Examining The Effect Of Feminist Self-Labeling And Feminist Perspectives On Young Adults' Self-Efficacy

Examining The Effect Of Feminist Self-Labeling And

Feminist Perspectives On Young Adults' Self-Efficacy

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Recently, there have been several campaigns and initiatives to

increase awareness of feminist issues and educate people about what the “f

word” really means (e.g., Ban Bossy, LikeAGirl, HeForShe, 2015). While

women have been at the forefront of each wave of the feminist movement,

more men are voicing their support of feminism. Men and boys are even the

focus of the United Nations' HeForShe campaign, encouraging support and

activism from males in order to end gender inequality across the world.

Because celebrities and notable figures are often used as figureheads for

such campaigns, young adults may be more likely to be influenced by such

efforts (Austin, Vord, Pinkleton & Epstein, 2008; Jackson, 2005). As more

celebrities have been publicly identifying as feminists, more young adults

are becoming aware of feminist issues and what it means to be a feminist.

And as individuals who have come of age during “third wave” feminism

(see Chapter 2) continue to develop in their understanding of feminism, it is

also important to understand how changing views on feminism impact

feminist perspectives. And because identifying as a feminist has potential

mental health benefits related to self-esteem and self-efficacy (Eisele &

Stake, 2008; McNamara & Rickard, 1989), it is an important area of inquiry

for counselors and counselor educators. In fact, Eisele and Stake (2008)

suggested that feminist self-labeling may be more strongly related to

positive mental health than espousing feminist perspectives without

identifying as a feminist. Researchers have suggested that feminist

identification made women more likely to engage in activism, and bisexual

and lesbian women who identified as feminists exhibited more self-

acceptance (Szymanski, 2004). By better understanding the relationship

between self-efficacy, feminist identification, and feminist perspectives,

counselors and counselor educators can better support their supervisees

and/or clients.

Problem Statement

In general, women’s gender consciousness (i.e., the understanding that

one’s gender affects their experiences in the world) and collective action

efforts (i.e., unified efforts to improve a group’s position and achieve shared

goals) for women have typically been weaker than that of other groups

despite generally being more aware of gender issues than men (Aronson,

2003). Although several studies have investigated how such issues affect

White college-aged women, perspectives from ethnic and racial minorities

and men in the same age group have not been well represented. Previous

research has suggested that status as a minority may make individuals more

likely to support other minority groups (Hunter & Sellers, 1998; Kelly &

Breinlinger, 1995; Wiley et al., 2012), yet some researchers believe that this

may not be the case with feminism, as feminism may only align with the

issues and experiences of White, middle class women (Aronson, 2003;

Hunter & Sellers, 1998; Williams & Wittig, 1997; Zucker, 2004). Although

previous waves of feminism have included more singular views and

identities for group members, feminism today consists of more varied

opinions about what it means to be a feminist and how identification as a

feminist is expressed (Heywood & Drake, 1997; Aronson, 2003). Such

variance in beliefs can be confusing for individuals and may contribute to

them not identifying as feminist, despite sharing similar perspectives (Kelly,

2015). Researchers have suggested that feminist perspectives are linkedwith

higher perceived physical attractiveness, a more positive body image

(Kinsaul, Curtin, Bazzini, & Martz, 2014), and improvement in coping with

societal pressures (Rubin, Nemeroff, & Russo, 2004). Because the most

recent wave of feminism (i.e., third wave) looks quite different from how

society has previously defined what it means to be a feminist, becoming

more familiar with how young adults currently view feminism and how they

are incorporating the label into their identities is important for counselors

and counselor educators in their practice. Understanding how students or

clients incorporate the feminist label into their identity can potentially

provide a clearer direction for work with students or clients and encourage a

more trusting, collaborative relationship.

Social Significance

While men and women frequently report agreeing with feminist ideas

and tenets, they rarely self-label as feminists (McCabe, 2005; Roy, Weibust,

& Miller, 2007; Williams & Wittig, 1997; Zucker, 2004). When

investigating the reasons behind the hesitation to self-label as a feminist, one

of the most frequently expressed reasons from both men and women is the

fear that they will be perceived negatively and inaccurately by others

(Anderson, 2009; McCabe, 2005; Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007; Williams

& Wittig, 1997; Zucker, 2004). For example, feminist women are thought of

as being more intelligent, confident, and productive, they are also thought of

as being lesbians, less attractive, and volatile (McCabe, 2005; Roy, Weibust

& Miller, 2007; Suter & Toller, 2006; Twenge & Zucker, 1999). Feminist

men are often characterized as being gay, less masculine, and having more

stereotypically feminine qualities (e.g., emotional, submissive, physically

weaker) (McCabe, 2005; Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007; Twenge & Zucker,

1999). Individuals may also decline to identify as feminists due to a lack of

education about feminism. Kelly (2015) found that many individuals who

did not identify as feminists said they did not know about feminism,

although they supported feminist perspectives and beliefs. Despite the

potential negative consequences of self-labeling, research has suggested that

having positive perceptions of feminists and feeling connected to women

may buffer the fear of negative stereotypes and increase the likelihood that

someone will self-identify as a feminist (Myaskovsky & Wittig, 1997; Roy,

Weibust, & Miller, 2007; Wiley et al., 2012). Even brief exposure to

positive portrayals of feminists may encourage positive perceptions of

feminism, as well as increase the desire to participate in collective action for

women (Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007; Wiley et al., 2012). Additionally,

research has found that the act of self-identifying with a group or self-

labeling may increase the likelihood of activism on behalf of that group

(Leaper & Arias, 2011; Wiley et al., 2012; Yoder, Tobias, & Snell, 2011;

Zucker, 2004), which ultimately encourages social change. And while

identification as a feminist may encourage positive mental health (e.g., self-

efficacy), identifying as a feminist may not be as important as an individual

adopting feminist attitudes due to the negative stereotypes about feminists

(Eisele & Stake, 2008; Twenge & Zucker, 1999). For example, even

individuals who only privately identified as feminists (i.e., they do not label

themselves as feminists to others) have still reported being supportive of

feminist perspectives and beliefs (Kelly, 2015). This suggests that although

they have some concern over being perceived negatively by others, they are

not completely stigmatized by the label and therefore may be at a tipping

point in their feminist identity. In fact, Kelly (2015) found that feminist self-

labeling was more related to engagement in activism. However, feminist

self-labeling has been shown to mediate the relationship between feminist

perspectives and self-efficacy (Eisele & Stake, 2008). Higher selfefficacy,

defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to achieve a desired

outcome, has been linked to increased health, higher levels of achievement,

and better social skills (Bandura, 2002). Therefore, further investigation is

needed into the relationship among feminist self-labeling, feminist

perspectives, and self-efficacy.

By nature, feminism encourages deeper examination of social

imperatives (e.g., desire to form and to belong to groups) and societal norms

(i.e., rules used to define acceptable behavior in a group) (Ruben et al.,

2004). This may be particularly important for women, as such evaluation

may act as a buffer for certain mental health issues (e.g., disordered eating,

negative body image) (Rubin et al., 2004). However, self-efficacy has been

shown to be an even stronger moderator of such issues in women compared

to feminism and feminist beliefs (Kinsaul et al., 2014). Therefore, self-

efficacy may be the most vital component necessary for improving and

maintaining women’s mental health.

Professional Significance

Researchers identified a positive relationship between feminist

perspectives and self-efficacy (Eisele & Stake, 2008). This may be partially

explained by the positive relationship between nontraditional gender role

attitudes and self-esteem (Szymanski, 2004), which are components of

feminist perspectives and self-efficacy. If an individual feels more

empowered about an issue, they may feel more encouraged and more

capable (i.e., self-efficacy) to enact change on behalf of that issue (Eisele &

Stake, 2008; Zimmerman, 1995). This may illuminate important knowledge

regarding the relationship between self-efficacy and advocacy in general.

While advocacy is not a focus of this study, understanding how self-efficacy

impacts advocacy can provide counselors and counselor educators insight

into how this relationship might affect clients, students, and supervisees in

their desire to engage in advocacy for any group or issue. Additionally, the

findings may provide implications for how counselor educators may

structure their teachings about feminism to make them seem more relevant

to students of color and men. For example, if students of color and men

significantly vary from White students and women in their understanding

and support of feminist perspectives and the feminist label, counselor

educators may focus more on making feminism seem more relevant to their

lives. As previous researchers have suggested, seeing feminism as relevant

to one’s own life is a crucial piece to supporting feminist beliefs and

identifying as a feminist (Eisele & Stake, 2008; Hunter & Sellers, 1998;

Wiley et al., 2012).

For counselors and counselor educators, understanding the

relationship among such factors will not only help them better understand

the worldview of clients who do not ascribe to traditional gender roles, but it

will also encourage self-reflection on the impact that gender stereotyping

and sexism can have on interactions with and treatment of clients and

counselors-in-training (Goodman et al., 2004). By being unaware of how

gender stereotyping influences clinical decision making, counselors risk

providing biased treatment to clients based on their own values and

unintentionally supporting traditional gender concepts (Crethar, Rivera, &

Nash, 2008; DeVoe, 1990; Good, Gilbert, & Scher, 1990). This imposition

of values is addressed in the ACA Code of Ethics (2014), which states that

counselors must be aware of their own values, resist imposing those values,

and engage in additional training in areas that put them at risk of imposing

their values onto those with whom they work (A.7.b). Counselors also have

a responsibility to serve as advocates for their clients when necessary

(A.7.b), and counselor educators must infuse multicultural issues into all

coursework (F.7.b.). Furthermore, DeVoe (1990) found that participating in

advocacy efforts and feminist consciousness raising may make counselors

more aware of feminist issues, resulting in increased insight into power

differentials between men and women and awareness of how sexist values

can negatively impact relationships.

Theoretical Foundation

Feminist theory is based on the following principles: (a) problems

originate in political and social contexts; (b) commitment to social change is

necessary; (c) acknowledging different ways of knowing gives voice to

women; (d) an egalitarian relationship is central to the therapeutic

relationship; and (e) political and social inequity negatively affect all people

(Corey, 2009). Feminist theory shares many common threads with

multicultural counseling theories (Crethar, Rivera, & Nash, 2008; Goodman

et al., 2004) that are currently taught in counselor education programs. And

because multicultural approaches are highly valued in today’s counselor

education programs, understanding feminist theory as well seems like a

logical next step for counselor educators. Feminist theory also lends itself to

this study because of its focus on empowerment and facilitating

consciousness raising (Corey, 2009).

Social cognitive theory can also be used to help understand the

constructs being examined in this study, particularly with the college-aged

population. Social cognitive theory (SCT) posits that individuals’ beliefs in

their abilities to influence the environment shape their actions in order to

produce desired outcomes (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). As societal views

on sexual mores, family structure, and gender roles continue to evolve,

stereotypes continue to be influenced primarily by culture, not by inherent

biological differences between men and women (Khajehpour, Ghazvini,

Memari, & Rhamani, 2011). Khajehpour et al. (2011) elaborate on this idea

by suggesting that modeling is the most powerful means of transmitting

cultural values, attitudes and behaviors, and thought patterns across

generations. While modeling can occur through direct observation of others,

media may also serve as a source from which individuals model behavior.

Because young adults tend to be more susceptible to the media’s influence

on their behavior and beliefs (Austin, Vord, Pinkleton & Epstein, 2008;

Jackson, 2005), using a social cognitive theory lens to explain the potential

power of this influence on feminist identification may be useful. Further,

tenets of social cognitive theory may help explain why individuals choose to

identify or not identify as feminists (e.g., learning as a cognitive process in a

social context, vicarious reinforcement). Social cognitive theory may also

help to explain the relationship between self-efficacy and advocacy, as those

with higher levels of self-efficacy may persist with action despite

unfavorable circumstances as long as they believe their efforts will produce

the expected results (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Social cognitive theory

also helps to explain how observed behavior (i.e., modeling) can influence

values, attitudes, and thoughts, thereby affecting stereotypes and regulation

of gender roles that are typically associated with the feminist label

(Khajehpour et al., 2011). Thus, incorporating feminist theory and social

cognitive theory (SCT) provides both a political/social lens and a learned

behavior (i.e., modeling) lens through which to view the impact of feminist

labeling and feminist perspectives on self-efficacy in undergraduate and

graduate students.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of the study was to understand the relationship between

feminism and self-efficacy in college-aged students, by examining the

differential relationship (i.e., discrepancies between the relationship between

feminist self-labeling and self-efficacy, and between feminist perspectives

and self-efficacy) of feminist self-identification and feminist perspectives to

self-efficacy. As such, the study examined the relationships among variables

of interest (i.e., feminist attitudes, feminist perspectives, self-efficacy) and

differences among demographics (i.e., gender, race) for each variable of

interest. One potential implication for understanding the relationship among

feminist identification, self-efficacy, and feminist perspectives might be that

counselors and counselor educators gain more awareness of the impact these

constructs have on young adult clients, supervisees, and/or students.

Additionally, results might also encourage self-reflection in counselors and

counselor educators in order to examine how their own beliefs on feminism

and women may impact their work with clients, students, and/or supervisees.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

This study explored the relationships among demographic factors,

feminist perspectives, feminist identification, and self-efficacy for

undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at a large four year University

in the Southeast. The research questions and null hypotheses are presented

below.

Research Question 1

What relationship exists among feminist self-identification, feminist

perspectives, and self-efficacy? Specifically, can feminist self-identification,

as measured by the SelfIdentification as a Feminist Scale (SIF; Szymanski,

2004), and feminist perspectives, as measured by the Feminist Perspectives

Scale – Short Form (FPS3; Henley, Spalding, &

Kosta, 2000) predict self-efficacy, as measured by the General Self-Efficacy

Scale (GSE; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) of young adults?

Hypothesis 1A. Feminist identification ratings and feminist

perspectives ratings are positively correlated with self-efficacy ratings.

Hypothesis 1B. Higher ratings for feminist self-identification and

feminist perspectives will predict higher self-efficacy for young adults.

Research Question 2

What differences exist among various races (e.g., White, African

American, Hispanic) and gender (i.e., male, female), as measured by the

demographics questionnaire, between feminist self-identification, as

measured by the Self-Identification as a Feminist Scale (SFI; Szymanski,

2004), feminist perspectives, as measured by the Feminist Perspectives Scale

– Short Form (FPS3; Henley, Spalding, & Kosta, 2000), and self-efficacy, as

measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwarzer & Jerusalem,

1995)?

Hypothesis 2A. Female participants will have higher ratings than

male participants for feminist identification, feminist perspectives, and self-

efficacy.

Hypothesis 2B. White participants will have higher ratings than non-

White participants for feminist identification, feminist perspectives, and self-

efficacy.

Research Design

The current study utilized data collected from undergraduate and

graduate students at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, South

Carolina. This study consisted of a quantitative, correlational survey

research design that examined relationships among demographic factors

(i.e., gender, race), feminist identification, feminist perspectives, and self-

efficacy. Correlational research allows researchers to assess the relationship

between variables without manipulation, while also identifying strength and

direction of the relationship (Smith & Davis, 2007). However, correlational

research design does not allow the research to determine cause and effect

relationships among variables (Smith & Davis, 2007). Prior to beginning the

study, I obtained approval from the University of South Carolina’s

Institutional Review Board (IRB). Once I received approval, I began data

collection.

The current study included undergraduate and graduate students who

volunteered to participate. Students who agreed to participate in the study

completed either a paper version or an online version of the assessment

(Survey Monkey). Students began the survey by reading the study

information form (see Appendix B) and were then prompted to provide

consent to participate. If students chose not to continue with the assessments,

or wished to discontinue the survey at any time, they were allowed to do so

without penalty. Participants then completed: (a) a researcher designed

demographic form; (b) a scale assessing feminist self-identification; (c) a

scale assessing feminist perspectives; (d) a scale assessing self-efficacy.

Participants’ demographics are also included in subsequent chapters. A more

detailed discussion of the methodology for this study is provided in Chapter

3 of this paper.

Methodology

Prior to beginning this study, I received approval from the University’s

Institutional Review Board (IRB). Data was collected in accordance with

IRB guidelines.

Participants

Participants for the study were enrolled as undergraduate or graduate

students at the University of South Carolina. There are currently 24,864

undergraduate students enrolled at the University, with this population being

46% male and 54% female. There are 8,108 graduate students enrolled at

USC, comprised of 59% females and 41% males. Minorities comprise

21.6% of the undergraduate student population and 31.6% of the graduate

student population. I contacted programs such as University 101 (containing

approximately 4,000 students), FemCo (a feminist student organization), the

Counselor Education and Supervision undergraduate minor program

(containing approximately 250 students) and Education Specialist (EdS)

program, National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC; historically African

American or multicultural fraternities and sororities), and large

undergraduate introductory courses (e.g., Psychology, Technology, Public

Health) in order to recruit participants. I engaged in both active (e.g., face-

to-face) and passive (e.g., email, word of mouth) recruitment strategies.

Upon IRB approval, I obtained permission from course instructors and

program coordinators to briefly speak with their students about participating

in the study (i.e., active recruitment). Additionally, I sent emails about the

study to professors who taught large undergraduate classes and requested

they send study information to their students via email or Blackboard (i.e.,

passive recruitment). Yancey, Ortega, and Kumanyika (2006) noted that

active recruitment strategies are more effective with culturally diverse

participants, hence my intention to partner with programs for minority

students (i.e., NPHC, TRIO programs). However, I received few responses

in my attempts to contact organizations or groups which contained members

of color. Therefore, I did not get the opportunity to utilize active recruitment

strategies with some of these groups.

In order to be included in the study, participants had to be at least 18

years of age and enrolled as an undergraduate or graduate student at the

University of South Carolina. Nonprobability sampling (specifically,

convenience sampling) was utilized to obtain participants for this study.

Convenience sampling is less expensive, has fewer timeconstraints, and

participants can be recruited with relative ease (Rubin & Babbie, 2011).

Despite its benefits, this sampling strategy may lead to an inadequate

representation of various groups in a sample (Rubin & Babbie, 2011). This

limitation of the study will be further discussed in Chapter 5. However, since

little is known about the relationship between feminism and self-efficacy for

men and minorities, convenience sampling may provide insight into whether

or not a problem exists in a biased sample. Because convenience samples are

typically already biased (Rubin & Babbie, 2011), uncovering the

relationship between feminism and self-efficacy for men and minorities in a

biased sample may provide valuable information into how to proceed in

future studies with these two groups (Rubin & Babbie, 2011). In other

words, if no significant differences exist for men and minorities on the

outcome variables compared to women and non-minority participants in the

biased sample, it may be unlikely that significant differences would exist in

an unbiased sample (Rubin & Babbie, 2011).

I conducted an a priori analysis using G*Power 3.0.10 (Faul,

Erdfelder, Lang, & Butchnew, 2008) to determine sample size and adequate

power with each of the anticipated analyses. A priori power analyses helped

determine the sample size necessary for adequate power (Balkin & Sheperis,

2011; Cohen, 1992), with larger sample sizes leading to less likelihood of a

type II error, higher statistical power, and larger effects (Balkin & Sheperis,

2011). The a priori analysis conducted for the current dissertation utilized an

alpha level of .05, moderate effect size of .06 (Cohen, 1992), and a

recommended power of .80 (Cohen, 1992). G*Power indicated a sample of

107 in order to achieve adequate power for research question one. The

power analysis conducted for research question two indicated a sample of

265 participants for adequate power. Because a larger sample size (n=265)

was indicated for research question two, the goal is to recruit at least 300

participants in order to avoid committing a Type II error. A Type II error

occurs when the researcher fails to reject a false null hypothesis (Rubin &

Babbie, 2011), meaning that the researcher reports finding no significant

differences between groups when such differences may actually exist.

Instruments

The following instruments were administered to study participants: (a)

a researcher designed demographic form; (b) Feminist Perspectives Scale-

Short Form (FPS3; Henley, Spalding, & Kosta, 2000); (c) General Self-

Efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995); and (d) Self-

Identification as a Feminist Scale (SIF; Szymanski, 2004). In order to

determine the level of reliability of each measure, a reliability analysis was

performed for each instrument to determine Cronbach’s alpha (α).

Data for the each instrument’s reliability in this study is discussed in Chapter

4 of this dissertation. All instruments were completed by participants online

using Survey Monkey, and results were transferred to SPSS for analysis.

Demographics questionnaire. The researcher-developed

demographics questionnaire was collected basic demographic information

from study participants. The form included questions about gender, age,

years of education, year in school (e.g., freshman, sophomore, first year

Master’s), and race. The demographics questionnaire was administered at

the end of the survey. See Appendix C for a copy of the demographic form.

Feminist Perspectives Scale – Short Form (FSP3). The Feminist

Perspectives Scale – Short Form (FSP3; Henley, Spalding, & Kosta, 2000) is

a 36-item scale which assessed feminist attitudes and feminist behavior. Of

the 36 items on the instrument, 30 items measure feminist attitudes and 6

items measure feminist behavior. The 30

attitudinal items are comprised of 6 subscales: (a) Conservative; (b)

Liberal Feminist; (c) Radical Feminist; (d) Social Feminist; (e) Cultural

Feminist; (f) Woman of Color/Womanist). Responses were totaled for each

subscale to obtain a total attitudinal score for each of the six subscales.

These scores were then summed together to obtain a total score for feminist

attitudes (i.e., Femscore3). Responses for the behavioral items were summed

separately in order to produce a total score for feminist behavior (i.e.,

Fembehave3). The FSP3 has shown to have a high internal consistency for

Femscore (α = .85), although some of the subscales have shown alpha

reliability ≤ .70. However, Henley, Spalding, & Kosta (2000) suggested

using a larger sample size (a sample of 209 was used in the development of

the short version of this instrument) in order to increase reliability for the

subscales.

General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). The General Self-Efficacy Scale

(GSE; Scwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) measured beliefs about general self-

efficacy. The GSE is a 10 item scale which assesses one’s belief in their

ability to respond to difficult situations and cope with associated obstacles.

The 4 point Likert scale measured the extent to which each item applied to

the participant, ranging from not at all true (1) to exactly true (4). Participant

total scores can range from 10 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher

general self-efficacy. The GSE has shown good internal consistency, ranging

from .75 to .91 (Scholz, Dona, Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002).

Self-Identification as a Feminist Scale (SIF). The Self-Identification

as a Feminist Scale (SIF; Szymanski, 2004) is a 4 item scale which assessed

explicit feminist identity and support of the goals and values of the feminist

movement. Participants rated items on a 5 point Likert scale based on their

level of agreement or disagreement with each item. A total SIF score was

obtained by summing all 4 items, with higher scores indicating stronger

identification as a feminist. Szymanski (2004) found an alpha reliability

of .93 for the SIF.

Data Analyses

I conducted a preliminary analysis of the data in order to identify any

outliers, missing data, and violations of assumptions. I used two statistical

analyses to explore the two research questions for this study. I utilized a

multiple regression to examine the relationships among the constructs of

feminist self-identification, feminist perspectives, and self-efficacy (research

question one) for all participants. For research question one, feminist self-

identification (as measured by the SIF total score) and feminist perspectives

(as measured by Femscore3 total score and Fembehave3 total score) served

as the independent variables, while self-efficacy (as measured by the GSE

total score) served as the dependent variable. I also tested for any violations

of the assumptions of normality, multicollinearity, and singularity. I utilized

a two-way factorial MANOVA to examine what differences exist for various

races (e.g., White, African American, Hispanic) and gender (i.e., male,

female) for feminist self-identification, feminist perspectives, and

selfefficacy (research question two). For research question two, the

independent variables were race and gender, while the dependent variables

were self-identification as a feminist (as measured by the SIF total score),

feminist perspectives (as measured by Femscore3 total score and

Fembehave3 total score), and self-efficacy (as measured by the total GSE

score). The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 23.0, was

utilized for all data analyses.

In order to ensure protection of participants’ rights, data were only be

reported in aggregate form, with no identifying information connecting

participants to their responses. All data were contained on a password

protected laptop, and I was the only person with access to the data.

Definition of Terms

Following, I operationally defined terms or phrases for the purposes

of the current study:

Feminist: Researchers have been unable to agree on a singular

definition for what it means to be a feminist (Yoder, Tobias, & Snell, 2011).

While there are many interpretations of the term feminist, the term is largely

viewed as a combination of one’s willingness to self-label as a feminist,

espoused beliefs, and the connection between selflabeling and the

endorsement of feminist beliefs (Yoder, Tobias, & Snell, 2011). Some

researchers have also highlighted the importance of understanding the label

of feminist as being both an individual and collective identity (Kelly, 2015).

And although the term feminist is typically connected to cohesive political

ideas, some scholars underscore the connection of the feminist label to social

movements and contexts (Kelly, 2015; Reger, 2012). The term feminist, for

the purposes of this study, is defined as “a person who believes in the social,

political, and economic equality of the sexes” (Adichie, 2012).

Feminist self-labeling: Feminist self-labeling is the act of identifying as

a feminist. More specifically, self-labeling as a feminist is “a binary choice

that either links, or does not link, a woman to feminists as a social group”

(Yoder, Tobias, and Snell, 2011). This label may be adopted publicly (i.e.,

proclaiming to be feminist to others) or privately (i.e., considering oneself to

be a feminist without identifying as a feminist to other people) (Kelly, 2015;

Leaper & Arias, 2011; Myaskovsky & Witting, 1997). However, some

scholars view feminist self-labeling as part of a feminist identity continuum

(Aronson, 2003; Williams & Wittig, 1997; Zucker, 2004), which may be

more applicable to individuals who came of age during “third wave”

feminism (Kelly, 2015). As such, this study includes a measure that assesses

for feminist identity and self-labeling on a continuum (see Chapter 3).

Feminism: For the purposes of this study, feminism is defined as a

political and social movement focused on political, social, and economic

equality between men and women (Kelly, 2015). Reger (2012) further

explains the complexity of the term by saying that feminism can

simultaneously be both “everywhere” (i.e., influential on a person’s

worldviews, culture, and social norms) and “nowhere” (i.e., explicit feminist

activism is limited or unseen).

Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy one’s belief in their capacity to achieve a

desired outcome (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is a component of self-

esteem that influences an individual’s perception of his or her ability to

obtain expected results (Eisele & Stake, 2008). An important aspect of social

cognitive theory, Bandura (1997) explains that selfefficacy affects an

individual’s feelings (e.g., anxiety, depression), thoughts (e.g., motivation,

decision making), and actions (e.g., effort, recovery from setbacks).

Additionally, Bandura (1977) suggests the following four factors

significantly impact one’s self-efficacy: (a) mastery experiences; (b) social

modeling; (c) social persuasion; and (d) physiological factors.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is that it is unknown if students who

choose to participate in the study are similar to those who do not choose to

participate on their identification as feminists, self-efficacy levels,

perspectives on feminism, and intentions to engage in activism. For

example, participants who chose to engage in this study may have done so

because they already have strong, polarized feelings or views (positive or

negative) towards feminism, which could skew data. Nonprobability

sampling (specifically, convenience sampling) was utilized to obtain

participants for this study. Although convenience sampling is less expensive

and has fewer time-constraints than other sampling methods, it may lead to

an inadequate representation of various groups in my sample (Rubin &

Babbie, 2011). However, the researcher can attempt to improve convenience

sampling by making efforts to control and to assess the representative nature

of the survey sample (Henry, 1990). For example, I recruited participants

from majors who are not typically included in research on feminism and

self-efficacy (e.g., Public Health, Exercise Science, Technology).

Additionally, I compared sample demographics to those of the USC student

population to assess representativeness (see Chapter 3).

This study was also delimited to students who were in undergraduate

or graduate study at one four year institution in the Southeast. This limitation

could also affect both the internal and external validity of the study, as

geographic location may have impacted participants’ views on feminism and

feminist perspectives. Additionally, using one university in the Southeast

affects the generalizability of results to the general population of young

adults (Rubin & Babbie, 2011).

An additional limitation was the norming populations for the

instruments utilized in this study. For example, the Feminist Perspectives

Scale (FPS3) was normed on predominantly White and Asian

undergraduates. Therefore, results may vary for members of other ethnic

groups and for graduate students. The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)

was originally normed on German citizens; however, it has since been

normed on individuals from 25 different countries (including the United

States). The Self-Identification as a Feminist Scale (SIF) was normed on

predominantly White, gay or bisexual undergraduate women and therefore

may not reflect similar outcomes for students of color, males, or students

who do not identify as gay or bisexual.

Summary

Despite the potential positive benefits of identifying as a feminist,

negative stereotypes and beliefs about feminism continue to discourage men

and women from selflabeling. By examining the relationships among self-

identification as a feminist, feminist perspectives, and self-efficacy, findings

from this study may aid counselors and counselor educators in better

supporting and understanding how to work with young adult students or

clients. And as feminism continues to become a more popular issue or

identity being adopted, counselors and counselor educators have an ethical

responsibility to better understand its impact on clients, supervisees, and

students, as well as how their own beliefs about women and feminism can

affect their work with others. Subsequent chapters review current literature

on feminist labeling, feminist perspectives, and selfefficacy (Chapter 2),

discuss the methodology of the current study (Chapter 3), provide results

from the current study (Chapter 4), and discuss conclusions and suggestions

for future research on the proposed topic (Chapter 5).

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to find relevant articles for this topic, I utilized the Encore

search engine provided by The Thomas Cooper Library at the University of

South Carolina. I used “feminism,” “feminist label,” “feminist

identification,” “feminist self-labeling,” “feminist beliefs,” “feminist

perspectives,” “feminist attitudes,” “self-esteem,” “self-efficacy.” Upon

researching these terms, I noticed the Sex Roles and Psychology of Women

Quarterly were two journals that published the most articles related to my

topic. I then conducted a search of my terms within these specific journals.

In reading journal articles, I also used the references listed in previous

research to locate possible articles for the current study.

While women have been at the forefront of each wave of the feminist

movement, men have become the focus of campaigns like the United

Nation’s HeForShe (2015), which encourages support and activism from

males in order to end gender inequality across the world. And while men and

women frequently report agreeing with feminist ideas and tenets, they rarely

self-label as feminists due to fear that they will be perceived negatively and

inaccurately by others (Anderson, 2009; McCabe, 2005; Roy, Weibust, &

Miller, 2007; Williams & Wittig, 1997; Zucker, 2004). Because identifying

as a feminist can impact self-esteem, self-efficacy, and desire to engage in

advocacy (Elise & Stake, 2008; Leaper & Arias, 2011; Roy, Weibust, &

Miller, 2007; Twenge & Zucker, 1999; Wiley et al., 2012; Yoder, Tobias, &

Snell, 2011) it is an important area of inquiry for counselors and counselor

educators. For example, empowerment is an important component of

feminism, and individuals who feel more empowered about an issue may

feel more encouraged and more capable to enact change on behalf of that

issue (Eisele & Stake, 2008; Zimmerman, 1995). The proposed link between

empowerment and advocacy may illuminate important knowledge regarding

the relationship between selfefficacy and advocacy in general. However,

women’s gender consciousness and collective action efforts have typically

been weaker than that of other groups, despite women generally being more

aware of gender issues than men (Aronson, 2003). Additionally, research in

this area of inquiry has underrepresented perspectives of men, minorities, or

lower socioeconomic status participants. This chapter discusses previous

research regarding the evolution of feminism, factors affecting feminist

identification, and the relationships between and among feminist

identification, feminist perspectives, and self-efficacy. A discussion of the

theoretical framework and brief summary of this chapter are also included.

Evolution of Feminism

As society and cultural context has continued to change over time, so

have the goals and ideologies of feminists (Phillips & Cree, 2014). Although

feminism may have begun before the late 1840s, it was during this time

period that the first collective efforts for women’s rights began (Phillips &

Cree, 2014). Today, there is some debate as to whether we are in a third

wave of feminism, or if we have crossed into a fourth wave. While previous

waves of feminism have included more singular views and identities for

group members, feminism today consists of more varied opinions about

what it means to be a feminist and how identification as a feminist is

expressed (Heywood & Drake, 1997; Aronson, 2003). Information about

each wave, along with the current state of feminism, is discussed below.

First Wave of Feminism (Late 1840s-1920s)

With urban industrialization and a move towards more liberal politics in the

late 19th century came the first wave of feminism in the United States. The

Industrial Revolution resulted in more women finding full-time work outside

of the home, which also provided women with various opportunities to

engage in discussions about social and political issues. First wave feminists

focused on a variety of issues affecting women and children, such as: (a) the

right for women to own property; (b) women’s suffrage; (c) access to higher

education; (d) protecting women and children from prostitution; and (e)

raising the age of sexual consent for women (Cree, 1996). First wave

feminists also believed that women were morally superior to men and rooted

their goals in the idea that men and women “inhabited separate spheres,”

with the hope of bringing female influence into a male-dominated world

(Phillips & Cree, 2014). However, this wave mostly consisted of middle-

class, heterosexual White women and did not take into account perspectives

of other classes, races, or sexual orientations (Phillips & Cree, 2014).

Second Wave of Feminism (Early 1960s-Late 1980s)

Women’s work and family lives were transformed yet again both

during and after World War II. In the post-WWII world, political views

became more liberal and women’s roles both inside and outside the home

continued to evolve. By the 1960s, the civil rights movement and Vietnam

War were heavy influences on the increasingly radical political ideologies

and activist efforts. This context can be seen throughout the second wave of

feminism, when feminists began to see “individual, social and political

inequalities as inevitably interlinked,” (Phillips & Cree, 2014) as evidenced

by the introduction of the feminist slogan “the personal is political” during

this time frame. Second wave feminists continued their focus on some of the

same issues as first wave feminists (i.e., equality in educational access,

protection of women from prostitution) (Cree, 1996). However, the

introduction of the contraceptive pill influenced second wave feminists’

interest in reproductive rights for women (including abortion), equality in

the workplace, and rape and domestic violence against women (Phillips &

Cree, 2014). Additionally, all of the societal changes during this time helped

illuminate that differences do exist among women, and that feminists had

not been including the perspectives of women who were not White or

middle-class (Ramazanoglu, 1989).

Third and Fourth Waves of Feminism (Late 1980s-present)

The third wave of feminism embraced more ambiguity regarding the

definition of what it means to be a feminist. Third wave feminists accepted

the idea of different feminist ideologies, saw gender as an expression not a

biological condition, and encouraged the involvement of men in feminism

(Phillips & Cree, 2014). Feminists also began examining intersections of

gender and other forms of oppression (Wrye, 2009). Although feminist

ideology continues to evolve, there is currently some debate as to whether or

not we have entered into a fourth wave of feminism. Proponents of a fourth

wave argue that technology and media have vastly changed how we are

presently viewing and understanding what it means to be a feminist (Phillips

& Cree, 2014). With various campaigns aimed at increasing awareness of

feminist issues (e.g., BanBossy, LikeAGirl, HeForShe), social media and

endorsement of feminism by public figures has re-ignited conversations

about what the feminist label means and who can claim it. For young adults

who have come of age in the 21st century (i.e., Millennials, Generation Y),

technology and social media are viewed as a normal part of life, and

therefore exert powerful influence over this and younger generations.

However, Zucker (2004) argues that education, personal relationships, and

personal struggles are greater influences on feminist identity and perceptions

of feminism, whereas exposure to media creates barriers to feminist

identification. Young adults use sites like Twitter and Facebook to share

political thoughts and opinions with the world. And with the continued

evolution of feminism, the parameters of feminist characteristics regarding

sexuality, employment, and reproduction also continue to expand. The most

recent wave of feminism has also developed a “call-out culture” in which

social media is used to address all forms of oppression in an effort to include

and support minority groups, working to eliminate power differentials and

eradicate previous negative perceptions about feminists (Phillips & Cree,

2014).

Factors Affecting Feminist Identification

While men and women frequently report agreeing with feminist ideas

and tenets, they rarely self-label as feminists (McCabe, 2005; Roy, Weibust,

& Miller, 2007; Williams & Wittig, 1997; Zucker, 2004). Despite potential

positive benefits to identifying as feminist, a variety of factors inhibit

individuals from self-labeling as a feminist. Negative stereotypes and beliefs

about feminism, gender socialization, minority status, and gender all impact

one’s choice regarding whether or not they identify as a feminist.

Negative Perceptions of Feminism and Feminists

One explanation for the negative beliefs about feminists and feminism

is the development and maintenance of negative stereotypes (Dottolo, 2011).

Even when women do label themselves as feminists, they believe that

“typical” feminists are different than them and more radical in their views

(Anderson, 2009; Twenge & Zucker, 1999). Negative portrayals of feminists

in the media contribute to these beliefs and may make people hesitant to

identify with a group that is not valued or seen in a positive light (Wiley et

al., 2012). Roy et al. (2007) found that college-aged women who were

exposed to positive portrayals of feminists were twice as likely to identify

with feminism compared to women exposed to negative or neutral

portrayals. When investigating the reasons behind the hesitation to self-label

as a feminist, one of the most frequently expressed reasons from both men

and women is the fear that they will be perceived negatively and

inaccurately by others (Anderson, 2009; McCabe, 2005; Roy, Weibust, &

Miller, 2007; Zucker, 2004). For example, research has shown that while

feminist women are thought of as being more intelligent, confident, and

productive, they are also thought of as being lesbians, less attractive, and

volatile (McCabe, 2005; Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007; Suter & Toller,

2006; Twenge & Zucker, 1999). Men who identify as feminists are typically

seen as being less masculine, more likely to be gay, and less attractive than

nonfeminist men (Anderson, 2009; Twenge & Zucker, 1999). However,

women rated feminist men as being more warm, affectionate, and kinder

than men in general (Anderson, 2009). Anderson (2009) posits that this more

negative stigma for feminist men may be due to the fact that the feminist

label is most commonly linked to women. So while feminist men may be

seen more positively than non-feminist men, they typically do not receive as

much respect (Wiley et al., 2011). Liss, Hoffner, and Crawford (2000) even

found that women who identify as feminists still consider other feminists to

be more radical in their thinking and behavior. Alexander and Ryan (1997)

found that only one out of thirty-six women self-identified as a feminist

without attempting to qualify the label with statements about her

background, sexuality, and specific feminist beliefs. Twenge and Zucker

(1999) also found that overall women viewed feminists as being “not like

me.” Further, women in this study felt that others possess extremely negative

stereotypes and views about feminists, even if the participants themselves

did not share the same views. These studies illuminate the deep impact that

negative stereotypes of feminism have on those who self-label as feminists.

Feminist men are often characterized as being gay, less masculine, and

having more stereotypically feminine qualities (e.g., emotional, submissive,

physically weaker) (McCabe, 2005; Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007; Twenge

& Zucker, 1999). Dottolo (2011) also asserted that feminism is often

demonized because in-groups react with fear and anger when out-groups

make attempts to gain more power; therefore, stereotypes are created and

maintained in an effort to preserve the status quo.

However, research has suggested that having positive perceptions of

feminists and feeling connected to women can buffer the fear of being

perceived negatively by others and increase the likelihood that someone will

self-identify as a feminist (Myaskovsky & Wittig, 1997; Roy, Weibust, &

Miller; 2007; Wiley et al., 2012). Even brief exposure to positive portrayals

of feminists has shown to positively influence perceptions of feminism, as

well as increase the desire to participate in collective action for women

(Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007; Wiley et al., 2012). Roy, Weibust, and

Miller (2007) tested this notion in a study of 414 undergraduate female

psychology students. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three

paragraph conditions: (1) positive stereotypes about feminists; (2) negative

stereotypes about feminists; or (3) control paragraph that discussed a general

topic unrelated to feminism. After reading the paragraph, participants

completed a feminist attitudes scale, measure of feminist identification,

gender identification scale, and performance self-esteem measure. Lastly,

participants completed an assessment to measure their perceived ability to

evaluate the paragraph they read. Roy, Weibust, and Miller (2007) found

that participants in the positive portrayal group were nearly twice as likely

(30.8%) to label themselves as feminists compared to the negative portrayal

group and control group, whose scores were not significantly different from

each other (18% and 16.7%, respectively). However, Roy et al. (2007)

indicated that women exposed to the positive portrayal condition did not

significantly differ from the negative portrayal or control groups on their

scores for endorsement of feminist attitudes. Women in the positive

portrayal group who identified as feminists had greater nontraditional gender

role attitudes and higher performance selfesteem (“expressing confidence

about one’s ability to meet challenges” [Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007]) than

participants in the other two groups. The sample in this study consisted of

predominantly white, heterosexual females, as is the case with most of the

studies mentioned in this chapter.

Gender Socialization and Gender Beliefs

Feminism often seems to be viewed as an oppositional, exclusive idea

from masculinity for men and from femininity for women. Twenge and

Zucker (1999) asked college students to develop a story based on one of two

prompts: (a) “Michelle calls herself a feminist,” or (b) “Michael calls

himself a feminist.” While participants wrote positive statements about both

Michael and Michelle, there were significantly more negative assertions

written about both the feminist man and feminist woman; however, more

negative statements were written about Michael compared to Michelle (e.g.,

“Michael is a cross-dresser by night”). Further, participants in the study

more often attributed assertive or masculine characteristics to Michelle and

weaker or more feminine qualities to Michael. However, Breen and

Karpinski (2008) found that when asked to comparatively rate non-feminist

and feminist women, feminist women were overall rated more positively

than non-feminist women. Conversely, participants in the study rated

feminist men much lower than non-feminist men. Breen and Karpinski

(2008) did not report a difference in how participants rated feminist men

compared to feminist women, Anderson (2009) performed a t test on the

available data from the original Breen and Karpinski (2008) study and found

that participants rated feminist men significantly less favorably than feminist

women. Gourley and Anderson (2007) had somewhat different findings

when they asked college-aged students to rate a female feminist speaker, a

male feminist speaker, a female non-feminist speaker, and a male non-

feminist speaker. Overall ratings for the feminist speakers (both male and

female) and for the non-feminist speakers (both male and female) did not

significantly differ; nevertheless, students were more likely to label the male

feminist speaker as being gay or bisexual compared to the other speakers.

Anderson (2009) also produced contradictory findings regarding ratings of

feminist men and feminist women, with participants rating the term

“feminist man” more favorably than “feminist woman.” And while women’s

ratings for “feminist woman” were not significantly different from their

ratings for “man” or woman,” men’s ratings for “feminist woman” were the

lowest of all of the other aforementioned terms. Further, Anderson (2009)

found that men and women in the study rated feminist men as being less

masculine and more likely to be gay. And while women in the study rated

feminist men more favorably than non-feminist men overall, they also rated

them as less sexually attractive than non-feminist men. Therefore, this study

will compare men’s and women’s feminist identity and perceptions on

feminism in order to understand existing similarities and differences.

Minorities, Men, and Feminism

While several studies have investigated how such issues affect White

collegeaged women, perspectives from ethnic and racial minorities and men

in the same age group have not been well represented. Previous research has

suggested that status as a minority may make individuals more likely to

engage in advocacy for other minority groups (Kelly & Breinlinger, 1995;

Wiley et al., 2012), some researchers believe that this may not be the case

with feminism, as it may only align with the issues and experiences of

White, middle class women (Williams & Wittig, 1997; Zucker, 2004). And

while some female feminists do not believe that men should be a target of

feminist campaigns, hooks (1984) presented the following argument: “since

men are the primary agents maintaining and supporting sexism and sexist

oppression, they can only be successfully eradicated if men are compelled to

assume responsibility for transforming their consciousness and the

consciousness of society as a whole.” Despite the common belief that

feminism is only for women, men are also directly affected by anti-feminist

perspectives; this is because, like women, men are not an “ahistorical,

universal, and foxed category of analysis” (Mohanty, 1988). These

antifeminist perspectives, sometimes referred to as “postfeminism” are

rooted in the belief that gender and sexual equality has been achieved, ruling

feminism as outdated and unnecessary (O’Neill, 2015).

In order to assess for gender differences in perceptions about

feminists, Anderson (2009) randomly assigned 404 college students to

complete semantic differential ratings (Pierce et al., 2003) for one of four

groups: (a) “man;” (b) “woman;” (c) “feminist man;” or (d) “feminist

woman.” Participants were then asked to complete a demographics

questionnaire and a feminist identification assessment (Myaskovsky &

Wittig, 1997). On the feminist identification assessment, participants were

asked to select one of the following statements regarding their stance on the

feminist label: (1) I do not consider myself a feminist at all, and I believe

that feminist are harmful to family life and undermine relationship between

men and women; (2) I do not consider myself a feminist; (3) I agree with

some of the objectives of the feminist movement but do not call myself a

feminist; (4) I agree with most of the objectives of the feminist movement

but do not call myself a feminist; (5) I privately consider myself a feminist

but do not call myself a feminist around others; (6) I call myself a feminist

around others; or (7) I call myself a feminist around others and am currently

active in the women’s movement. The corresponding numbers indicate the

level of feminist identification; therefore, a higher number indicates stronger

identification as a feminist and a lower number indicates weaker

identification as a feminist. The majority of men in the study (59.7%) did not

identify as feminists by selecting one of the first two statements, but 32.6%

of men said that they agreed with some feminist objectives but did not call

themselves feminists (which was the most popular choice of female

participants in the study [45.4%]). However, less than 1% of men identified

as feminist either publicly or privately compared to nearly 7% of women.

Wiley et al. (2012) also sought to illuminate men’s perspectives on

feminism. In their study, they presented male participants with one of three

paragraphs: (1) positive portrayal of feminist men; (2) negative portrayal of

feminist men; (3) a history of feminism that did not mention feminist men

(control condition). Participants then completed a scale to measure feminist

solidarity and an assessment for collective action intentions. Both measures

asked items that were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, with scores being

averaged; higher scores indicated higher levels of the measure variables.

Wiley et al. (2012) found that the brief exposure to positive portrayals of

feminist men positively influenced participants’ score on the feminist

solidarity scale and the collective action scale, while negative portrayals did

not decrease scores on either measure. Therefore, providing permission for

men to be feminists and emphasizing positive characteristics of feminist men

may transform negative beliefs about feminist men. These results underscore

the importance of having positive portrayals of feminists, how such

portrayals influence self-labeling and advocacy intentions, and why the

impact of increased media exposure about feminism may be important to

understand. Wiley et al. (2012) also posited that it may not be the presence

of negative stereotypes that impact men’s beliefs about feminism and

feminist identification, but that it instead may be largely impacted by the

absence of overall positive regard for feminist men. This may also hold true

for minority groups, as positive portrayals of minority feminists may not be

as available.

Masculinity. Ideas of masculinity and manhood are just as rigid as

notions of femininity and womanhood, and when men exhibit characteristics

that are deemed more appropriate for women they are viewed as being less

manly (Ratele, 2013). For example, men are traditionally taught that

emotional expression (e.g., crying) indicates weakness or femininity

(Wallace, 2007). Mahalik and colleagues (2003) proposed the following

traditional masculinity norms: winning, emotional control, risk-taking,

power over women, violence, dominance, playboy (i.e., being emotional

uninvolved in sexual relationships), primacy of work, self-reliance, disdain

for homosexuals, and pursuit of status. When men ascribe to traditional

masculinity, they are more likely to experience greater psychological

distress (Mahalik et al., 2003), to engage in substance abuse

(Mahalik, Lagan, & Morrison, 2006), and to exhibit hostile behavior

(Jackupcak, Tull, & Roemer, 2005). Black men who exhibit traditionally

masculine behaviors may experience poorer mental health outcomes, such as

depression and low self-esteem (Mahalik, Pierre, & Wan, 2006). Further,

Ratele (2013) purports that Black men may feel even more pressure to fulfill

societal expectations of manhood, as race may be a competing force with

gender. For example, although a Black man may be in a dominant position

as a male, they may still feel subordinate and experience oppression because

of their race; therefore, they may feel the need to overcompensate with

traditional masculinity in order to counteract feeling subordinate due to their

race. However, some research has indicated that Black men define

masculinity differently, including concepts of responsibility, maturity,

sacrifice, and accountability in their definition (Mincey et al., 2014).

Men ascribing to traditional masculinity norms has also been shown to

negatively affect their female partners. For example, women reported lower

relationship satisfaction and self-worth (Burn & Ward 2005) and higher

levels of anxiety and depression (Rochlen & Mahalik, 2004) when their

male partners embodied traditional masculinity. Further, traditionally

masculine husbands in heterosexual, dual-career households were less likely

to share childcare and housekeeping responsibilities with their wives, despite

both partners having equitable income (Mintz & Mahalik, 1996). Research

has also suggested that traditionally masculine men are more violent in

general (Courtenay, 2000), and they are more likely to engage in relationship

violence (Mahalik, Aldarondo, Gilbert-Gokhale, & Shore, 2005) and sexual

assault (Locke & Mahalik, 2005). This demonstrates the feminist

understanding that the sociopolitical context of male privilege negatively

impacts the psychological, social, economic, and political development of

both men and women (Brady-Amoon, 2011).

Intersectionality. Intersectionality acknowledges that every person

has multiple identities (e.g., race, class, gender), which create interdependent

systems of discrimination (Love, 2016). As individuals occupy different

roles, they have different access to power and resources, acting as the

oppressed in some settings and the oppressor in others (Alinia, 2015). In

other words, a Black man may be privileged in some settings due to his

gender, but in other settings his is penalized (i.e., oppressed) due to his race.

Although individuals occupy multiple identities, those who have competing

identities may sometimes feel like they have to choose one identity over the

other. For example, like Black men, Black women may feel torn between

their race and gender when issues of inequality arise. No matter what

identity they choose, they will be “taking sides against the self” (Collins,

2000). Historically, Black women have chosen to take the side of race

instead of gender, possibly realizing that Black men are also still oppressed

(Alinia, 2015). Therefore, Black women may choose to unite against the

common enemy of racial inequality, “ignoring internal injustice” (i.e.,

injustice against women) (Collins, 2000), possibly decreasing the number of

Black women who engage in activism for issues other than racism.

While the struggle of each oppressed group is related to other social

justice issues, each group’s experience is also dependent of other social

justice problems (Alinia, 2015). In other words, oppressed groups are

created and defined in relation to each other; however, inequity of power and

resource access between those groups still remains. Collins (2000) argues

that self-reflexivity, dialogue across oppressed groups, and mutual support is

needed. Collins (2000) further suggests that in order to enact political

change, groups must stop identifying people as either the oppressed or the

oppressor, and instead recognize individual and group identities. Collins’

(2000) notion of mutual support across oppressed groups also strengthens

the argument that minority status may increase the likelihood that an

individual will engage in supporting minority groups outside of their own

(Hunter & Sellers, 1998; Kelly & Breinlinger, 1995; Wiley et al., 2012).

Black feminism. The experience of Black women in America is

unique and complex due to similar experiences with racism, sexism, and

stereotyping (Love, 2016). Black feminism focuses on this unique

experience, acknowledging the intersectionality of identities like race, class,

and gender. Additionally, Black feminism highlights the relationship

between power and knowledge, while also questioning the notion of

objective knowledge (Alinia, 2015). Another tenet of Black feminist thought

is that no one group can obtain power without oppressing other groups; this

is based on the belief that each group decides which form of oppression is

most important, thereby deeming others as less important (Alinia, 2015).

Black feminists also believe that power flows among one’s privileged

identities, providing varying levels of privilege and resources depending on

the setting (Collins, 2000). Additionally, Black feminism focuses on

activism and shared history, with the shared experiences of being a Black

women in America being essential for consciousness raising and mobilizing

resistance efforts (Collins, 2000). However, Black feminism also

acknowledges that the collective identity of “Black woman” contains

internal differences due to varying positions in sexual orientation, social

class, education, age, and religion. These internal differences are important

to note, as saliency of oppression type may impact an individual’s ability to

view other forms of oppression as equally important. Further, because

traditional feminism has previously focused primarily on the issues more

salient to White women, it is important to understand why individuals who

ascribe to Black feminism may not support some feminist issues.

Additionally, if an individual is unaware of what traditional feminism is due

to a lack of education about the topic (Kelly, 2015), it is also unlikely that

they would be informed about Black feminist. Consequently, a lack of

education about Black feminism, combined with a belief that traditional

feminism is only for White women, may reduce the likelihood of African

American women identifying as feminists.

Impact of geographic region. Because data for the current study was

collected solely in the southeastern United States, it is important to

understand the potential impact of geographic region on feminist

identification and perspectives. Traditionally, individuals living in the

northern United States and individuals living in the southern United States

are thought to have different, and often opposing, views on issues like

politics and gender role expectations. Southerners are expected to be more

religious and more traditional in their views on gender roles compared to

non-southerners (Hurlbert 1989; Rice and Coates, 1995; Twenge, 1997).

Additionally, research suggests regional differences for racial attitudes and

gender-role attitudes, with white southerners exhibited more racial prejudice

than northerners (Kulinski et al., 1997). While traditional gender attitudes

are encouraged for both southern men and women, expectations for

women’s behavior are more defined and more mandated by culture than

expectations for men’s behavior (Suitor & Carter, 1999). It is also important

to note the impact of religion and political affiliation on gender role attitudes

and feminist perspectives, as the south is a predominantly conservative,

Christian region. In a study conducted by Lottes and Kuriloff (1992),

individuals who were more politically liberal were less accepting of

traditional masculinity and negative attitudes about homosexuality, more

accepting of feminist attitudes, and less traditional in attitudes about female

sexuality. Further, Morgan (1987) found that religious devoutness was a

significant predictor of traditional gender role attitudes.

Relationship between Feminism and Self-Efficacy

Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as one’s belief in their capacity

to achieve a desired outcome. An important component of social cognitive

theory, self-efficacy affects an individual’s feelings (e.g., depression,

anxiety, depression), thoughts (e.g., motivation, decision making, academic

achievement), and actions (e.g., anticipating outcome scenarios, exertion of

effort, recovery from setbacks) (Bandura, 1997). Further, one’s belief in

their self-efficacy determines the initiation of coping behaviors, the amount

of effort presented, and the amount of time someone will continue to exert

effort when they encounter obstacles (Bandura, 1997). This seems

particularly important for individuals who publically identify as feminists, as

higher self-efficacy may act as a buffer when they face adverse experiences

related to the feminist label. Additionally, because individuals with high

self-efficacy are more likely to select challenging environments, they may

already be prepared for obstacles that arise out of the declaration of their

feminist identity. Bandura (1977) also posited that self-efficacy beliefs are

derived from the following four sources: (a) performance accomplishments;

(b) vicarious experiences; (c) verbal persuasion; and (d) physiological states.

Performance accomplishments are an individual’s experiences with mastery

and are the most influential factor in determining self-efficacy (Bandura,

1977). When an individual successfully executes a task or a skill, that

success serves as evidence of his or her ability to accomplish that goal,

thereby increasing their self-efficacy. Conversely, failure will likely

decrease an individual’s selfefficacy. Vicarious experiences (i.e., modeling)

provide individuals with external examples of a target goal being obtained.

In other words, if individuals see other people succeeding at a task, they may

be more likely to believe that they can be successful at accomplishing that

same task. While this factor is not as influential as mastery experiences in

increasing self-efficacy, it may be particularly useful for individuals who

have low levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Verbal persuasion, or

social persuasion, is direct encouragement or discouragement from another

person that has the ability to impact an individual’s perceived self-efficacy.

Finally, self-efficacy can be impacted by physiological states. When an

individual experiences emotional or physical responses to a stressor, it is his

or her interpretation of those responses that can impact levels of selfefficacy

(Bandura, 1977). In other words, if a person experiences heart palpitations

and a fluttering sensation in their stomach before giving a speech, his or her

self-efficacy may be negatively impacted if he or she perceives those

responses as an indicator of unpreparedness. However, individuals with

higher self-efficacy are more likely to identify such sensations as normal

psychological responses to stress (Bandura, 1977). By adjusting any one of

these four factors, an individual is thereby impacting their selfefficacy

beliefs.

Roy, Weibust, and Miller (2007) found that women exposed to

positive portrayals of feminists not only had greater nontraditional gender

role attitudes, but also had higher performance self-esteem, which the

researchers defined as “expressing confidence about one’s ability to meet

challenges.” (p. 154). This definition of performance self-esteem is almost

identical to the definition of self-efficacy used in the current study. Adoption

of feminist beliefs has also been linked with higher body satisfaction, feeling

more attractive, and having an increased ability to cope with societal

pressures about appearance expectations (Kinsaul et al., 2014). Further,

Kinsaul et al. (2014) found that self-efficacy was a significant predictor of

such factors for college-aged women. In the same study, self-efficacy

explained more variance in beliefs about one’s body than feminism itself,

suggesting that self-efficacy is a crucial piece in understanding the mental

health of college-aged women. And while identification as a feminist may

encourage positive mental health, identifying as a feminist may not be as

important as an individual adopting feminist attitudes due to the negative

stereotypes about feminists (Eisele & Stake, 2008; Twenge & Zucker, 1999).

In other words, feminist identification may not be necessary for positive

mental health outcomes because of the heavy stigmatization of the feminist

label.

Zucker (2004) examined the effect of feminist identity on feminist

activism in college-aged women. Participants completed a feminist

identification measure, a feminist consciousness assessment, a questionnaire

inquiring about favorable conditions for adopting feminist identity (i.e,

exposure to feminism through education, personal relationships, and

personal struggles), a questionnaire about barriers to feminist identification,

two measures to assess feminist activism (i.e., Feminist Identity

Development Scale [Bargad & Hyde, 1991]), and a behavioral index created

by the researchers). Results suggested that being exposed to feminism in

various contexts influences feminist identification; in particular, participants

who identified as feminists had more exposure to feminism in the favorable

conditions categories. Further, the feminists in the study rated higher on

feminist consciousness and experiences of sexism compared to non-

feminists and egalitarians (i.e., participants who agreed with feminist ideas

but did not label themselves as feminists). Lastly, participants who identified

as feminists were more likely to engage in feminist activism, regardless of

favorable conditions or barriers to feminist identification. This finding

illuminates the link between feminism and advocacy, suggesting that

feminist identification is a better predictor of social justice participation,

even if individuals are faced adverse conditions or possible negative

consequences.

Theoretical Foundation

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory shares many common threads with multicultural

counseling theories (Crethar, Rivera, & Nash, 2008; Goodman et al., 2004)

that are currently taught in counselor education programs. Such similarities

between feminist and multicultural principles include: (a) identifying social

oppression as a contributor to mental health issues; (b) the belief that mental

health symptoms are often the result of oppressive conditions, not of

pathology; and (c) the importance of clients learning ways to cope with

oppression in their everyday lives (Goodman et al., 2004).

Another core component of feminist theory is the call for on-going

selfevaluation. Without being aware of deeply rooted, automatic biases and

stereotypes, counselors and counselor educators are unaware of how racial

dynamics and their conceptualization of treatment and pathology interfere

with their thoughts, behaviors, and reactions to clients (Helms & Cook,

1999). Similarly, awareness of one’s biases and prejudices allows counselors

and counselor educators to be aware of their inability to be value-free and to

clarify such values in a transparent manner with clients, students, or

supervisees (Enns, 1997). Because multicultural approaches are highly

valued in today’s counselor education programs, understanding feminist

theory as well seems like a logical next step for counselor educators. For

example, both feminist and multicultural approaches place a heavy emphasis

on social justice, acknowledging that “social justice work is the social

context in addition to or instead of the individual” (Goodman et al., 2004, p.

795). And while feminism has been criticized for originating from a place of

White privilege and power (Dill, 1983), evolving feminist perspectives are

more inclusive and aware of the experiences and worldviews of non-White

women (Goodman et al., 2004). Feminist theory also lends itself to this

study because of its focus on empowerment and facilitating consciousness

raising (Corey, 2009). Empowerment consists of one’s perceived personal

power, as well as one’s general sense of positive self-regard, which includes

self-esteem and self-efficacy (Kinsaul et al., 2014). Group consciousness is a

concept which consists of both group identification (e.g., feminist

selflabeling) and awareness of existing inequities, with the intention to take

action on behalf of the group (Kinsaul et al., 2014).

Social Cognitive Theory