On the Complexity of Multiple Feminist Identities

Abstract

This response to J. D. Yoder, A. F. Snell, and A. Tobias (2012) discusses implications for applying and building on their research findings regarding the complex feminist identifications found in young university women. Based on identity scholarship by women of color, it also discusses the challenges of conceptualizing and studying interactions among feminist and other multiple identities. Opportunities for richer understanding of the lives of people of all genders will come from taking into account hybrid and intersectional feminisms and identities and broadening samples to highlight the experiences of diverse groups of individuals.

Keywords

gender multiculturalism psychotherapy social justice

On the Complexity of Multiple Feminist Identities

We are pleased to see the publication of the research of Yoder, Snell, and Tobias (2012) in The Counseling Psychologist (TCP) because it facilitates additional thinking about the constructs of feminist identification and identity development, which have received attention in this journal for several decades. For example, Downing and Roush’s (1985) feminist identity development model was originally published in TCP and was followed by a review of multiple feminisms as applied to counseling, in Twenty Years of Feminist Counseling and Therapy (Enns, 1993). Ten years ago, a special issue of TCP examined the impact, implications, and proposed refinements of the feminist identity development model (e.g., Moradi, Subich, & Phillips, 2002). More recently, Moradi (2005) spoke about advancing and expanding the study of womanist identity. In preparation for writing our commentary, we reviewed these previous publications and reactions and found that many of the strengths, limitations, and concerns identified in these earlier publications remain highly relevant to the present (e.g., Hansen, 2002; Hyde, 2002; Vandiver, 2002).

During the past decade, a substantial number of quantitative studies have continued to explore correlates of feminist orientation and feminist identity in college women, and Yoder et al. (2012) expand on the depth and breadth of literature on this topic. More specifically, these researchers have added to our growing knowledge of feminism by identifying more complex patterns of feminist orientation than have been articulated in the past and linking these patterns to psychological wellness and distress.

We are particularly mindful that respondents in this study were predominantly White women, and this aspect is consistent with many previous studies of feminist orientation (e.g., Liss, Crawford, & Popp, 2004; Liss, O’Connor, Morosky, & Crawford, 2001; Nelson et al., 2008; Stake, 2007; Yoder, Perry, & Saal, 2007; Yoder, Tobias, & Snell, 2011; Zucker, 2004). Although previous reviewers have identified the limited diversity of research samples as a concern (e.g., Moradi et al., 2002; Vandiver, 2002), many studies still rely heavily on White college female samples. The similar social identities of the participants in the current study might lead some readers to question whether, despite the authors’ efforts to attend to multiple dimensions of feminism and social justice, the findings of this study add primarily to feminisms by and for White, heterosexual, young college/university women. If that is likely, how can we acknowledge and address this concern most clearly? Following in the tradition of feminist science studies and critical psychology, Fischer and DeBord (in press) suggest that to meaningfully and effectively apply research results, we are required to make a faithful accounting of relevant details. As part of that process, we are called to critically acknowledge the roles of power and privilege in the research process, in part by naming the previously “unnamed specificity” in individual studies and in broad bodies of research. In the case of the current study, as well as most research on feminist identities and orientations, that unnamed specificity involves using a very select sample of women to represent “women” in general. Thus, we proceed with caution.

Although the sample is quite homogenous, it is nonetheless encouraging to observe researchers’ efforts to assess dimensions relevant to diverse orientations to feminism. It is a start to include 2 items addressing womanist and women of color feminist attitudes in a12-item feminist perspectives composite score, as Yoder et al. (2012) have done. More is certainly needed, however, as the unique content possibly represented by these two items ultimately is subsumed under a larger “generic” feminist composite, as will be addressed again later. In the remaining commentary that follows, we focus primarily on two dimensions: (a) potential implications of this study for feminist multicultural and social justice practice and (b) recommendations for future theory and research relevant to social and feminist identities.

Implications for Practice

The current study reveals positive relations between feminism and optimal mental health, providing additional support for the mental health benefits of a feminist orientation (see also Saunders & Kashubeck-West, 2006). During recent years, feminist counselors and teachers have increasingly emphasized the importance of considering feminist identity as it interacts with and is modified by other aspects of personal and social identity (e.g., Enns & Byars-Winston, 2010). For example, the American Psychological Association’s (APA; 2007) Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Girls and Women encourage psychologists to “identify the social group memberships of girls and women, the extent to which they accept or deny these members, their experiences of oppression and/or privilege within the context of these memberships, and their abilities to resist confining or oppressive messages” (p. 961). The guidelines go on to note that gender and related identities (e.g., feminism) vary in salience across ecological contexts and time, depending on a person’s other multiple and intersecting identities (e.g., race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, class, religion, health, and disability), and various experiences with privilege and oppression. As noted by Shields (2008), identities “mutually constitute” (p. 302) each other; thus, identities such as “feminist” are likely to take on meaning in combination with other personally relevant identities. The behaviors and priorities of an individual may also fluctuate, or move between the background and foreground, depending on the challenges a situation may elicit. Yoder et al.’s (2012) study focuses primarily on feminist identities, including a bit of attention to feminist identities that are attentive to ethnicity/race dimensions of experience. These feminist identities represent one of many identities that may be relevant to an individual, and practitioners (including therapists, researchers, and teachers) are encouraged by APA’s multicultural guidelines (APA, 2003) and guidelines for working with women and girls (APA, 2007) to be attentive to multiple dimensions of identity.

Social identity assessment activities, which frequently include feminist and gender issues, are designed help clients and students clarify the meaning and implications of their experiences relevant to socialization, privilege, oppression, multiple identities (e.g., ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, gender/sexism, age), education, work, relationships, and other life realities (see Enns, 2010, for a sample of tools for conducting such assessment). The patterns of feminism and well-being identified in this study can be helpful in thinking about specific aspects of social identity assessment and intervention.

Experiences of sexism or gendered racism (e.g., Thomas, Witherspoon, & Speight, 2008) may trigger increased awareness of oppression, anger, and/or psychological distress, which may contribute to an individual’s decision to seek counseling or engage in activism. The “awakening feminism” dimension identified by Yoder et al. (2012) is consistent with previous findings that the “revelation” of sexism is often associated with distress (e.g., Fischer & Good, 2004; Moradi & Subich, 2002). This heightened sensitivity to oppression may contribute to greater openness on the part of a client or student to exploring socially unjust personal experiences and power differences in relationships and institutions, and participating in consciousness raising or critical consciousness activities that reveal how external circumstances contribute to distress or wellness (Daniels, 2007). The “justice entitlement” beliefs associated with the “awakening feminism” dimension may also motivate individuals to participate in collective social action and spend time with reference groups that contribute to the development and maturation of social justice beliefs. As suggested by Yoder et al., such activities are likely to contribute to personal and collective empowerment, which may then facilitate movement from an “awakening feminist” perspective to an “established feminist” perspective.

At the same time, however, we would like to comment on the concept of “awakening” as part of a hypothesized feminist identity process. Although this is central to Downing and Roush’s (1985) revelation phase of feminist identity development (and the Feminist Identity Composite-Revelation subscale used by Yoder et al., 2012, to measure it), some have argued that, in effect, revelation may be a luxury afforded by White privilege. For example, Barbara Smith (in Smith & Smith, 1981) suggested:

There is a political savvyness, I don’t know what word to use, canniness—some difference in attitude I think between Black and White feminists. I think what it is, is like the surprise factor. There is virtually no Black person in this country who is surprised about oppression. (p. 114)

Therefore, an “awakening feminism” dimension such as that identified in Yoder et al.’s (2012) canonical analysis may make more sense for the White university students they sampled than it would for women of color asked similar questions. But we note the enormous variation in backgrounds and life experiences making up the also-too-broad grouping of “White university women,” many of whom have had extensive experience with oppressions.

Although associated with positive psychological health, the “established feminism” pattern identified in this study was found to be associated with “compromised agency,” suggesting that persons described by this pattern may experience limited optimism about the value of direct involvement in social justice activities, in part because of limited social change despite decades of struggle. Similarly, Daniels (2007) notes that “synthesis” dimensions of feminist identity may be associated with cynicism about social change in the wake of ongoing social injustice and recommends interventions that focus on helping clients transcend a type of “group think” (p. 345) that can sometimes accompany feminist identification, and explore “untapped dimensions” (p. 345) of the self that can contribute to more differentiated and integrated understandings of and involvement in social justice.

A third dimension of association was identified as “woman-identified traditionalism,” which conveys a sense of connection with other women and moderate levels of self-esteem but also neutrality toward feminist beliefs, the acceptance of traditional roles of men and women, and lower levels of autonomy. In light of these findings and suggestions from the counseling literature, it appears appropriate for counselors and educators to be aware of this distinctive pattern and to convey respect for these clients or students, while also carefully and gently raising questions about the meaning of gender and culture in individuals’ lives. Given the compromised individual autonomy associated with this pattern, it would also seem important to help individuals with similar patterns to clarify personal goals and direction. It is possible that the young women represented here (median age of 19) had encountered limited life experiences that might facilitate reflective contemplation about the meaning of gender and other social identities in their lives. Thus, it also seems possible that with more life experience, reflection, and exposure to social justice perspectives they might move toward awakening or established feminist worldviews. Similarly, Zucker and Bay-Cheng (2010) quoted Duncan’s hypothesis that within the United States, age may bring challenging life events that spark questioning of the pervasive but unspoken norm of individualism surrounding mainstream American culture. This may then set the stage for an increased focus on collective well-being.

Although the study’s findings provide intriguing insights about relations between well-being and feminism, they raise additional questions. Would we see similar patterns emerge in surveys of women during their middle or later adult years, among a sample consisting primarily of women of color, among samples of women who did not have the privilege of attending university or college, or among women with diverse sexual orientations? Although the associations between feminism and mental health revealed in this study are promising and can contribute to greater confidence about the benefits of feminist identity, additional explorations that help clarify paths and trajectories of feminist beliefs in interaction with multiple identities of people of all genders are crucial. We also encourage researchers to explore meanings and patterns of feminist orientations for individuals with disabilities of various kinds, for those from rural backgrounds, and for transgender, gender-queer, or gender-nonconforming individuals.

Questions and Priorities for the Future

The findings of this study provide us with a refined understanding of feminist identity, particularly as experienced by young, White, heterosexual women. Frable (1997) noted that identities based on social category systems are “fluid, multidimensional, personalized social constructions that reflect the individual’s current context and sociohistorical cohort” (p. 139). As a result, the types of findings revealed in this study, like most other studies relevant to identity, represent a snapshot in time. It is possible, for example, that the patterns of associations related to feminist orientations found in this study reflect the impact of salient events experienced during a semester. Other clusters of attitudes and beliefs might emerge during another week, semester, or year. Frable added that although we have moved toward “richly textured theoretical conceptualizations” (p. 139), our research methods pose challenges to capturing the complexity of experience. In the following sections, we address further some of the challenges of moving toward approaches that capture the complexities of 21st-century feminist multicultural identities.

On building a more representative psychology of women

Writing this commentary has reminded us of Yoder and Kahn’s (1993) influential article, which focused on the challenges of creating an inclusive psychology of women and the danger of establishing White women’s experiences as normative and the standard against which other women’s experiences are measured. Subsequent research has demonstrated that this is a real threat, given that members of even arbitrary and fictitious groups are perceived as more agentic and powerful when their group is presented as the referent or standard (Bruckmuller & Abele, 2010). Although Yoder et al. (2012) are careful to avoid any comparisons that might reinforce “White women as the norm” thinking, the fact that a substantial number of studies about correlates of feminism rely primarily on samples of White women may contribute to unintended tendencies to view White women’s experiences as the “standard.” Generalizations based on the study published in this issue should be made cautiously to avoid overly narrow views of what feminist identity and its interactions with other identities may mean. As a result, it will be especially important to examine the types of questions and hypotheses raised in this study with diverse groups of women (Moradi et al., 2002; Vandiver, 2002).

Our comments should not be construed as negating the value of feminist identification in the lives of women of color or the potential relevance of many of these findings for diverse groups of women. For example, Cole and Zucker (2007) found that Black women gave themselves higher ratings on feminism than White women, while they also rated traditional feminine behaviors as more important than did White women. Another study (Reid & Purcell, 2004), which focused on a diverse group of women (6% White), found that exposure to feminism was associated with a sense of common fate with other women and self-identification as a feminist. As another example, Saunders and Kashubeck’s (2006) study, in which 47% of the participants represented diverse non-White ethnicities, found positive relations among feminist identity development, instrumental and androgynous gender roles, and psychological well-being. White (2010) has documented the many ways African American individuals bridge theory and practice in everyday feminism as well.

The studies cited above add much to our understanding of feminist orientations among women of color. However, there is always more to the story of research findings than can be summarized in a short article. A foundational question not often addressed in such quantitative studies is that of measurement equivalence across groups. Does it make sense to interpret higher or lower scores on quantitative measures of “feminist” orientation or identity in roughly the same way for individuals with different life experiences? It may make more sense when the questions lean toward the behavioral, but probably not as much in the cases of attitudes and beliefs, as much of the research on feminist orientation represents. When making methodological choices, we encourage researchers to reflect on what they truly want to know and on the cultural and other contextual assumptions embedded in those preferences (see Harnois, 2005, for a sample unpacking of assumptions). Similarly, we benefit from asking ourselves what we perceive as available research tools, why they are available, what the implications are of choosing or modifying them, and whether we are willing to create tools to more fully reflect the experiences we genuinely seek to understand (Fischer & DeBord, in press).

On complexity and intersectionality in feminist and womanist identity theory and research

One of the strengths of this study is related to efforts to gather reactions to six approaches to feminism. However, of the six complex systems of thought that are briefly assessed by the short 12-item Modified Feminist Perspectives Scale (Henley, Spalding, & Kosta, 2000), most approaches (with the exception of women of color feminisms) can be referred to as extensions of second-wave, “grand” theories of feminism (Jaggar, 2008) that seek to provide comprehensive analyses of women’s oppression. More recent feminisms can be referred to as “locational” feminisms (Enns, 2010) because they speak to the shifting identities, oppressions, and privileges of individuals in diverse contexts, providing more modest, intersectional, and situational renditions of feminism. Most quantitative instruments designed to assess feminist thought as well as feminist identity were developed 15 to 20 years ago (Fischer & DeBord, in press) and do not reflect the more recent, rich complexity of feminist multicultural thought, including multiracial, postcolonial, critical race, queer, transnational, and third-wave perspectives. Thus, what appears initially as a strength may also represent a limitation of this study, mirroring the limitations in conceptualizing and sampling in the broader literature on feminist identity—limitations we two authors have similarly replicated in aspects of our own work. Feminist multicultural theories increasingly speak about the impossibility of parceling out components of experience related to identities such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation, and note that one set of experiences (e.g., racism) often modifies or become fused with another experience (e.g., sexism; Cole, 2009; Shields, 2008). It is not possible to conceptualize a person’s feminist identity without also thinking about her or his racial identity, White identity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or other identities that are meaningful to a specific individual. Yet, models of social identity, including feminist identity development, tend to focus on a single identity.

One example of the complexity and intersections of gender and race is evident in a series of qualitative studies about African American and White women’s experiences as firefighters (e.g., Yoder & Aniakudo, 1997; Yoder & Berendsen, 2001). Although White and African American women shared marginalization and token status and were on the receiving end of inadequate instruction and hostility, African American women reported these issues as more persistent. The intersection of race and gender was also seen in race-based stereotypes, resulting in White women’s treatment as fragile individuals who were seen as needing paternalistic overprotection and African American women’s more frequent treatment as beasts of burden. Quantitative research studies have also focused ways in which the interactions of race and gender may be experienced or fused as gendered racism (Thomas et al., 2008), ethgender discrimination (King, 2005) and racialized sexual harassment (Woods, Buchanan, & Settles, 2009). Given the fact that “isms” related to gender and race can mutually constitute each other, feminist identities informed by the mutual enrichment of gender and race/ethnicity also merit additional exploration through both qualitative and quantitative methods.

Although intersectionality and multiple identities have received substantial attention in recent years, researchers who study social identity development models, including feminist identity models, have sometimes been slow to incorporate these trends. Several previous alternatives, the multidimensional identity model (Reynolds & Pope, 1991) and optimal theory (Myers et al., 1991), represent efforts to conceptualize identity development in response to multiple identities and oppressions. Revisiting these models may be useful for incorporating greater visibility to intersectional concepts and multiple identities.

In the future, we recommend centralizing theories that emphasize multiple identities and using research approaches that lend themselves to exploring intersections. For example, the feminisms of Latinas provide rich detail about living on the borders and boundaries between identities associated with the multiple and shifting identities such as language, immigrant status, religion/spirituality, nationality, cultures, race/ethnicity, and other facets of experience. These feminisms speak about skills for creating of bridge and border identities that allow individuals to engage in differential consciousness, depending on the survival skills needed in a given situation, and to live flexibly at crossroads between identities (Anzaldúa, 1987; Hurtado, 2001, 2010). The notion of border and hybrid identities may have relevance for many groups of women, exemplifying how placing women of color at the center of inquiry can provide useful frameworks for thinking more flexibly and creatively about all women.

As another example, the concept of “two-spirit” identities claimed by some Native American individuals “encompass[es] all aspects of who we are, including our culture, sexuality, gender, spirituality, community, and relationship to the land” (Wilson, 2008). Intertwining experiences with gender, race, and spirituality, Lillian Comas-Díaz (2008) describes a mujerista, womanist model of Spirita. This spirituality is cast as “protest, resistance, and r/evolution” (p. 13). A notable feature of this model is its starting point in intersectionality rather than in pasting together concepts from separate identity models. In describing the model, Comas-Díaz contrasts elements of Western feminist spirituality with Spirita, suggesting that the former has been more focused on individual liberation, while the latter reflects an emphasis on collective liberation. Returning to the Yoder et al. (2012) study, we were happy to see that the authors have addressed a version of this key distinction. Yoder et al. deliberately teased apart personal entitlement versus justice entitlement, roughly analogous to individual liberation versus collective liberation raised by Comas-Díaz.

In the Yoder et al. (2012) study, personal entitlement and justice entitlement were significantly though not strongly related. Zero-order correlations and structural coefficients from the canonical correlation also demonstrated that these two types of entitlement were related in different ways to aspects of feminist identity and well-being, suggesting overlapping yet distinct concepts. Yoder et al. reflected, “Personal entitlement, devoid of justice entitlement, may also further signify what is troublesome about [woman-identified] traditionalism—which may reflect a willingness to benefit from collective connections to women in self-serving, rather than in sociopolitical-serving, ways” (p. 1122). While coming from the context of a study with White American university women, this statement also connects with conceptualizations of feminism from very different cultural contexts.

For instance, Jing Yin contends that Asian cultural values can be uniquely facilitative of social justice, given the imperative of collective well-being. In articulating both Confucian-specific (Yin, 2006) and broadly Asiacentric (Yin, 2009) feminisms, Yin argues that a strong sense of responsibility to others is essential:

Through the principles of ren [humanness, from Confucianism], compassion [from Buddhism and Hinduism], and ummah [community, from Islam], Asiacentric feminists can articulate and cultivate a consciousness that is rooted in genuine concern and care for women (indeed for all human beings) at personal and societal levels. The interhuman regard associated with these concepts not only invokes empathy and compassion for the suffering of women (or the inability to endure their suffering), but also propels a social order to eliminate such agony. (Yin, 2009, p. 83)

Returning to methodological issues, we remind readers that qualitative approaches, such as those that are informing multicultural psychology (Ponterotto, 2010), hold promise for studying complex hybrid identities and enriching our theoretical frameworks. Uses of a critical incident approach, which has been used to explore social justice orientation (Caldwell & Vera, 2010), or phenomenological approaches, which have been used to explore multiracial identity (Miville, Constantine, Baysden, & So-Lloyd, 2005), serve as two examples of qualitative explorations of complex identities. Both Cole (2009) and Hurtado (2010) provide suggestions for using empirical, quantitative methods for furthering our understanding of intersectionality.

Concluding Thoughts

We appreciate and have learned from Yoder et al.’s (2012) contributions in posing thoughtful questions to capture some of the complexity surrounding women, feminist thinking, and well-being. At the same time, as a community of scholars, we still have a road ahead. Butler (2000) noted that even when our theories emphasize multiple identities, it remains difficult to decenter White women’s experiences and place diverse groups of women at the center of inquiry. If, for example, we can successfully shift our orientation and move scholarship and research about women of color and intersectionality to the foreground, we have the potential to more fully transform our knowledge and practices, and we have the potential to “raise our awareness and understanding of the experiences of all women either implicitly or directly” (p. 177). In other words, the complex forms of intersectionality, oppression, privilege, and power experienced by groups of women with multiple identities may help us recognize new dimensions of experience and can lead to an enriched set of constructs for thinking about the lives of all women. Given the fact that White female college/university students are overrepresented among the persons who are most readily available as research participants in academic settings, moving in the direction proposed by Butler will require those of us who conduct research to invest substantial time, energy, and creativity in pursuing new alternatives.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Carolyn Zerbe Enns is a member of the Psychology Department and contributor to the Women’s Studies and Ethnic Studies programs at Cornell College in Iowa. Her writing and research activities focus on the application of feminist and multicultural theory to psychotherapy, pedagogy, and other aspects of psychological practice.

Ann R. Fischer teaches in the Department of Psychology at Southern Illinois University, where her research primarily addresses diversity issues (especially gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and culture) as related to power, identity, and prejudice. She has taught a wide range of undergraduate and graduate courses and would like to spend more time playing piano. See .

References

American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 964-970.

American Psychological Association. (2007). Guidelines for psychological practice with girls and women. American Psychologist, 62, 949-979.

Anzaldúa

(1987). Borderlands, la frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.

Bruckmuller

Abele

A. E.

(2010). Comparison focus in intergroup comparisons: Who we compare to whom influences who we see as powerful and agentic. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1424-1435. doi:10.1177/0146167210383581

Butler

J. E.

(2000). Transforming the curriculum: Teaching about women of color. In Banks

J. A.

Banks

C. A. M.

(Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4th ed., pp. 174-193.) New York, NY: Wiley.

Caldwell

J. C.

Vera

E. M.

(2010). Critical incidents in counseling psychology professionals’ and trainees’ social justice orientation development. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4, 163-176.

Cole

E. R.

(2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170-180.

Cole

E. R.

Zucker

A. N.

(2007). Black and White women’s perspectives on femininity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 1-9.

Comas-Díaz

(2008). 2007 Carolyn Sherif award address: Spirita: reclaiming womanist sacredness into feminism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 13-21.

10.

Daniels

(2007). Feminist counseling and therapy. In Ivey

A. E.

D’Andrea

Ivey

M. B.

Simek-Morgan

(Eds.), Theories of counseling and psychotherapy: A multicultural perspective (6th ed., pp. 321-357). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

11.

Downing

N. E.

Roush

K. L.

(1985). From passive acceptance to active commitment: A model of feminist identity development for women. The Counseling Psychologist, 13, 695-709.

12.

Enns

C. Z.

(1993). Twenty years of feminist counseling and therapy: From naming biases to implementing multifaceted practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 3-87.

13.

Enns

C. Z.

(2010). Locational feminisms and feminist social identity analysis. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41, 333-339.

14.

Enns

C. Z.

Byars-Winston

(2010). Multicultural feminist therapy. In Landrine

Russo

N. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of diversity in feminist psychology (pp. 367-388). New York, NY: Springer.

15.

Fischer

A. R.

DeBord

K. A.

(in press). Critical questioning of social and feminist identity development literature: Themes, principles, and tools. In Enns

C. Z.

Williams

E. N.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of feminist multicultural counseling psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

16.

Fischer

A. R.

Good

G. E.

(2004). Women’s feminist consciousness, anger, and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 437-446.

17.

Frable

D. E. S.

(1997). Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 139-162.

18.

Hansen

N. D.

(2002). Reflections on feminist identity development: Implications for theory, measurement, and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 87-95. doi:10.1177/0011000002301005

19.

Harnois

C. E.

(2005). Different paths to different feminisms? Bridging multiracial feminist theory and quantitative sociological gender research. Gender & Society, 18, 809-828. doi:10.1177/0891243205280026

20.

Henley

N. M.

Spalding

L. R.

Kosta

(2000). Development of the short form of the Feminist Perspectives Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 254-256.

21.

Hurtado

(2001). Sitios y lenguas: Chicanas theorize feminisms. Hypatia, 13, 134-161.

22.

Hurtado

(2010). Multiple lenses: Multicultural feminist theory. In Landrine

Russo

N. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of diversity in feminist psychology (pp. 29-54). New York, NY: Springer.

23.

Hyde

J. S.

(2002). Feminist identity development: The current state of theory, research, and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 105-110.

24.

Jaggar

A. M.

(Ed.). (2008). Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

25.

King

K. R.

(2005). Why is discrimination stressful? The mediating role of cognitive appraisal. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 3, 202-212.

26.

Liss

Crawford

Popp

(2004). Predictors and correlates of collective action. Sex Roles, 50, 771-779.

27.

Liss

O’Connor

Morosky

Crawford

(2001). What makes a feminist? Predictors and correlates of feminist social identity in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 124-133.

28.

Miville

M. L.

Constantine

M. G.

Baysden

M. F.

So-Lloyd

(2005). Chameleon changes: An exploration of racial identity themes of multiracial people. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 507-516.

29.

Moradi

(2005). Advancing womanist identity development: Where we are and where we need to go. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 225-253.

30.

Moradi

Subich

L. M.

(2002). Perceived sexist events and feminist identity development attitudes: Links to women’s psychological distress. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 44-65.

31.

Moradi

Subich

L. M.

Phillips

J. C.

(2002). Moving feminist identity development ahead. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 105-110.

32.

Myers

L. J.

Speight

S. L.

Highlen

P. S.

Cox

C. I.

Reynolds

A. L.

Adams

E. M.

Hanley

C. P.

(1991). Identity development and worldview: Toward an optimal conceptualization. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 54-63.

33.

Nelson

J. A.

Liss

Erchull

M. J.

Hurt

M. M.

Ramsey

L. R.

Turner

D. L.

Haines

M. E.

(2008). Identity in action: Predictors of feminist self-identification and collective action. Sex Roles, 58, 721-728.

34.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2010). Qualitative research in multicultural psychology: Philosophical underpinnings, popular approaches, and ethical considerations. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 581-589.

35.

Reid

Purcell

(2004). Pathways to feminist identification. Sex Roles, 50, 759-769.

36.

Reynolds

A. L.

Pope

R. L.

(1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring multiple oppressions. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 174-180.

37.

Saunders

K. J.

Kashubeck-West

(2006). The relations among feminist identity development, gender-role orientation, and psychological well-being in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 199-211.

38.

Shields

S. A.

(2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301-311.

39.

Smith

(1981). Across the kitchen table: A sister-to-sister dialogue. In Moraga

Anzaldúa

(Eds.), This bridge called my back (pp. 113-127). Watertown, MA: Persephone Press.

40.

Stake

J. E.

(2007). Predictors of change in feminist activism through women’s and gender studies. Sex Roles, 57, 43-54.

41.

Thomas

A. J.

Witherspoon

K. M.

Speight

S. L.

(2008). Gendered racism, psychological distress, and coping styles of African American women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 307-314.

42.

Vandiver

B. J.

(2002). What do we know and where do we go? The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 96-104.

43.

White

A. M.

(Ed.). (2010). African Americans doing feminism: Putting theory into everyday practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.

44.

Wilson

(2008). N’tacimowin inna nah’: Our coming in stories. Canadian Woman Studies, 26,193-199. Retrieved from Literature Online: http://lion.chadwyck.com

45.

Woods

K. C.

Buchanan

N. T.

Settles

I. H.

(2009). Sexual harassment across the color line: Experiences and outcomes of cross- versus intraracial sexual harassment among Black women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 67-76.

46.

Yin

(2006). Toward a Confucian feminism: A critique of Eurocentric feminist discourse. China Media Research, 2(3), 9-18.

47.

Yin

(2009). Negotiating the centre: Towards an Asiacentric feminist communication theory. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 75-88. doi:10.1080/17447140802651660

48.

Yoder

J. D.

Aniakudo

(1997). “Outsider within” the firehouse: Subordination and difference in the social interactions of African American women firefighters. Gender and Society, 11, 324-341.

49.

Yoder

J. D.

Berendsen

L. L.

(2001). “Outsider within” in the firehouse: African American and White women firefighters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 27-36.

50.

Yoder

J. D.

Kahn

A. S.

(1993). Working toward an inclusive psychology of women. American Psychologist, 48, 846-850.

51.

Yoder

J. D.

Perry

R. L.

Saal

E. I.

(2007). What good is a feminist identity? Women’s feminist identification and role expectations for intimate and sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 57, 365-372.

52.

Yoder

J. D.

Snell

A. F.

Tobias

(2012). Balancing multicultural competence with social justice: Feminist beliefs and optimal psychological functioning. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 1101-1132.

53.

Yoder

J. D.

Tobias

Snell

A. F.

(2011). When declaring “I am a feminist” matters: Labeling is linked to activism. Sex Roles, 64, 9-18.

54.

Zucker

A. N.

(2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but . . .” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 721-728.

55.

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, 1895-1924. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00673.x