Correction to “The mitigation–signaling model: An integrative conceptual review of allyship behaviors’ consequences for marginalized individuals” by Tedder-King et al. (2025).
Journal of Applied Psychology · 2025 · Volume 110 · Issue 11
DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/apl0001313
Abstract
Reports an error in "The mitigation–signaling model: An integrative conceptual review of allyship behaviors’ consequences for marginalized individuals" by Alyssa Tedder-King, Melanie K. Prengler and Elad N. Sherf ( Journal of Applied Psychology , Advanced Online Publication, May 08, 2025, np; see record 2026-12833-001 ). 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). (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2026-12833-001 ). 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)
Keywords
discrimination, disadvantage, marginalized individuals, allyship behaviors
Enable JavaScript for citation tools and additional paper interactions.