Intersectionality has become something of a buzzword in psychology and is well-known in feminist writings throughout the social sciences. Across diverse definitions of intersectionality, we find three common assumptions: (1) There is a recognition that all people are characterized simultaneously by multiple social categories and that these categories are interconnected or intertwined. (2) Embedded within each of these categories is a dimension of inequality or power. (3) These categories are properties of the individual as well as characteristics of the social context inhabited by those individuals; as such, categories and their significance may be fluid and dynamic. Understanding intersectionality as an approach and critical theory, rather than as a falsifiable theory, we consider its potential within research using quantitative methods. We discuss positivism, social constructionism, and standpoint epistemology in order to examine the implications of these epistemologies for research methods and to explore how compatible an intersectional approach may be with each. With an eye toward expanding the incorporation of intersectional approaches in the psychology of women, we discuss both the challenges and the potential of combining quantitative methods and intersectionality. We contend that quantitative methods can be used within an intersectional approach and that doing so will expand and develop the study of intersectionality, insofar as more research tools will be available to intersectionality researchers. We also contend that quantitative researchers should incorporate an intersectional approach into their work and that doing so will enrich and deepen our understanding of psychological constructs and processes.
Alexander-FloydN. G. (2012). Disappearing acts: Reclaiming intersectionality in the social sciences in a post-Black feminist era. Feminist Formations, 24, 1–25. doi:10.1353/ff.2012.0003
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison Wesley.
3.
ArnettJ. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
4.
BallL. C.CribbieR. A.SteeleJ. R. (2013). Beyond gender differences: Using tests of equivalence to evaluate gender similarities. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 147–154. doi:10.1177/0361684313480483
5.
BealeF. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. In CadeT. (Ed.), The Black woman: An anthology (pp. 90–100). New York, NY: New American Library.
6.
BemS. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex-typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
7.
BemS. L. (1993). Lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
BergerM. T.GuidrozK. (2009). The intersectional approach: Transforming the academy through race, class, & gender. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
9.
BergerP.LuckmannT. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
10.
BowlegL. (2008). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59, 312–325. doi:10.1007/s11199- 008-9400-z
11.
CarbadoD. W. (2013). Colorblind intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38, 811–845. doi:10.1086/669666
12.
CaseK. A.IuzziniJ.HopkinsM. (2012). Systems of privilege: Intersections, awareness, and applications. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 1–10. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01732.x
13.
ChoS.CrenshawK. W.McCallL. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38, 785–810. doi:10.1086/669608
14.
ChooH. Y.FerreeM. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory, 28, 129–149. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9558.2010.01370.x
15.
ColeE. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. doi:10.1037/a0014564
16.
CollinsP. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
CollinsP. H. (2001). Defining Black feminist thought. In EssedP.GoldbergD. T. (Eds.), Race critical theories: Text and context (pp. 152–175). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
18.
Combahee River Collective. (1982). A Black feminist statement. In HullG. T.ScottP. B.SmithB. (Eds.), All the women are White, all the Blacks are men, but some of us are brave (pp. 13–22). Old Westbury, NY: The Feminist Press.
19.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.
20.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039
21.
CuadrazG. H.UttalL. (1999). Intersectionality and in-depth interviews: Methodological strategies for analyzing race, class, and gender. Race, Gender & Class, 6, 156–186.
22.
DavisK. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9, 67–85. doi:10.1177/1464700108086364
23.
DeLamaterJ. D.HydeJ. S. (1998). Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 10–18. doi:10.1080/00224499809551913
24.
DiamondL. M. (2005). A new view of lesbian subtypes: Stable versus fluid identity trajectories over an 8-year-period. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 119–128. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00174.x
25.
DiamondL. M. (2008). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.5
26.
EaglyA. H.EatonA.RoseS. M.RigerS.McHughM. C. (2012). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American Psychologist, 67, 211–230. doi:10.1037/a0027260
27.
Else-QuestN. M.HydeJ. S. (2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: II. Methods and techniques. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0361684316647953
28.
Else-QuestN. M.HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. doi:10.1037/a0018053
29.
EssedP. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
30.
FerreeM. M. (2010). Filling the glass: Gender perspectives on families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 420–439. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00711.x
31.
Few-DemoA. L. (2014). Intersectionality as the “new” critical approach in feminist family studies: Evolving racial/ethnic feminisms and critical race theories. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6, 169–183. doi:10.1111/jftr.12039
32.
FiskeS. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621
33.
FiskeS. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357–411). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
34.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
HambyS. (2009). The gender debate about intimate partner violence: Solutions and dead ends. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1, 24–34. doi:10.1037/a0015066
36.
HancockA. (2007). When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 6, 63–79. doi:10.1017/S1537592707070065
37.
HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–599.
38.
HardingS. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
39.
HardingS. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In HardingS. (Ed.), Feminism & methodology (pp. 1–14). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
40.
HardingS. (1998). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
41.
Hare-MustinR. T.MarecekJ. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender theory, postmodernism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 455–464. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.43.6.455
42.
HawkesworthM. E. (1989). Knowers, knowing, known: Feminist theory and claims of truth. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14, 533–557.
43.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X0999152X
44.
HydeJ. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
45.
HydeJ. S. (2012). Nation-level indicators of gender equity in psychological research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 145–148. doi:10.1177/0361684312441448
46.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014
47.
KaschakE. (2013). The mattering map: Integrating the complexities of knowledge, experience, and meaning. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 436–443. doi:10.1177/0361684313480839
48.
KimmelM. (2013). Angry White men: American masculinity at the end of an era. New York, NY: Nation Books.
49.
KincheloeJ. L.McLarenP. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 303–342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
LightdaleJ.PrenticeD. A. (1994). Rethinking sex differences in aggression: Aggressive behavior in the absence of social roles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 34–44. doi:10.1177/0146167294201003
51.
MayV. M. (2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant imaginaries. New York, NY: Routledge.
52.
McCallL. (2001). Complex inequality: Gender, class, and race in the new economy. New York, NY: Routledge.
53.
McCallL. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1771–1800. doi:10.1086/426800
54.
McHughM. C.KoeskeR. D.FriezeI. H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research. American Psychologist, 41, 879–890.
55.
McKinleyN. M.HydeJ. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–216. doi:10.1111/j1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x
56.
MohantyC. T. (2003). Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
57.
NaderL. (1969). Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying up. In HymesD. (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 285–311). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
58.
NnawuleziN.SullivanC. M. (2014). Oppression within safe spaces: Exploring the presence of racial microaggressions within domestic violence shelters. Journal of Black Psychology, 40, 563–591. doi:10.1177/0095798413500072
59.
O’BrienL. T.BlodornA.AdamsG.GarciaD. M.HammerE. (2015). Ethnic variation in gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participation: An intersectional approach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21, 169–180. doi:10.1037/a0037944
60.
ParentM. C.DeBlaereC.MoradiB. (2013). Approaches to research on intersectionality: Perspectives on gender, LGBT, and racial/ethnic identities. Sex Roles, 68, 639–645. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0283-2
61.
PascoeC. J. (2007). “Dude, you’re a fag”: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.
62.
PennerA. M.SapersteinA. (2008). How social status shapes race. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 19628–19630. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805762105
63.
PeplauL. A.ConradE. (1989). Beyond nonsexist research: The perils of feminist methods in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 379–400.
64.
PopperK. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.
65.
Purdie-VaughnsV.EibachR. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
66.
RigerS. (1992). Epistemological debates, feminist voices: Science, social values, and the study of women. American Psychologist, 47, 730–740.
67.
RosetteA. S.LivingstonR. W. (2012). Failure is not an option for Black women: Effects of organizational performance on leaders with single versus dual-subordinate identities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1162–1167. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.002
68.
SeskoA. K.BiernatM. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 356–360. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.016
69.
SettlesI. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black women’s racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54, 589–601. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9029-8
70.
ShieldsS. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8
71.
SloanT. (2009). Doing theory. In FoxD.PrilleltenskyI.AustinS. (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 319–334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72.
SpelmanE. (1988). Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
73.
SpieringsN. (2012). The inclusion of quantitative techniques and diversity in the mainstream of feminist research. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 19, 331–347. doi:10.1177/1350506812443621
74.
SpragueJ. (2001). Structured knowledges and strategic methodologies: Comment on Walby’s “Against epistemological chasms: The science question in feminism revisited.”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 26, 527–536.
75.
SpragueJ. (2005). Feminist methodologies for critical researchers: Bridging differences. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
76.
StewartA. J.McDermottC. (2004). Gender in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 519–544. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141537
77.
StrausM. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275. doi:1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004
78.
SyedM. (2010). Disciplinarity and methodology in intersectionality theory and research. American Psychologist, 65, 61–62. doi:10.1037/a0017495
79.
WalbyS.ArmstrongJ.StridS. (2012). Intersectionality: Multiple inequalities in social theory. Sociology, 46, 224–240. doi:10.1177/0038038511416164
80.
WarnerL. R. (2008). A best practices guide to intersectional approaches in psychological research. Sex Roles, 59, 454–463. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9504-5
81.
WarnerL. R.ShieldsS. A. (2013). The intersections of sexuality, gender, and race: Identity research at the crossroads. Sex Roles, 68, 803–810. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0281-4
82.
WatzlawickP. (1984). The invented reality: Contributions to constructivism. New York, NY: Norton.
83.
WestC.ZimmermanD. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.
84.
WittigM. A. (1985). Metatheoretical dilemmas in the psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 40, 800–811.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
