unbalanced coworker group and whether one of the coworkers

expressed gender-equality allyship. Participants who failed the manipulation checks were

dropped from analysis. Participants additionally answered a conceptual manipulation check that

assessed whether the participant believed the company promoted gender equality.

Results

Manipulation Check. A main effect for the conceptual manipulation check emerged;

participants exposed to an ally perceived the company as promoting gender equality more than

participants who were not exposed to an ally, F(1, 238)=6.38, p=.01. The two-way interaction

was not significant, F(1, 237)=.89, p=.35. See Table 1 for means (standard deviations) by

condition for each variable.

Isolation. Two-way ANOVA revealed non-significant main effects of gender

composition manipulation, F(1, 237)=.41, p=.52, 2=.002, and ally manipulation, F(1, 237)=.10,

p=.76, 2=.00. The ally by gender composition interaction was marginal, F(1, 237)=3.28, p=.07,

2=.014. The predicted conditional differences emerged; participants rated workplaces with an

underrepresented gender composition and no ally as particularly high in anticipated isolation,

significantly higher than gender-balanced workplaces or gender underrepresented workplaces

with an ally. There were no significant differences in anticipated isolation for women shown

workplaces that included an ally and a gender-balanced work context, with or without an ally1.

Support. Two-way ANOVA revealed non-significant main effects of the gender

representation manipulation, F(1, 237)=.56, p=.45, 2=.002, and ally manipulation, F(1,

1
All pairwise comparison for Studies 1-3 implemented Tukey HSD tests.
 9

237)=.03, p=.87, 2=.00. The two-way interaction between ally and gender representation was

significant, F(1, 237)=.8.42, p=.004, 2=.03. This interaction revealed that participants who

were exposed to the underrepresented gender group composition with no ally anticipated

significantly less support from coworkers than participants exposed to either an ally or an equal

gender representation context. There were no significant differences in anticipated support for

women exposed to workplaces that included an ally or a gender-balanced work context, with or

without an ally.

Table 1. Means (standard deviations) by condition, Study 1.

Condition
Ally No Ally

Gender-Balanced Solo Status Gender-Balanced Solo Status

Isolation 2.46a (1.46) 2.63a (1.34) 2.54a (1.36) 3.35b (1.52)
Support 5.98a (0.87) 5.84a (0.89) 5.95a (1.00) 5.02b (1.39)
a b a
Gender Support Check 5.67 (1.24) 4.19 (1.54) 5.36 (1.25) 3.54c (1.75)
Note. Differing superscripts within rows indicate statistical differences at p < .05. Pairwise comparisons
used Tukey HSD Tests.

Discussion

Study 1 supported the hypothesis that a male ally in a male-dominated work context

eliminated the typical negative effects of underrepresentation experienced by women. Women

shown a workplace wherein they were the only woman and did not have a male ally anticipated

the least support and most isolation compared to women in gender-balanced work environments.

A male ally is as impactful as eliminating gender underrepresentation. The presence or absence

of an ally in a gender-balanced context had no additional impact on anticipated inclusion and

perceived support. Rather, the presence of a male ally was only impactful with low gender

representation. Given this finding, Studies 2 and 3 focus on gender imbalanced contexts where

the presence of an ally is impactful.

 10

Study 2
Study 2 assessed effects of allyship for women of color, one of the most underrepresented

groups within STEM fields (NSF, 2021). Black women may respond differently than White

women to White male allies. Exposure to similarly stereotyped male members with

organizational expertise, such as Black men, reduces women’s cognitive interference due to

social identity threat (Chaney et al., 2018). Similarly, exposure to Black professors served as an

identity-safety cue for Black undergraduate women in STEM fields (Johnson et al., 2019). For

Black women, exposure to an ally with a shared racial identity could be more powerful than a

White male ally. Yet, it is also possible that simply having an ally who is male, and as such a

member of the dominant group within STEM, is sufficient to signal identity-safety, regardless of

race. Therefore, we tested competing hypotheses for Study 2. Hypothesis 1: A Black male ally

will be more impactful for Black women than a White male ally, but both Black and White allies

will be significantly more impactful than a control. White women will respond equally to Black

and White male allies. Hypothesis 2: The presence of either a Black or a White male ally will

decrease the negative effects of gender underrepresentation for Black and White women equally,

such that an ally of either race will be more impactful than a control.

Method

Participants. An a priori G*Power (3.1.9.2) analysis (ANOVA: Fixed effects, special,

main effects, and interactions; effect size=.21 taken from Study 1, α=.05, power=.80, number of

groups=6) analysis indicated that 378 participants were necessary. In anticipation of failed data

quality checks, we recruited two-hundred White women and two-hundred Black women, paid

$1.50, via Prolific. After applying exclusion criteria the sample dropped to 393 women

(Mage=32.92, SD=12.58).
 11

Design and Procedure. The experiment employed a 3(ally presence: Black, White, or no

ally) by 2(participant race: Black or White women) between-subjects design. Participants were

randomly assigned to view either a Black ally, a White ally, or no ally among the ostensible

coworkers. Participants answered dependent measures and were debriefed.

Measures. This study employed all dependent variables from Study 1 in addition to other

measures tapping identity-threat constructs.

Workplace hostility. Six items measured anticipated workplace hostility adapted from

Miner-Rubino, and Cortina (2007) (e.g., “Employees are likely to ignore, fail to listen to, or

interrupt female employees”).

Respect. Four items assessed participants expected respect from their coworkers, adapted

from Renger et al. (2017) (e.g., “I think my coworkers would view me as an equal”).

Manipulation Check. Three items assessed whether the coworker was perceived as an

ally (e.g., “This person seems committed to social justice.”). Participants additionally answered a

dichotomous manipulation check that assessed whether an ally was present among their

ostensible coworkers. Those who failed this check were dropped from analysis.

Results

Manipulation Check. Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ally

manipulation, F(1, 299) = 47.72, p < .001, 2 = .24, indicating that the manipulation was

successful. See Table 2 for means and standard deviations.

 12

Respect. Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ally manipulation, F(2,

299)=6.42, p<.001, 2=.04. The main effect of participant race, F(1, 299)=.008, p=.92, and

interaction, F(2, 299)=1.08, p=.34, were non-significant.

Support. Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ally manipulation, F(2,

299)=9.94, p< .001, 2=.06, a non-significant main effect of participant race, F(1, 299) = .009, p

=.93, and a non-significant two-way interaction, F(2, 299)=.82, p=.45.

Isolation. Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ally manipulation, F(2,

299)=9.94, p<.001, 2=.06. The main effect of participant race, F(1, 299)=1.38, p=.24, and two-

way interaction, F(2, 299)=.23, p=.74, were not significant.

Hostile Work Environment. Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ally

manipulation, F(2, 299)=4.35, p=.01, 2=.03. Again, the main effect of participant race, F(1,

394)=.03, p=.87, and interaction, F(2, 299)=1.04, p=.35, were not significant.

Pairwise comparisons. Across all dependent measures, there were no significant

differences between White and Black women within conditions (see Table 5). This provides

support for Hypothesis 2, that the presence of either a Black or a White male ally decreases the

effects of gender underrepresentation for Black and White women equally.

Table 2. Means (standard deviations) for each variable by condition, Study 2.

Ally Condition
Black Ally White Ally No Ally
Black White Black White Black White
Women Women women women women women
Respect 5.63a (0.98) 5.59a (0.88) 5.86a (0.83) 5.43a (1.08) 4.89b (1.25) 4.72b (1.08)
Support 5.45 a (0.95) 5.39a (0.90) 5.60a (1.02) 5.22a (1.08) 4.58b (1.21) 4.45b (0.91)
a a
Isolation 2.97 (1.30) 3.18 (1.43) 2.58a (1.15) 3.18a (1.28) 3.76b (1.43) 4.20b (1.14)
a a
Hostile W.E. 2.66 (1.34) 2.83 (1.43) 2.40a (1.13) 2.87a (1.37) 3.37b (1.28) 3.74b (1.08)
Ally Check 5.97a (0.76) 6.03a (1.11) 5.92a (0.94) 5.46a (1.11) 4.15b (0.99) 4.38b (0.74)
 13

Note. Differing superscripts within each row indicate statistical differences between conditions
using Tukey HSD comparisons. Hostile WE = Hostile Work Environment. Ally Check measured
the extent to which participants viewed the coworker as an ally. Values in parentheses indicate
standard deviations.
Discussion

As in Study 1, the presence of an equality-supportive ally acted as an identity-safety cue

for women in a male-dominated setting. Study 2 extended these results by examining both White

and Black women’s responses to both a White ally, a Black ally, or no ally. We found no

differences in White or Black women’s responses to allyship from either a White or Black man.

The presence of an ally of either race acted as an identity-safety cue compared to no ally.

Because White men who show allyship for gender equality are often assumed to also be an ally

for racial equality (Chaney et al., 2020), it is possible that the ally manipulation served as an

identity safety cue for Black women’s gender and racial identity. However, all participants were

shown two White men and two Black men among their coworkers, which created gender

underrepresentation but not racial underrepresentation. Thus, it is possible that a male ally may

not be sufficient when Black women are also faced with racial underrepresentation (see

Hildebrand et al., 2020).

Study 3

Study 3 (preregistered at https://osf.io/kjw3u) examined whether the gender of the ally

matters in decreasing negative effects of underrepresentation. Research on the persuasiveness of

feminist messages indicates that a man serving as an ally to a woman is perceived as more

persuasive than a woman serving as an ally (Gulker et al., 2013; Gervais & Hillard, 2014). As

men hold higher status in society and the numerical majority in scientific fields, it may be

especially empowering to know that a member of that dominant group could be called upon for
 14

support. Because members of marginalized groups are perceived as highly committed to social

justice (Saguy et al., 2020), the presence of a woman, regardless of expressed allyship intentions,

may signal identity safety. To address this possibility, this study varied the gender of the control

coworker evaluated by participants. Secondly, most participants in the previous two studies did

not have experience in male-dominated environments. To assess generalizability of these

allyship findings, Study 3 recruited women with male-dominated, STEM backgrounds as

participants. Lastly, Study 3 included an explicit measure of identity safety in addition to the less

traditional measures utilized in the previous two studies. We hypothesize that women with

STEM backgrounds will be more likely to indicate identity safety, operationalized through the

measures conducted in the previous two studies, than participants shown a female ally, or a

control condition of either gender.

Participants. G*Power (3.1.9.2) analysis (ANOVA: Fixed effects, special, main effects

and interactions; effect size=.21 taken from Study 1, α=.05, power=.80, number of groups=4)

indicated that 378 participants were necessary. Participants who indicated experience in a male-

dominated STEM field were recruited using Prolific prescreening and compensated $1.50. We

collected 435 participants in anticipation of manipulation and attention check failures and ended

with a sample of 398 women. See Table 3 for participant demographics.

Table 3. Demographic variables, Study 3.

Mean age (standard deviation) 28.27 (8.59)

Race Percentage
White 57%
Black 7%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.02%
Asian 20%
Latinx 7%
Multiracial 8%
 15

Education
High school graduate 0.05%
Some college but not degree 17%
Associates degree 14%
Bachelor's degree 49%
Master's degree 15%
Doctoral Degree 2%
Professional Degree 3%

Design and Procedure. The experiment employed a 2(ally: present vs absent) by

2(target coworker gender: man vs woman) between-subjects design.

Measures. Study 3 employed all dependent measures as Study 2 with the addition of

traditional identity safety measures and norms of equality.

Norms. Four items measured the extent to which gender equality was seen as normative

at the organization (e.g., “It is normative for employees at this company to care about gender

equality.”)

Identity Safety. Nine items measured identity-safety adapted from Hildebrand et al.

(2020) (e.g., “I would fit in well with this group”).

Results.

Manipulation Check. Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ally

manipulation, F(1, 394)=111.90, p<.001, indicating the manipulation was successful. There was

not a significant main effect of gender manipulation, F(1, 394)=2.15, p=.14, or interaction, F(1,

394)=2.97, p=.08. See Table 4 for means and standard deviations.

Respect. Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effects of ally manipulation, F(1,

394) = 9.23, p < .001, 2 = .02, and target gender manipulation, F(1, 394)=17.55, p <.001,
 16

2=.04, and a significant two-way interaction, F(1, 394)=4.37, p=.03, 2=.01. Pairwise

comparisons showed that women shown a workplace with a male ally reported significantly

higher expectations of respect than those shown a male control (p<.001) or a female ally

(p<.001). Women shown a female ally reported significantly higher respect expectations than

those shown a female control (p=.01). The two control conditions did not differ (p=.68).

Norms. Two-way ANOVA revealed a marginal main effect of ally manipulation, F(1,

394)=3.51, p=.06, 2=.008, a significant main effect of target gender manipulation, F(1,

394)=18.73, p<.001, 2=.04, and a significant two-way interaction, F(1, 394)=10.78, p=.001,

2=.03. As predicted, pairwise comparisons indicated that gender equality was viewed as more

normative when a male ally was present compared to a male control (p<.001) or a female ally

(p<.001). Neither the female ally and female control condition (p=.24), or the female control and

male control differed (p=.97).

Identity Safety. Two-way ANOVA revealed significant main effects of ally manipulation,

F(1, 394) = 3.89, p=.04, 2 = .009, target gender manipulation, F(1, 394)=17.77, p <.001,

2=.04, and a significant two-way interaction, F(1, 394)=8.18 p=.004, 2=.02. As predicted,

pairwise comparisons indicated that participants were more likely to anticipate identity-safety

when a male ally was present compared to a male control (p<.001) or a female ally (p<.001).

Neither the female ally and female control condition (p=.20) or the female control and male

control differed (p=.99).

Support. Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ally manipulation, F(1,

394)=14.87, p<.001, 2=.04, a significant main effect of target gender manipulation, F(1,

394)=14.26, p <.001, 2=.04, and a marginal two-way interaction, F(1, 394)=2.95, p=.08,
 17

2=.007. Pairwise comparisons revealed participants shown a male ally were more likely to

expect support than those shown a male control (p<.001) or a female ally (p<.001). Those shown

a female ally reported higher support expectations than those shown a female control (p<.001).

The two control conditions did not differ (p=.61).

Isolation. Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ally manipulation, F(1,

394)=3.73, p=.05, 2=.009, a significant main effect of target gender manipulation, F(1,

394)=8.77, p=.003, 2=.02 and a non-significant two-way interaction, F(1, 394)=1.87, p=.17, 2-

=.005. Again, pairwise comparisons revealed hypothesized condition differences. Participants

shown a male ally reported less isolation concerns than those shown a male control (p<.001) or a

female ally (p=.01). The female ally and female control conditions did not differ (p=.21).

Similarly, the two control conditions did not differ (p=.78).

Hostile Work Environment. Two-way ANOVA revealed a non-significant main effect of

ally manipulation, F(1, 394)=1.94, p=.16, 2=.009, a significant main effect of target gender

manipulation, F(1, 394)=14.01, p<.001, 2=.02, and a non-significant two-way interaction, F(1,

394)=2.58, p=.11, 2=.005. Pairwise comparisons revealed hypothesized condition differences.

Women shown a male ally reported significantly lower hostility concerns than those shown a

male control (p<.001) or a female ally (p<.001). Neither the female ally and female control

condition (p=.51) or the female control and male control differed (p=.52).

Table 4. Means (standard deviations) of variables by condition, Study 3.

Condition
Ally No Ally
Male Female Male Female
Respect 5.73a (0.80) 5.16b (0.94) 4.89 c (1.06) 4.74c (1.09)
Norms 5.48a (1.03) 4.83b (1.03) 4.48b (1.08) 4.54b (1.19)
Identity Safety 5.47a (1.10) 4.81b (1.06) 4.49b (1.20) 4.50b (1.16)
Support 5.75a (0.86) 5.21b (0.93) 4.82c (1.14) 4.63c (1.20)
 18

Isolation 2.86a (1.32) 3.38b (1.24) 3.56b (1.24) 3.74b (1.32)

Hostile Work Environment 2.45a (1.31) 3.09b (1.22) 3.09b (1.13) 3.34b (1.30)
Ally Check 5.82a (0.91) 5.99a (0.72) 4.30b (0.79) 4.75c (0.83)
Note. Differing superscripts within rows represent statistical differences at p < .05.

Discussion

Study 3 illustrated the impact of the gender of an ally among women with STEM

backgrounds. We predicted that the presence of a male ally in an underrepresented workplace

would increase anticipated support and decrease anticipation of workplace hostility and isolation

compared to the presence of a female ally or control of either gender. The predicted difference

emerged across all dependent variables, such that the presence of a male ally increased

anticipated support, respect, identity safety, and gender equality norms but decreased anticipated

isolation and workplace hostility compared to a female ally or a control of either gender.

Exposure to a female ally increased anticipation of support and respect compared to the

female control condition, although significantly less than the male ally condition. Support and

respect may capture emotional social support, where female members commiserate about

collective disadvantage. Female allies may deliver effective allyship through emotional social

support, but not instrumental social support, the ability to enact change to benefit a group (van

Zomeren et al., 2004; 2012).

Results from Study 3 indicate that allyship in a male-dominated workplace is effective

for women with STEM backgrounds—especially when the ally is male. Although the female ally

was perceived as championing gender-equality, this did not translate to decreased expectations of

workplace hostility or isolation and did not signal that gender equality was normative relative to

the control conditions. This provides evidence of the importance of messages regarding gender
 19

equality from members of the dominant group, in this case men, in acting as an identity-safety

cue in underrepresented contexts.

Integrative Data Analysis

We conducted integrative data analysis (Curran & Hussong, 2009) to simultaneously

analyze results from three studies. For each study, we extracted the data for conditions where the

participant was either shown a male ally or a control, specifically only using conditions wherein

the participant had solo-status as a woman. After combining the data, we conducted t-tests to

assess the effect of the presence (vs absence) of an ally on anticipated support, respect, isolation,

hostile work environment, identity-safety measures, and gender-equality norms. All dependent

measures revealed consistent positive effects of male allyship with medium to large effect sizes.

The integrative data analysis also allowed for a confirmatory factor analysis using the

combined data to assess whether the items are distinct and fit our hypothesized measurement

model. The CFA provided good model fit, X2(n = 711, df = 507)=1052.72, p<.001; CFI=.93, TLI=.92,

RMSEA=.073, 90% CI[.06, .08], SRMR=.04, and passed measurement invariance testing

between the male ally versus no ally conditions (see supplemental materials for factor loadings).

Table 5. Integrative Data Analysis for Male Ally vs No Ally comparisons, Studies 1-3. Total n = 711.
Included in Mean Mean No Cohen's 95% CI for
Studies: Ally Ally t df p d Cohen's d
Support 1 through 3 5.55 4.72 9.78 497 <.001 0.79 [0.63, 0.94]
Isolation 1 through 3 2.85 3.67 -8.05 577 <.001 -0.62 [-.078, -0.47]
Hostile Work 2 and 3 2.62 3.35 -6.92 497 <.001 -0.57 [-0.74, -0.40]
Environment
Respect 2 and 3 5.65 4.84 9.11 385 <.001 0.82 [0.64, 0.99]
Identity Safety 3 5.47 4.50 6.10 197 <.001 0.86 [0.57, 1.15]
Norms 3 5.24 4.40 9.46 462 <.001 0.80 [0.62, 0.97]

General Discussion
 20

Across three studies the hypothesis that male allies are uniquely helpful in reducing the

negative effects of underrepresentation among women was supported. Study 1 showed that

women who expected to work in an underrepresented context with a male ally anticipated the

same amount of inclusion and support from their coworkers as participants who expected to

work in a gender-balanced setting. Study 2 found no differences in Black versus White women’s

responses to either a Black or a White ally –the presence of any male ally was sufficient to

reduce negative effects of underrepresentation. Study 3 examined whether ally gender influences

the positive effects of allyship and sought to replicate the findings of Studies 1 and 2 with a

STEM sample. Study 3 found that women shown a male ally were significantly more likely to

anticipate respect, support, equality norms, and were significantly less likely to anticipate

workplace hostility and isolation compared to women shown a female ally or a control with no

ally.

An argument could be made that a male ally signals paternalistic protection in line with

benevolent sexism. However, women were more likely to anticipate respect from their coworkers

when they were presented with a male ally. This indicates that the male ally was not perceived as

wanting to help women out of a patriarchal need to protect women, but rather was perceived as

an empowering figure.

These studies add to our understanding of the effect of allies in workplaces. Previous

research has found that exposure to female role-models (Drury et al., 2011; Shapiro et al., 2013)

and removing the underrepresented context for women (Beaton et al., 2007) aid in increasing

both interest and retention in STEM fields, although these tactics are not always an option. The

current studies provide evidence for a way to harness male-dominated contexts to signal identity-
 21

safety. Encouraging men to be equality-supportive allies for women represents a novel strategy

to increase women’s retention in male-dominated workforces.

Limitations and Future Directions

Unanswered questions remain regarding the potential impact of allies in a workplace. Our

research only examined women’s responses to allies. Future studies should examine men’s

responses to male allies of gender equality—whether they create an atmosphere of respect and

set a norm for other men in the organization, which may lead other men to support gender-

equality. The current studies focus on the effect of allyship intentions rather than allyship

actions. Allies likely need to go beyond intentions to behaviors for long-term effectiveness.

Future studies should address the impact of sincerity in allyship; perceived insincerity may

undermine positive effects of male allyship.

Conclusion

Our findings supported the hypothesis that the presence of a male ally, regardless of his

race, reduces the negative effects on women of an underrepresented environment. In fact, a male

ally who supports gender equality was as effective as creation of a gender-balanced environment.

Across all studies, the presence of either a Black or White male ally decreased identity threat for

both Black and White women in underrepresented contexts. Bolstering these findings, integrative

data analysis indicated medium to large effects for all measures of interest. The current research

offers an optimistic contribution by indicating the usefulness of male allies in decreasing the

detrimental effects of underrepresentation for women in male-dominated workplaces.

 22

References

Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2018). What can allies do? In A. J. Colella, & E. B. King (Eds.), The oxford

handbook of workplace discrimination; the oxford handbook of workplace

discrimination (pp. 373-386, Chapter xv, 467 Pages) Oxford University Press, New York,

NY.

Beaton, A., Tougas, F., Rinfret, N., Huard, N., & Delisle, M. (2007). Strength in numbers?

Women and mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(3), 291-306.

doi:.org/10.1007/BF03173427

Betz, D. E., Ramsey, L. R., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2013). Gender stereotype threat among women

and girls. In M.K. Ryan & N.R. Branscombe (Eds.). Handbook of Gender and

Psychology (pp. 428-450). London: Sage.

Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender

differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 33–57.

doi:10.1023/ A:1025724721559.

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination

among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135.

Brown, K. T., & Ostrove, J. M. (2013). What does it mean to be an ally? The perception of allies

from the perspective of people of color. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11),

2211-2222.
 23

Chaney, K. E., Sanchez, D. T., & Remedios, J. D. (2018). We are in this together: How the

presence of similarly stereotyped allies buffer against identity threat. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 410-422.

Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps

remain while others do not?. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 184-190.

Cheryan, S., & Markus, H. R. (2020). Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden

cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1022.

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: how

stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045.

Cihangir, S., Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2014). Men as allies against sexism: The positive

effects of a suggestion of sexism by male (vs. female) sources. Sage Open, 4(2), doi:

2158244014539168.

Cohen, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men:

Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

21(9), 876-884, doi: 10.1177/0146167295219001.

Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of

multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14(2), 81-100.

Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy

Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21-29.

 24

Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates

the effects of stereotype threat on women's leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276-287.

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.

Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., & Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The

importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry,

22(4), 265-269. doi:.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935

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.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth

and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.

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.

Gulker, J. E., Mark, A. Y., & Monteith, M. J. (2013). Confronting prejudice: The who what, and

why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8(4), 280-293.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.736879

Hall, W., Schmader, T., Aday, A., & Croft, E. (2019). Decoding the dynamics of social identity

threat in the workplace: A within-person analysis of women’s and men’s interactions in

STEM. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), 542-552.

 25

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's

ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657-674.

Hekman, D. R., Johnson, S. K., Foo, M. D., & Yang, W. (2017). Does diversity-valuing behavior

result in diminished performance ratings for non-white and female leaders? Academy of

Management Journal, 60(2), 771-797.

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.

Hoyt, C. L., & Murphy, S. E. (2016). Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 387-399. doi:.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.11.002

Jackson, P. B., Thoits, P. A., & Taylor, H. F. (1995). Composition of the workplace and

psychological well-being: The effects of tokenism on America's black elite. Social

Forces, 74(2), 543-557. doi:.org/10.2307/2580491

Johnson, I. R., Pietri, E. S., Fullilove, F., & Mowrer, S. (2019). Exploring identity-safety cues

and allyship among black women students in STEM environments. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 43(2), 131-150.

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.

Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious

exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1254-1269.

 26

Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect

women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879-

885.

Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore

math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44-59.

Niemann, Y. F., & Dovidio, J. F. (1998). Relationship of solo status, academic rank, and

perceived distinctiveness to job satisfaction of racial/ethnic minorities. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83(1), 55-71.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2021. Women, Minorities, and Persons

with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2021. Special Report NSF 21-321.

Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd.

Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as group members: The

role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 30(2), 125-144.

Pietri, E. S., Johnson, I. R., & Ozgumus, E. (2018). One size may not fit all: Exploring how the

intersection of race and gender and stigma consciousness predict effective identity-safe

cues for Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 291-306.

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.

 27

Renger, D., Renger, S., Miché, M., & Simon, B. (2017). A social recognition approach to

autonomy: The role of equality-based respect. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 43(4), 479-492.

Saguy, T., Fernández, S., Branscombe, N. R., & Shany, A. (2020). Justice agents: Discriminated

group members are perceived to be highly committed to social justice. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(1), 155-167.

Shaffer, E. S., Marx, D. M., & Prislin, R. (2013). Mind the gap: Framing of women’s success

and representation in STEM affects women’s math performance under threat. Sex

Roles, 68(7-8), 454-463.

Shapiro, J. R., Williams, A. M., & Hambarchyan, M. (2013). Are all interventions created equal?

A multi-threat approach to tailoring stereotype threat interventions. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 277-288. Doi:.org/10.1037/a0030461

Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: using

ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255-

270.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of

African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.

van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your

mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group

efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649-664.

 28

van Zomeren, M., Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2012). Protesters as “passionate economists” a

dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective

disadvantage. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 180-199.

Walton, G. M., Murphy, M. C., & Ryan, A. M. (2015). Stereotype threat in organizations:

Implications for equity and performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology

and Organizational Behavior, 2, 523-550.

View publication stats