↓ Skip to main content

A Multiple Identity Approach to Gender: Identification with Women, Identification with Feminists, and Their Interaction

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
A Multiple Identity Approach to Gender: Identification with Women, Identification with Feminists, and Their Interaction
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jolien A. van Breen, Russell Spears, Toon Kuppens, Soledad de Lemus

Abstract

Across four studies, we examine multiple identities in the context of gender and propose that women's attitudes toward gender group membership are governed by two largely orthogonal dimensions of gender identity: identification with women and identification with feminists. We argue that identification with women reflects attitudes toward the content society gives to group membership: what does it mean to be a woman in terms of group characteristics, interests and values? Identification with feminists, on the other hand, is a politicized identity dimension reflecting attitudes toward the social position of the group: what does it mean to be a woman in terms of disadvantage, inequality, and relative status? We examine the utility of this multiple identity approach in four studies. Study 1 showed that identification with women reflects attitudes toward group characteristics, such as femininity and self-stereotyping, while identification with feminists reflects attitudes toward the group's social position, such as perceived sexism. The two dimensions are shown to be largely independent, and as such provide support for the multiple identity approach. In Studies 2-4, we examine the utility of this multiple identity approach in predicting qualitative differences in gender attitudes. Results show that specific combinations of identification with women and feminists predicted attitudes toward collective action and gender stereotypes. Higher identification with feminists led to endorsement of radical collective action (Study 2) and critical attitudes toward gender stereotypes (Studies 3-4), especially at lower levels of identification with women. The different combinations of high vs. low identification with women and feminists can be thought of as reflecting four theoretical identity "types." A woman can be (1) strongly identified with neither women nor feminists ("low identifier"), (2) strongly identified with women but less so with feminists ("traditional identifier"), (3) strongly identified with both women and feminists ("dual identifier"), or (4) strongly identified with feminists but less so with women ("distinctive feminist"). In sum, by considering identification with women and identification with feminists as multiple identities we aim to show how the multiple identity approach predicts distinct attitudes to gender issues and offer a new perspective on gender identity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 21%
Student > Master 13 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 6%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 58 51%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 30 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 June 2023.
All research outputs
#7,242,504
of 23,936,264 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,325
of 32,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,605
of 317,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#273
of 610 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,936,264 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
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 317,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 610 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.