Many women eschew the feminist label despite believing in gender equality. In order to effectively promote feminist change, it is important to understand the factors involved in feminist attitudes, identification, and behavior. In the present research, we helped clarify the relations among these factors. In a survey of 428 U.S. women, we found that participants with stronger attitudes toward gender equality and more favorable explicit and implicit attitudes toward feminist prototypes were more likely to claim a feminist label. And those who did so reported greater willingness to intervene when confronted with everyday sexist behavior, particularly if they perceived that they personally were vulnerable to the effects of sexism. We suggest that improving attitudes toward feminist prototypes may help promote feminist identification, and informing women about the pervasiveness of sexism, including their personal vulnerability, may promote willingness to act after the feminist label has been adopted. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index
AnastosopoulosV.DesmaraisS. (2015). By name or by deed? Identifying the source of the feminist stigma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 226–242. doi:10.1111/jasp.12290
2.
AndersonK. J. (2015). Modern misogyny: Anti-feminism in a post-feminist era. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
AronsonP. (2003). Feminists or “postfeminists”? Young women’s attitudes toward feminism and gender relations. Gender and Society, 17, 903–922. doi:10.1177/0891243203257145
4.
BaberK. M.TuckerC. J. (2006). The Social Roles Questionnaire: A new approach to measuring attitudes toward gender. Sex Roles, 54, 459–467. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9018-y
5.
BashirN. Y.LockwoodP.ChasteenA. L.NadolnyD.NoyesI. (2013). The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 614–626. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1983
6.
BeckerJ. C.ZawadzkiM. J.ShieldsS. A. (2014). Confronting and reducing sexism: A call for research on intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 603–614. doi:10.1111/josi.12081
7.
BollenK. A.NobleM. D. (2011). Structural equation models and the quantification of behavior. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Vol. 108, pp. 15639–15646). doi:10.1073/pnas.1010661108
8.
BrinkmanB. G.DeanA. M.SimpsonC. K.McGinleyM.RosénL. A. (2015). Bystander intervention during college women’s experiences of gender prejudice. Sex Roles, 72, 485–498. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0485-x
9.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
BurnS. M.AboudR.MoylesC. (2000). The relationship between gender social identity and support for feminism. Sex Roles, 42, 1081–1089. doi:10.1023/A:1007044802798
12.
ByrneB. (2009). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203726532
13.
Combahee River Collective. (2015). A Black Feminist Statement. In MoragaC.AnzaldúaG. (Eds.), This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color (4th ed., pp. 210–218). Albany: SUNY Press. (Original work published1977)
14.
CrosbyF. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371–386. doi:10.1177/000276484027003008
15.
CundiffJ. L.ZawadzkiM. J.DanubeC. L.ShieldsS. A. (2014). Using experiential learning to increase the recognition of everyday sexism as harmful: The WAGES intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 703–721. doi:10.1111/josi.12087
16.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J.MarkA. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784
17.
De HouwerJ. (2006). What are implicit measures and why are we using them. In WiersR. W.StacyA. W. (Eds.), The handbook of implicit cognition and addiction (pp. 11–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412976237.n2
18.
DovidioJ. F.KawakamiK.GaertnerS. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62–68. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.62
19.
DownsJ. S.HolbrookM. B.ShengS.CranorL. F. (2010). Are your participants gaming the system? Screening Mechanical Turk workers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ‘10 (pp. 2399–2402). Atlanta, GA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753688
20.
EiseleH.StakeJ. (2008). The differential relationship of feminist attitudes and feminist identity to self-efficacy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 233–244. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00432.x
21.
EnnsC. Z. (1997). Feminist theories and feminist psychotherapies: Origins, themes, and variations. New York, NY: Haworth Press.
22.
FitzC. C.ZuckerA. N.Bay-ChengL. Y. (2012). Not all non-labelers are created equal: Distinguishing between quasi-feminists and neoliberals. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 274–285. doi:10.1177/0361684312451098
23.
GarciaD. M.SchmittM. T.BranscombeN. R.EllemersN. (2009). Women’s reactions to ingroup members who protest discriminatory treatment: The importance of beliefs about inequality and response appropriateness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 733–745. doi:10.1002/ejsp.644
24.
GerrardM.GibbonsF. X.HoulihanA. E.StockM. L.PomeryE. A. (2008). A dual process approach to health risk decision making: The Prototype-Willingness Model. Developmental Review, 28, 29–61. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.10.001
25.
GerrardM.GibbonsF. X.StockM. L.Vande LuneL. S.ClevelandM. J. (2005). Images of smokers and willingness to smoke among African American pre-adolescents: An application of the prototype/willingness model of adolescent health risk behavior to smoking initiation. Pediatric Psychology, 30, 305–318. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsi026
26.
GerritsJ. H.De RidderD. T. D.De WitJ. B. F.KuijerR. G. (2009). Cool and independent or foolish and undisciplined? Adolescents’ prototypes of (un)healthy eaters and their association with eating behaviour. Appetite, 53, 407–413. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.08.008
27.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
28.
GreenwaldA. GNosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
29.
GreenwaldA. G.PoehlmanA. T.UhlmannE. L.BanajiM. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41. doi:10.1037/a0015575
30.
HarnoisC. E. (2005). Different paths to different feminisms? Bridging multiracial feminist theory and quantitative sociological gender research. Gender and Society, 19, 809–828. doi:10.1177/0891243205280026
31.
Henderson-KingD.StewartA. J. (1997). Feminist consciousness: Perspectives on women’s experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 415. doi:10.1177/0146167297234007
32.
Henderson-KingD.StewartA. J. (1999). Educational experiences and shifts in group consciousness: Studying women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 390–399. doi:10.1177/0146167299025003010
33.
HoskinR. A.JensonK. E.BlairK. L. (2017). Is our feminism bullshit? The importance of intersectionality in adopting a feminist identity. Cogent Social Sciences, 3, 1–19. doi:10.1080/23311886.2017.1290014
34.
HurtM. M.NelsonJ. A.TurnerD. L.HainesM. E.RamseyL. R.ErchullM. J.LissM. (2007). Feminism: What is it good for? Feminine norms and objectification as the link between feminist identity and clinically relevant outcomes. Sex Roles, 57, 355–363. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9272-7
35.
KahnK. B.BarretoM.KaiserC. R.RegoM. S. (2015). When do high and low status group members support confrontation? The role of perceived pervasiveness of prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 27–43. doi:10.1111/bjso.12117
36.
KarpinskiA.SteinmanR. B. (2006). The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 16–32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16
37.
KaysenD.StakeJ. E. (2001). From thought to deed: Understanding abortion activism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2378–2400. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00181.x
38.
LangP. J.BradleyM.CuthbertB. (2008). International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual (Technical Report A-8). Gainesville: University of Florida.
39.
LeaperC.AriasD. M. (2011). College women’s feminist identity: A multidimensional analysis with implication for coping with sexism. Sex Roles, 64, 475–490. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9936-1
40.
LewisM.KingK.LittD.SwansonA.LeeC. (2016). Examining daily variability in willingness to drink in relation to underage young adult alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 61, 62–67. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.05.019
41.
MallettR. K.WagnerD. E. (2011). The unexpectedly positive consequences of confronting sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 215–220. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.001
42.
McHughM. C.FriezeI. H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00097.x
43.
MoradiB.SubichL. M.PhillipsJ. C. (2002). Revisiting feminist identity development theory, research, and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 6–43. doi:10.1177/0011000002301002
44.
MurnenS. K.SmolakL. (2009). Are feminist women protected from body image problems? A meta-analytic review of relevant research. Sex Roles, 60, 186–197. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9523-2
45.
NelsonJ. A.LissM.ErchullM. J.HurtM. M.RamseyL. R.TurnerD. L.HainesM. E. (2008). Identity in action: Predictors of feminist self-identification and collective action. Sex Roles, 58, 721–728. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9384-0
46.
NicoleS. J.StewartR. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 215–223. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00138.x
47.
PeerE.BrandimarteL.SamatS.AcquistiA. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
48.
RatliffK. A.HowellJ. L. (2015). Implicit prototypes predict risky sun behavior. Health Psychology, 34, 231. doi:10.1037/hea0000117
49.
RatliffK. A.HowellJ. L.RedfordL. (2017). Implicit attitudes toward the prototypical environmentalist predict environmentally-friendly behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 132–140. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.009
50.
RedfordL.HowellJ. L.MeijsM. H.RatliffK. A. (2018). Implicit and explicit evaluations of feminist prototypes predict feminist identity and behavior. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(1), 3–18. doi:10.1177/1368430216630193
51.
RobnettR. D.AndersonK. J. (2017). Feminist identity among women and men from four ethnic groups. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23, 134–142. doi:10.1037/cdp0000095
52.
RobnettR. D.AndersonK. J.HunterL. E. (2012). Predicting feminist identity: Associations between gender traditional attitudes, feminist stereotyping, and ethnicity. Sex Roles, 67, 143–157. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0170-2
53.
RoschE. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0
54.
SaundersK.Kashubeck-WestS. (2006). The relations among feminist identity, gender role orientation, and psychological well-being in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 199–211. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00282.x
55.
SpenceJ. T.HelmreichR. L. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure the attitudes toward the rights and role of women in contemporary society. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66–67.
56.
StakeJ. E. (2007). Predictors of change in feminist activism through women’s and gender studies. Sex Roles, 57, 43–54. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9227-z
57.
SwimJ. K.EyssellK. M.MurdochE. Q.FergusonM. J. (2010). Self-silencing to sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 493–507. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01658.x
58.
SwimJ. K.HyersL. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say? Women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68–88. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1370
59.
SzymanskiD. M. (2004). Relations among dimensions of feminism and internalized heterosexism in lesbians and bisexual women. Sex Roles, 51, 145–159. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000037759.33014.55
60.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–37). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
61.
TurnerJ. C.OakesP. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 237–252. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x
62.
WilliamsR.WittigM. A. (1997). “I’m not a feminist, but…”: Factors contributing to the discrepancy between profeminist orientation and feminist social identity. Sex Roles, 37, 885–904. doi:10.1007/BF02936345
63.
YeungA. W.KayA. C.PeachJ. M. (2013). Anti-feminist backlash: The role of system justification in the rejection of feminism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 474–484. doi:10.1177/1368430213514121
64.
YoderJ. D.TobiasA.SnellA. F. (2011). When declaring “I am a feminist” matters: Labeling is linked to activism. Sex Roles, 64, 9–18. doi:10.1177/1368430216630193
ZuckerA. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but….”Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 423–435. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00159.x
67.
ZuckerA. N.Bay-ChengL. Y. (2010). Minding the gap between feminist identity and attitudes: The behavioral and ideological divide between feminists and non-labelers. Journal of Personality, 78, 1895–1924. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00673.x
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.
