↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to Women Engaging in Collective Action to Overcome Sexism

Overview of attention for article published in American Psychologist, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers to Women Engaging in Collective Action to Overcome Sexism
Published in
American Psychologist, January 2016
DOI 10.1037/a0040345
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helena R. M. Radke, Matthew J. Hornsey, Fiona Kate Barlow

Abstract

Over centuries women have fought hard to obtain increasing gender equality, but despite these successes absolute equality remains an elusive goal. Theoretically, women's numerical strength makes them well-placed to take effective collective action, and millions of women engage in feminist collective action every day. In this article, however, we argue that women also face barriers to engaging in feminist collective action; barriers that are associated with the social construction and experience of what it means to be a woman. Our review synthesizes sexism research under a contemporary collective action framework to clarify our current understanding of the literature and to offer novel theoretical explanations for why women might be discouraged from engaging in feminist collective action. Using the antecedents of collective action identified by van Zomeren, Postmes, and Spears' (2008) meta-analysis, we critically review the sexism literature to argue that women face challenges when it comes to (a) identifying with other women and feminists, (b) perceiving sexism and expressing group-based anger, and (c) recognizing the efficacy of collective action. We then outline a research agenda with a view to investigating ways of overcoming these barriers. (PsycINFO Database Record

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 18%
Student > Bachelor 24 14%
Student > Master 19 11%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 38 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 88 52%
Social Sciences 15 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 2%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 42 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from American Psychologist
#2,915
of 3,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,489
of 399,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Psychologist
#28
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.