ABSTRACT Across three studies ( N = 785) in the context of anti‐racist collective action in the United States and Germany, we empirically validate a theoretical framework of four motives for advantaged group allyship: outgroup‐focused, ingroup‐focused, personal and morality. We investigate the types of identification these motives stem from and how they contribute to collective action engagement on behalf of disadvantaged groups. In line with expectations, we show that outgroup‐focused and morality motives are predicted by politicized identification and linked to stronger commitment to collective action on behalf of the disadvantaged group, though only outgroup‐focused motive predicted more costly actions. On the other hand, ingroup‐focused motive was predicted by ingroup identification and personal motive by narcissism. Neither predicted future collective action intentions. This research provides empirical evidence that advantaged group allies participate in collective action out of very heterogeneous motives, not all of which contribute to sustained engagement.
Hartwich et al. (Sun,) studied this question.