Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 334–342 | Cite as

The Association between Feminist Self-Labeling and Gender Equality Activism: Exploring the Effects of Scale Language and Identity Priming

  • Sarah E. Conlin
  • Martin Heesacker
Article

Abstract

Feminists report engaging in more activism for gender equality than non-feminists, yet the label “feminist” is widely perceived as stigmatizing. This study assessed whether the stigmatizing effect of the term “feminist” suppressed self-reported activism among women who may not identify as feminist. An online (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk) sample of 302 women reported activism on the original or one of two modified versions of Foster and Matheson’s Measure of Collective Action. Modified versions either minimized stigmatizing scale language by characterizing activist behaviors as broadly related to “gender equality,” not “feminism,” or maximized stigmatizing language by characterizing behaviors as explicitly for “feminism.” Replicating past studies, there was a strong correlation between feminist identification and activism (β = .56) and a main effect of sexual minority status on reported activism, such that sexual minority women reported significantly higher rates of activism. Extending past research, our results clarify these effects in suggesting that they are not artifacts of either priming feminist identity or using stigmatizing scale language. Specifically, at the highest level of feminist identification, there was no significant difference in reported activism as a function of timing of reporting identification (before versus after activism reporting) and no significant difference in activism rates between the two modified scale versions (minimized versus maximized stigma). Practically, these results highlight the importance of promoting women’s feminist self-identification as a route toward increased activist participation.

Keywords

Feminism Feminist identification Identity Social activism Labeling Measurement Stigma 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval & Informed Consent

The University of Florida’s Institutional Review Board approved this project. All participants were required to complete an Informed Consent document prior to accessing the research survey. All procedures performed in the present study were in accordance with ethical standards.

References

  1. Aronson, P. (2003). Feminists or “postfeminists”? Young women’s attitudes toward feminism and gender relations. Gender & Society, 17(6), 903–922. doi: 10.1177/0891243203257145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, M. M., Friedman, C. K., & Leaper, C. (2009). Individual and situational factors related to young women’s likelihood of confronting sexism in their everyday lives. Sex Roles, 61(7–8), 449–460. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9635-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Buschman, J. K., & Lenart, S. (1996). "I am not a feminist, but...": college women, feminism, and negative experiences. Political Psychology, 17(1), 59–75. doi: 10.2307/3791943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duncan, L. E. (1999). Motivation for collective action: group consciousness as mediator of personality, life experiences, and women’s rights activism. Political Psychology, 20(3), 611–635. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fitz, C. C., Zucker, A. N., & Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2012). Not all nonlabelers are created equal: distinguishing between quasi-feminists and neoliberals. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(3), 274–285. doi: 10.1177/0361684312451098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foster, M. D., & Matheson, K. (1995). Double relative deprivation: combining the personal and political. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1167–1177. doi: 10.1177/01461672952111005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friedman, C. K., & Ayres, M. (2013). Predictors of feminist activism among sexual-minority and heterosexual college women. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(12), 1726–1744. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2013.824335.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Houvouras, S., & Scott Carter, J. (2008). The F word: college students’ definitions of a feminist. Sociological Forum, 23(2), 234–256. doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2008.00072.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moradi, B., Martin, A., & Brewster, M. E. (2012). Disarming the threat to feminist identification: an application of personal construct theory to measurement and intervention. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(2), 197–209. doi: 10.1177/0361684312440959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rieger, G., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Gender nonconformity, sexual orientation, and psychological well-being. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(3), 611–621. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9738-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rudman, L. A., Mescher, K., & Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2013). Reactions to gender egalitarian men: perceived feminization due to stigma-by-association. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 572–599. doi: 10.1177/1368430212461160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Scharff, C. (2013). Repudiating feminism: Young women in a neoliberal world. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. doi: 10.1177/0891243213517176
  14. Swirsky, J. M., & Angelone, D. J. (2014). Femi-Nazis and bra burning crazies: a qualitative evaluation of contemporary beliefs about feminism. Current Psychology, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s12144-014-9208-7.
  15. Szymanski, D. M., & Chung, Y. B. (2003). Feminist attitudes and coping resources as correlates of lesbian internalized heterosexism. Feminism & Psychology, 13(3), 369–389. doi: 10.1177/0959353503013003008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  17. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Williams, R., & Wittig, M. A. (1997). “I’m not a feminist, but…”: factors contributing to the discrepancy between pro-feminist orientation and feminist social identity. Sex Roles, 37(11–12), 885–904. doi: 10.1007/BF02936345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yoder, J. D., Tobias, A., & Snell, A. F. (2011). When declaring “I am a feminist” matters: labeling is linked to activism. Sex Roles, 64(1–2), 9–18. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9890-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zucker, A. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: what it means when women say, “I'm not a feminist, but…”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 423–435. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00159.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zucker, A. N., & Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2010). Minding the gap between feminist identity and attitudes: the behavioral and ideological divide between feminists and non-labelers. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1895–1924. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00673.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations