The mitigation–signaling model: An integrative conceptual review of allyship behaviors’ consequences for marginalized individuals.

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 110(11), Nov 2025, 1427-1462; doi:10.1037/apl0001286

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported online in Journal of Applied Psychology on Aug 07 2025 (see record 2026-48317-001). In the article, there were errors in the row citing Bhattacharyya et al. (2024) under “Definitions of allyship” in Table 1. The changes reflect the emergent definition of allyship that Bhattacharyya et al. (2024) developed in their article (Table 1, p. 4) and replaces a definition used in their introduction (p. 1).] Workplace disparities persist for marginalized individuals—people from groups historically excluded from dominant social, economic, educational, and/or cultural life—who report lower well-being, strained relationships, and worse career outcomes compared to their advantaged counterparts. Allyship behaviors, often defined as actions by advantaged individuals to support marginalized individuals, have been promoted as solutions to such disparities. However, scholarly understanding of allyship behaviors’ consequences remains fragmented due to unclear definitions and conceptualizations, a predominant conceptual focus on antecedents, and limited integration with organizational theorizing. Consequently, we develop the mitigation–signaling model, which synthesizes definitions, categorizes behaviors, and disentangles conceptual overlaps to clarify why, how, and when allyship behaviors impact marginalized individuals’ work outcomes. The mitigation path focuses on the role of allyship behaviors in reducing mechanisms of disadvantage, that is, interpersonal discrimination, structural discrimination, and unequal access to resources. The signaling path emphasizes socioemotional signals (e.g., social value and safety) that marginalized individuals interpret from allyship behaviors. By bridging allyship and organizational scholarship, we provide a framework that clarifies conceptual boundaries, identifies empirical limitations, and offers a roadmap for advancing theory and practice. Our review highlights opportunities for organizationally relevant research and actionable interventions to address workplace disparities for marginalized individuals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)

Read the full article ›