Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Bridging Awareness and Action: The Roles of Gender Inequality,Power Distance,and Individualism in Shaping Collective Action Intentions for Gender Equality Across 61 Societies
Although awareness of gender inequality can motivate collective action, it does not always translate into a greater willingness to engage in collective action to promote gender equality. This study investigated how sociocultural contexts and individual awareness of gender inequality jointly shaped normative and non-normative collective action intentions. Drawing on cross-cultural data from 61 societies (N = 31,393), we found that individual awareness of gender inequality was associated with stronger collective action intentions, both normative and non-normative, aimed at promoting gender equality. However, macrolevel sociocultural factors moderated this relationship. Specifically, higher levels of societal gender inequality and power distance weakened the translation of individual awareness into action intentions. In contrast, greater societal individualism strengthened this translation. These findings underscore that promoting gender equality globally requires a dual focus on addressing not only individual-level awareness but also the broader structural environments that affect collective action intentions.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586
2.
AgostiniM.van ZomerenM. (2021). Toward a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of why people engage in collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of four motivations and structural constraints. Psychological Bulletin, 147(7), 667–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000256
3.
AlisatS.RiemerM. (2015). The environmental action scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.006
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
5.
BeckerJ. C.SwimJ. K. (2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: Differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Social Psychology, 43, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000091
6.
BeckerJ. C.TauschN. (2015). A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: Psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 43–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1094265
7.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 101, 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615
8.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639. https://www.jstor.org/stable/223459
9.
BestaT.JurekP.OlechM.WłodarczykA.Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.BossonJ. K.BenderM.VandelloJ. A.AbuhamdehS.AgyemangC. B.AkbaşG.Albayrak-AydemirN.AmmiratiS.AndersonJ.AnjumG.AriyantoA.ArutaJ. J. B. R.AshrafM.BakaitytėA.. . .ŻadkowskaM. (2024). Measuring collective action intention toward gender equality across cultures. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000857
10.
CarvalhoJ.-P. (2021). Markets and communities: The social cost of the meritocracy. Journal of Institutional Economics, 18, 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1017/s174413742100045x
11.
CaseK. A.HensleyR.AndersonA. (2014). Reflecting on heterosexual and male privilege: Interventions to raise awareness. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 722–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12088
12.
ChristophersenT.KonradtU. (2011). Reliability, validity, and sensitivity of a single-item measure of online store usability. International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 69(4), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.10.005
13.
CiaffoniS.RubiniM.MoscatelliS. (2025). The unbearable weight of gender inequalities: Development and validation of the Social Treatment and Experiences of Women (STEW) Scale. Sex Roles, 91(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01555-1
14.
CroftA.AtkinsonC.SandstromG.OrbellS.AkninL. (2021). Loosening the GRIP (gender roles inhibiting prosociality) to promote gender equality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(1), 66–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320964615
15.
DuH.KingR. B. (2021). What predicts perceived economic inequality? The roles of actual inequality, system justification, and fairness considerations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12468
GlickP.WhiteheadJ. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41(3), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000025
18.
GuthridgeM.KirkmanM.PenovicT.GiummarraM. J. (2022). Promoting gender equality: A systematic review of interventions. Social Justice Research, 35(3), 318–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-022-00398-z
19.
HeymannJ.LevyJ. K.BoseB.Ríos-SalasV.MekonenY.SwaminathanH.OmidakhshN.GadothA.HuhK.GreeneM. E.DarmstadtG. L.DarmstadtG. L.GreeneM. E.HawkesS.HeiseL.HenryS.HeymannJ.KlugmanJ.LevineR.RajA. (2019). Improving health with programmatic, legal, and policy approaches to reduce gender inequality and change restrictive gender norms. The Lancet, 393(10190), 2522–2534. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30656-7
20.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), Article 8.
21.
HofstedeG.BondM. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002184015004003
22.
HuH.-H.LinJ.CuiW. (2014). Cultural differences and collective action: A social network perspective. Complexity, 20(4), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.21515
23.
JostJ.HunyadyO. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 111–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000046
24.
JostJ. T.BadaanV.GoudarziS.HoffarthM.MogamiM. (2018). The future of system justification theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12309
25.
JostJ. T.BeckerJ.OsborneD.BadaanV. (2017). Missing in (collective) action: Ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of two types of protest behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417690633
26.
KobayashiT.MiuraA.Madrid-MoralesD.ShimizuH. (2021). Why are politically active people avoided in countries with collectivistic culture? A cross-cultural experiment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(4), 388–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221211008653
27.
Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.BestaT.JurekP.OlechM.SobieckiJ.BossonJ.VandelloJ. A.BestD.ZawiszaM.SafdarS.WłodarczykA.ŻadkowskaM. (2024a). Towards gender harmony dataset: Gender beliefs and gender stereotypes in 62 countries. Scientific Data, 11(1), Article 392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03235-x
28.
Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.SawickiA.CelikkolG.BossonJ. K.Van LaarC.Van RossumA.BestD.JurekP.BestaT.OlechM.GlickP. (2024b). Does culture moderate gender stereotypes? Individualism predicts communal (but not agentic) prescriptions for men across 62 nations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 15(4), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231221913
29.
LiK.XuY.YangS.GuoY. (2019). Social class, group-based anger, and collective action intentions in China. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2018.26
30.
LinX.ChenZ. X.TseH. H. M.WeiW.MaC. (2019). Why and when employees like to speak up more under humble leaders? The roles of personal sense of power and power distance. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3704-2
31.
LinZ.LiN. (2023). Contextualizing gender disparity in editorship in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(4), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221117159
32.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (2014). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. In AltbachP. G.ArnoldK.KingI. C. (Eds.), College student development and academic life (pp. 264–293). Routledge.
33.
MoscatelliS.MazzucaS.MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2025). Women’s participation in collective action for workplace gender equality: The role of perceived relative deprivation, resentment, and moral conviction. Sex Roles, 91(4), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-025-01573-7
34.
NapierJ. L.ThorisdottirH.JostJ. T. (2010). The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relations to subjective well-being. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 62(7–8), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7
35.
OsborneD.JostJ. T.BeckerJ. C.BadaanV.SibleyC. G. (2019). Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 244–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2522
36.
OwuamalamC. K.CaricatiL.RubinM.MatosA. S.SpearsR. (2021). Why do women support socio-economic systems that disadvantage them? A registered test of system justification- and social identity-inspired hope explanations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(7), 1073–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2754
37.
OwuamalamC. K.RubinM.SpearsR. (2019). Is a system motive really necessary to explain the system justification effect? A response to Jost (2019) and Jost, Badaan, Goudarzi, Hoffarth, and Mogami (2019). British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12323
38.
PettigrewT. F. (2021). Contextual social psychology: Reanalysing prejudice, voting and intergroup contact. American Psychological Association.
39.
PlummerJ. A.Wray-LakeL.AlvisL.MetzgerA.SyvertsenA. K. (2022). Assessing the link between adolescents’ awareness of inequality and civic engagement across time and racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(3), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01545-6
40.
RadkeH. R. M.HornseyM. J.BarlowF. K. (2016). Barriers to women engaging in collective action to overcome sexism. American Psychologist, 71(9), 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040345
41.
Rehman KhanS. (2021). Different and better than you: The interplay between social identity, moral identity, and social comparison. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31, 615–635. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2549
RiquelmeA. R.Carretero-DiosH.MegíasJ. L.Romero-SánchezM. (2021). Joking for gender equality: Subversive humor against sexism motivates collective action in men women with weaker feminist identity. Sex Roles, 84, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01154-w
44.
ScarboroughW. J.RismanB. J. (2017). Changes in the gender structure: Inequality at the individual, interactional, and macro dimensions. Sociology Compass, 11(10), Article e12515. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12515
45.
Schwartz-SalazarS.García-SánchezE.MartínezR.Rodríguez-BailónR. (2024). Development and validation of the Multidimensional Gender Inequality Perception Scale (MuGIPS). PLOS ONE, 19(4), Article e0301755. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301755
46.
SelvanathanH. P.ValdenegroD.NoorM.VisintinE. P.LalotF.SainzM.BilewiczM.HaywardL.SebbenS.UllrichJ.HässlerT. (2025). On the nonlinear link between stigma and collective action: Evidence from sexual and gender minorities in 25 countries. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 28(4), 752–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241309539
47.
SevincerA. T.GalinskyC.MartensenL.OettingenG. (2023). Political ideology outdoes personal experience in predicting support for gender equality. Political Psychology, 44, 829–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12887
48.
SmithH. J.RyanD. A.JauriqueA.PettigrewT. F.JettenJ.AriyantoA.AutinF.AyubN.BadeaC.BestaT.ButeraF.Costa-LopesR.CuiL.FantiniC.FinchilescuG.GaertnerL.GollwitzerM.GómezÁ.GonzálezR.HongY. Y. (2018). Cultural values moderate the impact of relative deprivation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(8), 1183–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118784213
49.
StarkeyJ. C.KoerberA.SternadoriM.PitchfordB. (2019). #MeToo goes global: Media framing of silence breakers in four national settings. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 43(4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859919865254
50.
SulsJ.MartinR.WheelerL. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00191
51.
TauschN.BeckerJ. C.SpearsR.ChristO.SaabR.SinghP.SiddiquiR. N. (2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022728
52.
ThomasE. F.DuncanL.McGartyC.LouisW. R.SmithL. G. E. (2022). MOBILISE: A higher-order integration of collective action research to address global challenges. Political Psychology, 43, 107–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12811
UysalM. S.SaavedraP.DruryJ. (2024). Beyond normative and non-normative: A systematic review on predictors of confrontational collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 63, 1385–1409. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12735
56.
van ZomerenM.KutlacaM.Turner-ZwinkelsF. (2018). Integrating who “we” are with what “we” (will not) stand for: A further extension of the Social Identity Model of Collective Action. European Review of Social Psychology, 29(1), 122–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1479347
57.
van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
58.
VázquezA.Carlos Reyes Valenzuela Loreto Villagrán LoisD. (2023). Exposure to motivational messages promotes meritocratic beliefs and an individualistic perception of social change. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 16, 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231214339
59.
VázquezA.López-RodríguezL.GómezÁ.DovidioJ. F. (2020). Ambivalent effects of positive contact between women and men on collective actions for women’s rights. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(9), 1358–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220974162
WrightS. C.TaylorD. M.MoghaddamF. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.994
62.
YangJ.MossholderK. W.PengT. K. (2007). Procedural justice climate and group power distance: An examination of cross-level interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.681
ZawiszaM.Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.GlickP.OlechM.BestaT.JurekP.SobieckiJ.BestD. L.BossonJ. K.VandelloJ. A.SafdarS.WłodarczykA.ŻadkowskaM. (2025). Worse for women, bad for all: A 62-nation study confirms and extends ambivalent sexism principles to reveal greater social dysfunction in sexist nations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(8), 866–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241302882
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.
