Article

Psychology of Women Quarterly

1-18
Intersectionality in Quantitative ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Psychological Research: II. Methods DOI: 10.1177/0361684316647953
pwq.sagepub.com
and Techniques

Nicole M. Else-Quest1 and Janet Shibley Hyde2

Abstract
Intersectional approaches, which consider how simultaneous membership in multiple social categories characterize our
experiences and are linked to power and privilege, have deep roots in feminist psychology. While an intersectional approach is
well suited to a variety of research questions and topics, its application to date has chiefly been found with qualitative methods;
when quantitative methods are used, components of the approach are used but not clearly framed as intersectional. Building
upon our previous discussion and analysis of the theoretical and epistemological issues that arise when combining inter-
sectionality and quantitative methods, this article articulates how quantitative researchers might incorporate an intersectional
approach into their work. The techniques we describe are frequently used within quantitative methods, but they are infre-
quently used within an intersectional approach. Techniques include framing social categories (e.g., gender and ethnicity) as
person variables or as stimulus variables, using a between-groups design to examine multiple locations at an intersection,
stratified random sampling and purposive sampling, and examining how measures demonstrate conceptual equivalence and
measurement invariance across groups. We also focus on data-analytic methods, which include examination of multiple main
effects and interactions, moderators in meta-analysis, multilevel modeling, moderated mediation, and person-centered
methods. These methods are insufficient without also including intersectional interpretations and framing with attention to
inequalities and power relations.

Keywords
quantitative methods, intersectionality, human sex differences, racial and ethnic differences, feminist methods, power

In ‘‘Intersectionality in Quantitative Psychological Research:
I. Theoretical and Epistemological Issues’’ (Else-Quest &
Hyde, 2016), we issued a call for researchers using quantita-
tive methods to incorporate an intersectional approach into
their empirical research. Intersectional approaches, which
consider simultaneous membership in multiple social cate-
gories and how power and inequality construct and reproduce
those categories, grew out of critical race theory and Black
feminism. May (2015) described intersectional approaches as
involving ‘‘matrix’’ thinking, rather than single-axis thinking,
and as open-ended, dynamic, and ‘‘biased toward realizing
collective justice’’ (p. 251). The main objectives of intersec-
tional approaches have been to analyze how multiple social
categories intersect and are constructed by and within power
relations and to empower individuals and groups to transcend
the constraints imposed upon them by those categories and
linked inequities. Many applications of intersectionality
using qualitative methods exist (e.g., Bowleg, Teti, Male-
branche, & Tschann, 2013; Calasanti, Pietilä, Ojala, & King,
2013; Diamond & Butterworth, 2008; Hurtado & Sinha,
2008; Settles, 2006; Tolhurst et al., 2012), yet few applica-
tions in quantitative methods exist, and those that do are
typically not framed as intersectional or are only weakly
intersectional (Bowleg, 2008). We echo calls for the incor-
poration of an intersectional approach within psychology
(e.g., Cole, 2009; Goff & Kahn, 2013) and maintain that an
intersectional approach is possible—indeed, necessary—
within the framework of existing quantitative methods (cf.
Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). That is, the use of intersectional
approaches in quantitative research across all areas of psy-
chology will serve to develop the concept of intersectionality
as much as it will enrich the discipline of psychological
science.
1
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
Baltimore, MD, USA
2
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison,
WI, USA
Corresponding Author:
Nicole M. Else-Quest, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland,
Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, Baltimore County, MD
21250, USA.
Email: nmeq@umbc.edu

Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016

2 Psychology of Women Quarterly
Our primary goal in this article is to describe a set of
research methods that can be systematically used, so that
psychologists conducting quantitative and mixed-methods
research can use an intersectional approach in a rigorous
manner consistent with theory. In building upon our discus-
sion and analysis of the theoretical and epistemological issues
regarding intersectionality in quantitative psychological
research (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016), we maintain that a
synergy can be achieved and the generative potential of inter-
sectionality will be realized when quantitative researchers
join qualitative researchers and rigorously adopt intersec-
tional approaches. Moreover, although quantitative methods
are increasingly being used in intersectionality research (e.g.,
Bowleg et al., 2016; Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Greenwood,
2008; Harackiewicz, Canning, Tibbetts, Priniski, & Hyde,
2015; Seaton, Caldwell, Sellers, & Jackson, 2010), the
strength or integrity of an author’s intersectional approach
varies. Scholars seeking to incorporate intersectional
approaches with quantitative methods in psychology will
benefit from guidelines that consider how the experience and
meaning of social categories are fostered, buttressed, and
perpetuated by social inequalities. In this article, we offer
such guidelines, for both researchers and consumers of
research.
In the first article of this two-part series (Else-Quest &
Hyde, 2016), we synthesized many definitions of intersec-
tionality and arrived at three common assumptions that form
our working definition of intersectionality and also undergird
this article. These assumptions include (1) a recognition that
all individuals are characterized simultaneously by multiple
social categories, including, for example, gender, race and
ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation; these multiple social
categories are interconnected or intertwined, such that the
experience of each social category is linked to the other cate-
gories. (2) Embedded within each of these socially con-
structed categories is an aspect of inequality or power, and
recognition of inequality or power is essential to an inter-
sectional analysis. (3) These categories are properties of the
individual, such as identities, as well as characteristics of the
social context inhabited by those individuals (i.e., social
structures, institutions, and interpersonal interactions con-
struct the categories and enforce the power inequalities);
both types of categories and their significance may be fluid
and dynamic.
In our first article, we proposed that there are three essen-
tial elements of intersectional research. Intersectional
research (1) attends to the experience and meaning of belong-
ing to multiple social categories simultaneously, (2) includes
an examination of power and inequality, and (3) attends to
social categories as properties of the individual as well as the
social context and considers those categories and their sig-
nificance or salience as potentially fluid and dynamic (Else-
Quest & Hyde, 2016).
In order to illustrate methods that can be appropriate for an
intersectional approach, we describe in this article a few
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
Table 1. Components of the Research Process Where
Intersectionality Can Be Applied With Multiple Possible Methods.
Component 1: Theory
Method A. Categories are framed as person variables
Method B. Categories are framed as stimulus variables
Component 2: Design
Method A. Within-group focus
Method B. Between-group comparisons
Component 3: Sampling techniques
Method A. Stratified random sampling
Method B. Purposive sampling
Component 4: Measurement
Method A. Conceptual equivalence
Method B. Measurement invariance
Method C. Intersectional measurement
Component 5: Data analytic strategies
Method A. Multiple main effects
Method B. Statistical interactions
Method C. Moderators in meta-analysis
Method D. Multilevel modeling
Method E. Moderated mediation
Method F. Person-centered methods
Component 6: Interpretation and framing
Method A. Attention to power and inequality
studies that attend to simultaneous membership in multiple
social categories, which are understood as properties of both
the individual and the social context. These studies address
power and inequality to varying degrees, yet some do not
explicitly invoke or claim intersectionality. That is, the stud-
ies we describe here do not uniformly include all three of the
essential elements identified in our first article and described
above; nonetheless, some components of those studies are
consistent with an intersectional approach and thus serve as
examples.
How can an intersectional approach be applied within the
framework of traditional quantitative methods in psychol-
ogy? In the discussion that follows, we identify and describe
six broad components of the psychological research process,
in which multiple methods may be used to implement inter-
sectionality. These components and methods, which are sum-
marized in Table 1, are not novel to psychology, but they are
seldom used within an explicitly intersectional approach. We
understand these methods as comprising what Cho, Cren-
shaw, and McCall (2013) described as both a centrifugal
process, in which intersectionality is adapted by a discipline
and the traditional methods within the discipline, and a cen-
tripetal process, in which a discipline and its methods adapt to
intersectionality. Both processes are crucial for the develop-
ment of intersectionality (Cho, Crenshaw, & McCall, 2013).
Moreover, our description of methods is not exhaustive; it is
likely that other methods or techniques in quantitative and
mixed methods could be used with an intersectional
approach. Consistent with the centripetal process, we encour-
age researchers to think critically and creatively about avail-
able methods, to build upon those we describe, and to adapt
Else-Quest and Hyde
others to intersectional approaches. Although it is not
expected that all methods will be employed in a single study,
we recommend that researchers apply as many as appropriate
to their research questions and resources, with the proviso
that intersectional research always must attend to the power
and inequality tied to the experience of multiple social cate-
gories. That is, an intersectional interpretation of data is
essential to empirical research using an intersectional
approach.
We caution against understanding our description of meth-
ods in this article as a ‘‘cookbook’’ for intersectionality and
recommend that readers also consider the discussion of the-
oretical and epistemological issues in our companion article
(Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). In providing some guidance on
the quantitative implementation of intersectional approaches,
we are hopeful that researchers will go beyond a specific
method to incorporate the complexity and depth of intersec-
tionality as a critical theory and approach. In addition, given
that research and policy enacted in the name of intersection-
ality have, in some cases, served to remarginalize some
groups (May, 2015), we caution researchers that the methods
described here could inadvertently be used in ways that
undermine intersectional goals.
Several terms that are used in this article have specific
meanings here, and within the intersectionality literature.
Consistent with McCall (2005) and other intersectionality
scholars (e.g., Cho et al., 2013; Cole, 2009; L. R. Warner,
2008), we use the term ‘‘social category’’ to refer to the
socially constructed variables of gender, race, class, sexual
orientation, and so on. We acknowledge that the term ‘‘cate-
gory’’ implies, particularly for quantitative researchers, a
categorical variable. However, the use of category is not
intended in the statistical sense (i.e., as in categorical vari-
able), but rather in the general sense of a division of people.
We then use the term ‘‘group’’ for groups within a social
category such as women, men, African American persons,
Asian American persons, and so on. The constructs of both
categories and groups might be construed as either continu-
ous or categorical (in the statistical sense). For example, some
scholars maintain that social categories such as gender or
sexual orientation are more appropriately construed as con-
tinuous variables (e.g., McCall, 2005; Savin-Williams, 2014;
L. R. Warner, 2008). The term group also emphasizes that a
social category such as gender can have more than two man-
ifestations (e.g., boy/men and girls/women) and may include
a range of other possibilities, such as a third gender, trans-
gender, and genderqueer. When describing groups of individ-
uals belonging to multiple intersecting categories (e.g., Black
women, gay men), we refer to different ‘‘locations’’ of an
intersection. Therefore, the locations of the intersection of
gender and ethnicity include Black women, White women,
Asian American men, and so on. Intersectionality authors
have been inconsistent with their use of terminology, in part
because of differences in disciplines, research methods, and
epistemologies. We have sought plain, accessible language
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
3
with our adoption of the terms category, group, and location,
but acknowledge that other scholars may prefer different
terms.
Component 1: Theory
The first research component in which intersectionality can
be applied to quantitative methods also applies to qualitative
methods and mixed methods; it is centered on the role of
theory in guiding research. Theory shapes the research ques-
tions that are asked or are not asked; questions that ignore
how the experience or perception of multiple social cate-
gories simultaneously affect psychological phenomena are
not intersectional. While an intersectional approach can be
compatible with other theories, intersectionality is best
understood not as either a grand or a falsifiable theory but
as a critical theory, which assumes that power relations con-
struct our thoughts and experiences. A primary objective of
critical theory is the empowerment of individuals and groups
to transcend the constraints imposed by those power relations
(Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). As a critical theory, intersection-
ality focuses on inequities tied to simultaneous membership
in multiple social categories and on giving voice to those who
are at multiply-marginalized intersectional locations. Thus,
we caution against understanding intersectionality as a falsi-
fiable theory that can be tested; we emphasize the generative
potential of intersectionality as a critical theory and an ana-
lytic approach, and we note that researchers may apply an
intersectional approach to more traditional theories in
psychology.
To implement intersectionality at the theory stage of
research, Cole (2009) proposed that psychologists ask three
questions. The first question, ‘‘Who is included within this
category?’’ refers broadly to the concern about within-group
heterogeneity and the interdependence of social categories.
The second question, ‘‘What role does inequality play?’’
stresses the importance of examining social categories as
structural variables embedded in cultural and historical con-
texts. The third question, ‘‘Where are the similarities?’’ main-
tains that researchers should look for commonalities as well
as differences across social categories, groups, and locations.
Insofar as an intersectional approach reframes or recon-
ceptualizes psychological phenomena, intersectional
researchers will likely ask new or different questions from
those asked with traditional approaches. For example, Bron-
dolo and colleagues (2009) hypothesized that variations in
the experience of racism at different locations of the inter-
section of ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) might
contribute to health disparities. They found similarities as
well as differences across intersectional locations and eluci-
dated how power and inequality are tied to the social cate-
gories of ethnicity and SES. The researchers found that Black
and Latino persons at all levels of SES reported experiencing
racism, but that the types of racism differed. That is, at lower
levels of SES, there was greater lifetime exposure to
4 Psychology of Women Quarterly
stigmatization and harassment, but at higher levels of SES,
there was greater workplace discrimination. Thus, their inter-
sectional research question extended the understanding of
how inequalities linked to ethnicity and SES can simultane-
ously shape one’s experience of discrimination and, in turn,
foster health disparities.
Given that questions regarding social class are often inter-
twined with questions about race or ethnicity, intersectional
research questions are fundamental to the study of social class
(Lott & Bullock, 2007). For example, Downing, LaVeist, and
Bullock (2007) examined reproductive medical advice
reported by an ethnically diverse sample of low-income and
middle-class women; they found that low-income women of
color, compared with middle-class White women, were more
likely to be discouraged from having children. Demonstrating
the importance of an intersectional approach that considers
both ethnicity and SES, low-income White women and
middle-class women of color did not differ from middle-
class White women in their reports of being discouraged from
further childbearing.
Method A: Categories are framed as person variables. Social
categories—such as gender, race or ethnicity, sexual orienta-
tion, and so on—can be framed by two broad theoretical
approaches emphasizing either the experience or perception
of social categories. In Method 1.A, social categories are
framed as person variables, and in Method 1.B, social cate-
gories are framed as stimulus variables (see Table 1). Many
researchers studying social categories have adopted the
approach of Method 1.A and have framed categories as per-
son variables. For example, Woods, Buchanan, and Settles
(2009) surveyed Black women about their experience of
cross-racial and intraracial sexual harassment. Woods and
colleagues found that, compared to intraracial harassment
(i.e., sexual harassment of Black women perpetrated by Black
men), cross-racial harassment (i.e., sexual harassment of
Black women perpetrated by White men) was appraised more
negatively and, in turn, led to greater experience of posttrau-
matic stress symptoms. Cross-racial harassment was also
more likely to be perpetrated by an individual with greater
organizational authority (e.g., a work supervisor) and more
likely to include racialized sexual harassment (i.e., harassment
that combines race and gender, such as commenting on a
woman’s ‘‘large Black behind’’). This study applied an inter-
sectional approach in that it focused on the simultaneous expe-
rience of multiple categories and considers power and
inequality in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, and organiza-
tional status, contextualizing the experiences of Black women.
Method B: Categories are framed as stimulus variables.
Method 1.B represents an extension of Deaux’s (1984)
important feminist argument, based on social psychology,
that gender should be considered not as a person variable
(i.e., as a characteristic of the individual), but as a stimulus
variable that affects how others respond to the person. This
technique is also related to sociologists West and
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
Zimmerman’s (1987) important concept of ‘‘doing gender,’’
by which they meant that gender is not a property of the
individual but instead is constructed constantly by interac-
tions between individuals. Thus, by framing social categories
as stimulus variables, categories such as gender, race, and
class can be studied from the perspective of perceivers. With
this method, the focus is less on the participants in the
research than on the stimulus materials. To study the inter-
section of gender and race with this approach, stimulus mate-
rials might involve photos or videos of people in multiple
combinations of gender and race/ethnicity.
An example of this approach is a series of experiments by
Johnson, Freeman, and Pauker (2012) on the interdependence
of social categories. Using face-morphing software, the
researchers generated a series of faces that were gender neu-
tral and varied continuously in apparent race, from Black to
White to Asian. Participants judged whether the face was
‘‘male’’ or ‘‘female.’’ The percentage of faces judged female
was lowest for Black faces, intermediate for White faces, and
highest for Asian faces. That is, race biased the judgment of
gender. In a second experiment, both male and female faces
were used, each morphing from Black to White to Asian.
Participants again categorized each face as male or female.
Response latencies showed a significant Race  Gender
interaction; with female faces, response latencies decreased
from Black to Asian faces, whereas for male categorizations,
latencies increased from Black to Asian faces. The authors
concluded that race is gendered, with Black faces associated
more with male and Asian faces associated more with female.
Thus, Johnson and colleagues demonstrated that race and
gender are interdependent, such that the meaning and effects
of one social category depended upon the other. In other
words, their findings reinforced the importance of consider-
ing race and gender simultaneously as stimulus variables, and
understanding social categories and groups as potentially
fluid and mutually constituted. Johnson and colleagues linked
their findings to power and inequality. They explicitly used
intersectionality to explain the processes of social evaluation
and group discrimination based on membership in multiple
social identities.
An extension of this approach is found in the intersectional
invisibility hypothesis (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008),
which maintains that individuals who belong to multiple
groups that are disadvantaged or subordinate are socially
invisible because they are not prototypical of any of those
groups. Similarly, Sesko and Biernat (2010) examined the
intersectional invisibility of Black women within the nonpro-
totypicality hypothesis, maintaining that Black women are
perceived as not being prototypical of either Black persons
or women and, thus, are marginalized and made invisible.
They conducted two studies in which they assessed the accu-
racy of participants’ memories of Black women’s faces in
photographs and oral contributions to a recorded group dis-
cussion. Consistent with their theorizing, findings indicated
that Black women’s faces were less readily distinguished
Else-Quest and Hyde
from one another and that Black women’s contributions to a
group discussion were more readily misattributed, relative to
White women, Black men, and White men. E. L. Thomas,
Dovidio, and West (2014) also have built upon this line of
research to examine the cognitive components, whereby
androcentrism and Anglocentrism shape social perception
and categorization processes. Insofar as being marginalized
or made invisible is a process whereby inequalities are rein-
forced and perpetuated, in this case by categories of gender
and ethnicity, these studies contribute to an emerging litera-
ture of explicitly intersectional theoretical frameworks about
person perception. Both of these studies used quantitative
methods.
In discussing the challenges of combining quantitative
methods with an intersectional approach, Bauer (2014) dis-
tinguished the study of intersecting identities and positions of
power in the social context from that of processes and poli-
cies related to oppression and privilege. Each of these aspects
of intersectionality—identities and social positions or pro-
cesses and policies—is potentially compatible with the strat-
egy of framing categories as person variables and/or as
stimulus variables. For example, a study of identity develop-
ment may frame categories such as gender and sexual orien-
tation as person variables, while focusing on the process of
exploring and committing to an identity.
Intersectional approaches with other theoretical perspectives.
Researchers may invoke intersectionality as the theoretical
framework for their research, and explicitly ask the research
questions proposed by Cole (2009), or they may work from
other theories consistent with elements of intersectionality
(Syed, 2010). That is, an intersectional approach may be used
with some traditional, testable theories in psychology. For
example, theories that are attentive to power and inequality,
such as social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999),
the double-jeopardy hypothesis (e.g., Beale, 1970), and the
minority stress model (Meyer, 2003), may be compatible
with an intersectional approach. Other theories of constructs
that confer power, such as stigma, stereotypes, and discrim-
ination, or emphasize multiple or shifting identities, such as
social identity complexity (see Bodenhausen, 2010 for a
review; Roccas & Brewer, 2002), may also be appropriately
studied with an intersectional approach.
For example, D. F. Warner and Brown (2011) examined
variations in life-course capital—including SES in childhood
and adulthood, employment, nativity, marital status, and edu-
cational attainment, each of which can confer privilege or
power—within a large sample of White, Black, and Mexican
American men and women. Warner and Brown applied an
intersectional approach to life-course theory (Elder, Johnson,
& Crosnoe, 2003) and analyzed the extent to which differ-
ences in life-course capital accounted for group disparities in
participants’ initial health status and rates of age-related
change. They drew from the literature on gender- and
ethnicity-based health disparities in older adults, which
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
5
generally finds that people of color have poorer health than
White persons and that, while men have higher mortality
risks, women experience higher rates of functional impair-
ment and nonfatal chronic health problems (D. F. Warner &
Brown, 2011). Acknowledging gender and race/ethnicity as
mutually defining, they hypothesized that such group health
disparities are interdependent and rooted in the power and
inequality indexed by life-course capital, such that different
intersectional locations provide varying degrees of access to
health-promoting resources and exposure to health risks.
Broadly, they found that White women and Black and Mex-
ican American men and women displayed worse age trajec-
tories in functional limitations than White men. Findings
highlighted the value of their intersectional approach, such
that variations in life-course capital substantially explained
ethnic–gender disparities in functional limitations and dis-
ability. While health disparities remained generally stable
with age, Black women displayed a pattern of accelerated
disablement over time; that is, Black women became dis-
abled at a faster rate than other groups. D. F. Warner and
Brown (2011) proposed that the unique location of the eth-
nicity–gender intersection occupied by Black women is
often characterized by the experiences of sexism and
racism, earlier and greater caregiving responsibilities, and
the stress associated with these experiences, which may
contribute to Black women’s accelerated disablement. In
emphasizing the role of power and inequality tied to simul-
taneous membership in the social categories of ethnicity and
gender, the intersectional approach of Warner and Brown
goes beyond a singular analysis of ethnicity or gender and
examines intersectional effects.
Component 2: Design
Some intersectional studies use a within-group design, for
example, studying Black men only, whereas other intersec-
tional studies use a between-groups design, such as a 2 (Gen-
der)  2 (Race/Ethnicity: Black and Latina/o) design. Many
studies applying intersectionality with qualitative methods
have used a within-group focus, in which one location at an
intersection is examined. For example, in mixed-methods
research examining social–structural inequalities stemming
from the intersecting categories of SES, race, and gender,
Bowleg, Teti, Malebranche, and Tschann (2013) interviewed
a sample of low-income heterosexual Black men. Bowleg and
colleagues identified themes demonstrating how the men’s
personal experiences reflected social–structural inequalities,
including the experience of racial discrimination and micro-
aggressions, unemployment, incarceration, and police sur-
veillance and harassment.
Method A: Within-group focus. Within-group designs also
can be used with quantitative methods; a study applying the
Method 2.A within-group focus allows for an intersectional
approach to a phenomenon by specifying a particular
6 Psychology of Women Quarterly
intersectional location, in lieu of examining differences
across multiple locations. This model was employed by
Bogart et al. (2011) in their research on perceived discrimi-
nation among HIVþ Black men who have sex with men
(MSM). By specifying a priori that the experience of discrim-
ination varied at the intersection of gender, race, and sexual
orientation (insofar as participants reported same-gender sex-
ual contact) among HIVþ individuals, Bogart and colleagues
targeted a uniquely disadvantaged and stigmatized location of
the intersection—that which was occupied by HIVþ Black
MSM. They found that discrimination based on HIV status,
race, and sexual orientation were each linked to depressive
and PTSD symptoms but also that the experience of these
three forms of discrimination interacted in predicting depres-
sion symptoms; the combination of these three stigmas
resulted in more depressive symptoms. Moreover, the expe-
rience of racial discrimination was less corrosive when not
accompanied by discrimination on the basis of HIV status or
sexual orientation, perhaps reflecting the potential for self-
protecting properties of stigma (e.g., Crocker & Major,
1989). Although Bogart and colleagues (2011) did not expli-
citly characterize their research as intersectional, they dis-
cussed the importance of investigating multiple sources of
stigma in this line of research on discrimination and mental
health. Their emphasis on the simultaneous contributions of
experiencing discrimination, based on multiply stigmatized
groups, demonstrates an intersectional approach using a
within-group focus.
A within-group focus is valuable in that it can provide rich
understanding about a specific location at an intersection,
offer new insights about psychological phenomena, lead to
new research questions, and contribute to theory develop-
ment. That is, this inductive approach can be used to generate
in-depth knowledge of the locations at an intersection that
could later be examined with between-group comparisons.
Nonetheless, despite the depth of focus on experience at a
specific location of the intersection, within-group designs are
less informative to our understanding of intersecting cate-
gories because of the exclusion of other relevant locations.
Such a design assumes, but cannot test via group compari-
sons, that simultaneous membership in multiple social cate-
gories shapes our experiences. That is, a study of HIVþ
Black MSM can offer rich and detailed descriptions of those
men’s experiences and the meaning they derive from their
experiences, but the study’s inferences are limited to our
understanding of HIVþ Black MSM. In other words, such
a design cannot describe the unique contributions of HIV
serostatus, race/ethnicity, or sexual orientation as categories
across the multiple locations at the intersection. This tension
reflects a classic issue in empirical research: that of external
validity and generalizability.
Consideration of the limitations of a within-group focus
leads to the question of whether single-gender research—or
single-race, single-class, or single-sexual orientation—repre-
sents an optimal strategy. The reasons for questioning single-
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
gender research go beyond the concern for equity, although
equity is a legitimate concern (Cole, 2009). It is equally
important that homogeneous samples risk the error of over-
generalization and that, in doing so, other intersectional loca-
tions are ignored, contributing to errors in scientific
inference. The metaphor of the inclusion of multiple voices
illustrates how a multiple-groups approach to sampling can
avoid marginalizing typically underrepresented groups.
When samples incorporate multiple categories and multiple
groups, findings are contextualized, external validity is
strengthened, and the implications of the findings are made
clearer. While a within-group focus is valuable, and compara-
tive analyses are not always ideal or appropriate, researchers
should be mindful when they opt to exclude potentially rel-
evant groups from any study and acknowledge exclusions as
limitations.
Researchers may also frame research questions about
social categories as intersectional when experiences and iden-
tities involve simultaneous inclusion in multiple groups
within one category. Being biracial or multiracial could be
examined this way. That is, inclusion in multiple groups
within one category (e.g., being biracial, having an identity
both as Black and as Latino) is distinct from many other
intersectional locations or multiply-categorized identities
(e.g., being a Black woman) in that such groups are often
popularly perceived as mutually exclusive. A biracial indi-
vidual with both African American and Latino parentage may
identify as either Black or Latino, as both Black and Latino,
or as neither Black nor Latino; in addition, their identification
may vary with time and context. The experiences of individ-
uals who identify as belonging to multiple groups within one
category, such as multiracial individuals, are an emerging
area of research (Charmaraman, Woo, Quach, & Erkut,
2014). Intersectional approaches may also question the
boundaries and fluidity of those categories as social
constructions.
Method B: Between-group comparisons. If a researcher aims
to examine how discrimination based on gender and sexual
orientation shapes risk for psychological disorders, a compre-
hensive analysis might entail comparisons among multiple
intersectional locations. In this case, Method 2.B, which
involves between-group comparisons, offers an intersectional
approach with a traditional quantitative research design. For
example, Shaw, Chan, and McMahon (2012) analyzed formal
allegations of workplace harassment by ethnicity, gender,
age, and disability. They compared 34 subgroups of partici-
pants (i.e., locations at the intersection), characterized by
different combinations of groups (e.g., African American
young men with behavioral disorders), on rates of workplace
harassment; their analytic technique allowed the researchers
to examine intersectional effects, or effects at specific inter-
sectional locations. Hispanic or American Indian women over
the age of 35 with behavioral disorders had the highest work-
place harassment allegation rates, whereas European
Else-Quest and Hyde
American young adults (men and women) with physical
impairments demonstrated the lowest workplace harassment
allegation rates. This study exemplifies a between-groups
intersectional design in that it examined differences among
locations at the intersection of ethnicity, gender, age, and
disability. This technique allowed Shaw and colleagues to
delineate patterns in harassment allegation rates among sub-
groups; people of color with behavioral disorders, for exam-
ple, tended to have the highest rates. Note that these data
could also be analyzed as a factorial design, with categories
as the factors, which would be used to identify additive and
multiplicative effects.
For some intersectional questions, it may also be appro-
priate to combine the within- and between-group designs,
such that variations within one category (e.g., ethnicity) are
examined within one group (e.g., lesbian women). With such
an approach, researchers might examine similarities or varia-
tions in the experience of being lesbian among women of
different ethnicities. An example of a combination of within-
and between-group techniques that is explicitly intersectional
was described by Grabe, Grose, and Dutt (2015) who used
mixed methods to conduct an intersectional analysis of power
linked to land ownership among women. Land ownership, an
economic and social category, was linked to structural as well
as relationship power, such that land ownership shaped the
experience of gender and gendered forms of violence. Struc-
tural equation models indicated that, within samples of rural
women in Nicaragua and Tanzania, those who owned land
had greater interpersonal power within their intimate relation-
ships and, in turn, experienced less partner violence. In other
words, the experience of gendered patterns of violence was
shaped by the socioeconomic variable of land ownership.
Results from qualitative thematic analyses indicated that
women empowered by their land ownership had reduced
their dependency on husbands. In combining the within-
and between-group techniques, explicitly designing the
study and interpreting the results with an intersectional
lens, and analyzing interpersonal and economic power and
inequality based on the categories of gender and land
ownership, Grabe et al. (2015) demonstrated how both
quantitative and qualitative methods can be used as part
of an intersectional approach.
Component 3: Sampling Techniques
At its most basic level, intersectionality requires that partici-
pants at different locations of an intersection, particularly
participants from multiply marginalized groups, be included
in research so that their voices are heard (e.g., Choo & Ferree,
2010; Tolhurst et al., 2012). Component 3, therefore, focuses
on sampling, including, and recognizing multiple categories
in samples. Of course, an intersectional approach involves
more than demographically inclusive sampling (May,
2015). An intersectional approach to sampling might take one
of two forms: Method 3.A, stratified random sampling, is
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
7
appropriate for between-group comparisons, and Method
3.B, purposive sampling, is potentially compatible with either
a between- or within-groups focus. These techniques are, of
course, not unique to intersectional approaches; we describe
them here to make explicit how existing techniques can be
compatible with intersectionality.
Random sampling is often held up as the gold standard of
sampling in empirical research using quantitative methods
because random samples have the potential to be representative
of a broader population. While random sampling is a major
improvement over convenience samples of White, middle-
class college students, it may lead to problems with statistical
power for analyses of low-frequency groups with a between-
groups design, unless resources are available to recruit very
large samples. For example, American Indian persons consti-
tute just 0.9% of the U.S. population and Asian American per-
sons are 5% of the U.S. population (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez,
2011). If a random sample of 500 persons is identified, only 25
Asian American persons would be included, perhaps 13 Asian
American women and 12 Asian American men. That is too few
for their diverse voices to be heard or for statistical analyses to
be reliable. Similarly, the random sampling strategy is likely to
result in vastly unequal sample sizes across cells of the design,
which risks violating the assumption of homoscedasticity with
some statistical techniques. Moreover, it might serve to remar-
ginalize low-frequency groups.
In some cases, random sampling might be effective for a
within-groups design. For example, to recruit a national sample
of immigrant Latinas, Zadnik, Sabina, and Cuevas (2016) used
random digit dialing within high-density Latino areas in the
United States, such as census tracts in Florida, Texas, and Cali-
fornia, and screened participants for identifying as Latina
women. They then compared the women on rates of interperso-
nal victimization and formal and informal help-seeking beha-
viors, based on legal status (i.e., having permanent legal status
or undocumented status). Although this strategy yielded diver-
sity with regard to legal status, it was not diverse with regard to
country of origin; 93.4% of the sample emigrated from Mexico.
Studies with small subsamples of certain groups have the
potential to commit the ‘‘lumping error,’’ in which samples of
heterogeneous groups are treated as homogeneous, in part
because they are too small to be divided into appropriate
subgroups. For example, Asian American persons of dis-
tinctly different heritages and cultures (e.g., Japanese, Chi-
nese, Indian, Sri Lankan) are often grouped and treated as
homogeneous. Attention to subcultural variations and within-
group heterogeneity is an important concern of intersection-
ality; ignoring such heterogeneity potentially remarginalizes
certain subgroups. Similarly, low-frequency groups are
sometimes lumped together as a minority group and then
compared to the majority group, which can position the
majority group as the normative or reference group and
remarginalize the minority group; for example, non-White
participants may be lumped and compared to White partici-
pants. Although some degree of lumping will occur,
8 Psychology of Women Quarterly

researchers must be mindful of it and cautious to ensure that intersectional location. For example, in a study examining
meaningful variations are not systematically ignored. transgender-related stigma and health risk behaviors among
transgender women, Operario, Yang, Reisner, Iwamoto, and
Method A: Stratified random sampling. By contrast, with
Nemoto (2014) used purposive sampling to recruit 191 eth-
stratified random sampling (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell,
nically diverse transgender women living in the San Fran-
2002; also sometimes referred to as quota sampling), the
cisco Bay area, who had a male primary partner for at least
researcher first decides on the groups that will be considered
3 months. In this case, random and stratified random sam-
in the research and then samples to ensure that equal numbers
pling would have been inappropriate techniques, because
of individuals in each group are included, which is particu-
very large samples would have to be recruited to obtain a
larly crucial for low-frequency groups. In the example of race
target sample large enough for most statistical analyses. In
or ethnicity, the statistical concerns stemming from the lim-
contrast, purposive sampling strategies helped to focus
itations of random sampling with low-frequency groups may
recruitment efforts on obtaining a target sample from the
be dealt with better by stratified random sampling.
intersectional location of interest. Strategies included recruit-
In a study of academic attitudes and achievement in ado-
ing participants from spaces where transgender women con-
lescents, Else-Quest, Mineo, and Higgins (2013) used strati-
gregated, such as community-based organizations, beauty
fied random sampling to recruit adolescent boys and girls,
salons, nightclubs, and so on. Snowball sampling (a purpo-
similarly distributed across four ethnic groups (African
sive sampling strategy) was also used; participants were
American, Asian American, Latina/o, and White), from pub-
asked to refer eligible peers to the study. Drawing from
lic high schools in Philadelphia. With nearly equal numbers
Meyer’s (2003) minority stress model to examine how
of boys and girls in each ethnic group, the sample represented
transgender-related stigma might increase specific health risk
the four major ethnic groups of the community and allowed
behaviors among transgender women, Operario et al. (2014)
the voices of eight locations at the intersection of gender and
used purposive sampling to implement a within-group study
ethnicity to be heard equally. Incorporating these locations
of transgender women and found that stigma predicted unpro-
was a specific aim of the study, as it sought to build upon the
tected anal intercourse and illicit drug use.
existing research that examined gender differences and simi-
Regardless of which sampling technique is used, effective
larities in predominantly White samples. Moreover, the use
sample recruitment is key to sampling marginalized and/or
of stratified random sampling allowed for reliable between-
minority groups. In light of stigmatization and prejudice, it
group comparisons with roughly equal sample sizes in each
may be challenging to identify and recruit members of those
cell of the design.
groups. Accurate or adequate conceptualization or definition
To reliably compare groups from multiple intersectional
of the group to be sampled is a fundamental step in that
locations with sufficient statistical power to detect significant
process (Shadish et al., 2002; Williams & Fredrick, 2015).
small-to-medium effect sizes requires a substantial amount of
Innovative recruitment strategies, including those described
resources. Thus, to the extent that intersectional analysis of
by Williams and Fredrick (2015), may be necessary.
multiple categories and groups is facilitated by stratified ran-
dom sampling techniques, the tension between statistical
power and intersectional representation must be recognized. Component 4: Measurement
This challenge is best resolved by the investigator on a case-
There are several opportunities to advance an intersectional
by-case basis, in light of research questions, measurement
approach at the measurement stage of quantitative and
tools, data collection techniques, and data-analytic strategies,
mixed-methods research, including testing the assumptions
as well as predicted effect sizes.
of conceptual equivalence and measurement invariance, and
Method B: Purposive sampling. When researchers seek to explicitly attending to intersectionality in self-report mea-
sample from one or more specific intersectional locations, sures. While measurement is unique to quantitative methods,
Component 3.B, purposive sampling, may also be appropri- our discussion of intersectional approaches to measurement is
ate. Widely used in qualitative research, purposive sampling also informed by qualitative research. In intersectional
strategies are nonrandom or nonprobability sampling strate- approaches using qualitative methods, psychological con-
gies that specify characteristics and recruit participants pos- structs are often defined by participants (Cole, 2009). The
sessing those characteristics (Shadish et al., 2002; Teddlie & idea is that the participants, who occupy different locations
Yu, 2007). Sometimes called purposeful sampling, purposive of an intersection, have different standpoints among them-
sampling includes multiple strategies that can be used to selves that are distinct from the standpoint of the researcher;
achieve representativeness or comparability, to sample spe- the participants should inform the study and understanding of
cial or unique cases, or to sample sequentially. A thorough the psychological constructs under investigation. By exten-
description of these strategies, which can also be used in sion, the distinction between etic (i.e., framed by the
combination with one another, can be found in work by Ted- researcher’s perspective) and emic (i.e., framed by the parti-
dlie and Yu (2007). Purposive sampling can be used to cipant’s perspective) data implies that different individuals at
develop a sample that is representative or typical of a given different locations of an intersection may have different

Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016

Else-Quest and Hyde 9

perspectives and understanding of events. Thus, the meaning technique of assessing measurement invariance (Method
and utility of measures in psychology may vary across rele- 4.B) is ripe for an intersectional approach. There are a num-
vant social categories and groups. ber of techniques and strategies for studying measurement
invariance, including the examination of internal features of
Method A: Conceptual equivalence. Testing the assumption
the measure (e.g., assessing reliability or internal consistency,
of conceptual equivalence in measures is fundamental to an
patterns of item-total correlations, factor structure, and spe-
intersectional approach in quantitative methods comparing
cific factor loadings) as well as external associations with
members of different groups. To that end, Method 4.A
other variables (e.g., assessing criterion validity and associa-
focuses on conceptual equivalence (Sue & Sue, 2000),
tions with measures of other constructs). As an example,
whether a measure is assessing the same construct across
Sulik and colleagues (2010) examined measurement invar-
different groups. As an example, demonstrating the problem
iance of behavioral observations of the temperament factor of
of simply assuming conceptual equivalence, Landrine, Klon-
effortful control in a sample of preschoolers. Using a series of
off, and Brown-Collins (1992) administered several items of
nested multigroup confirmatory factor analyses, Sulik and
the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974) to White women
colleagues assessed three types of measurement invariance:
and women of color (including Black, Latina, and Asian
configural invariance (i.e., similar factor structure across
American). Participants were asked first to rate themselves
groups), metric invariance (i.e., similar factor loadings across
on those items (e.g., ‘‘passive,’’ ‘‘independent,’’ ‘‘femi-
groups), and scalar invariance (i.e., similar intercepts across
nine’’), using a scale from 1 (never or almost never true of
groups). Measurement invariance was evaluated across three
me) to 7 (always or almost always true of me), then to specify
ethnic groups (White children, African American children,
from a list their definition of that item. Although White par-
and Latina/o children) and across gender, but not simultane-
ticipants did not differ from women of color on mean ratings
ously. A more thorough application of an intersectional
of the items, they differed significantly on the meaning
approach to this study would involve evaluating measure-
ascribed to several items. For example, on the item ‘‘pas-
ment invariance across six Gender  Ethnicity groups (i.e.,
sive,’’ White women were more likely to interpret the item
White boys, White girls, African American boys, African
as meaning, ‘‘am laid-back/easy-going’’ and women of color
American girls, Latino boys, and Latina girls) and theorizing
were more likely to interpret the item as meaning, ‘‘don’t say
how inequality linked to gender and ethnicity might shape the
what I really think.’’ Although the two groups of women rated
measurement, development, and/or expression of effortful
themselves similarly on the items, the meaning of the group
control. Corral and Landrine (2010) provide further discus-
similarities is ambiguous, because the items did not display
sion of measurement issues with diverse samples; excellent
conceptual equivalence.
reviews of statistical techniques for studying measurement
The findings of Landrine and colleagues (1992) illustrate
invariance are available elsewhere (e.g., Cheung & Rensvold,
the fragility of the assumption of conceptual equivalence in
2002; Meredith, 1993; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).
measures used in between-group comparisons. In a similar
vein, Cole and Sabik (2009) questioned the assumption of
Method C: Intersectional measurement. Intersectional mea-
conceptual equivalence in the measurement of women’s body
surement scholars can also include explicit attention to spe-
esteem among women of different ethnicities. Thus, an
cific locations at an intersection by asking participants to
important direction for quantitative intersectional
consider or reflect on their inclusion in multiple groups when
research—particularly studies involving between-group com-
responding. Focusing on intersectional measurement
parisons—is to test this assumption. That is, psychologists
(Method 4.C) with self-report measures allows participants
should make assessment of conceptual equivalence a specific
to describe the experience of belonging to multiple groups
aim of research and revise or modify measures, as appropriate
from their unique intersectional locations. For example, Bal-
to the findings.
sam, Molina, Beadnell, Simoni, and Walters (2011) devel-
Method B: Measurement invariance. Similarly, it is impor- oped the LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale, a
tant to test the assumption of measurement invariance (Mer- self-report scale of the unique types of microaggressions that
edith, 1993) in quantitative intersectional research (Corral & are experienced by LGBT people of color. Subscales, which
Landrine, 2010). Studies of between-group comparisons include racism in LGBT communities, heterosexism in racial/
assume measurement invariance, presupposing that measures ethnic minority communities, and racism in dating and close
(self-report measures as well as observational and psycho- relationships, focus on the experience of one social category
physiological measures) have similar psychometric proper- as contingent on the experience of another social category.
ties in samples from the different groups being compared. For For example, one item reads ‘‘Being seen as a sex object by
example, in comparing younger and older adults of different other LGBT people because of your race/ethnicity,’’ which
ethnic groups on mean values on a self-report measure of participants respond to by indicating whether the event hap-
ethnic identity, a researcher assumes that the measure has pened, and how much they were bothered by it. Because this
similar reliability and shares similar factor structure and fac- scale focuses on the experience of discrimination from within
tor loadings across those groups. Thus, the quantitative one’s location, thereby attending to and analyzing the power

Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016

10
and inequality linked to multiple groups, it represents an
intersectional approach to measurement.
Similarly, building from Essed’s (1991) intersectional the-
orizing about gendered racism, Lewis and Neville (2015)
developed the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale to
measure the appraisal of stress, and the frequency of gen-
dered microaggressions, including nonverbal, verbal, and
behavioral racial and gender microaggressions, experienced
by Black women. Subscales gauge assumptions of beauty and
sexual objectification, feeling silenced and marginalized,
exposure to the Strong Black Woman stereotype, and expo-
sure to the Angry Black Woman stereotype; scales capture
the experience of microaggressions characterized by gen-
dered racism against Black women. The scale is intersec-
tional because it attends to the experience of simultaneous
membership in multiple categories and includes attention to
power and inequality. Moreover, demonstrating the impor-
tance of examining both additive effects and intersectional
effects (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016), Lewis and Neville found
that scores on Gendered Racial Microaggressions Subscales
were moderately correlated with perceived sexist events
(Klonoff & Landrine, 1995), and with reported racial micro-
aggressions (Nadal, 2011). That is, they found some overlap
between the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale and the
measures of sexist events and racial microaggressions, but
they also found unique experiences captured by their measure
that were not captured by the other scales.
In addition, intersectional measures may assess individual
awareness and understanding of intersectionality, rather than
focusing on the experience of a particular intersectional loca-
tion. Greenwood’s (2008) feminist intersectional conscious-
ness and feminist singular consciousness scales measure the
degree to which a respondent’s political consciousness
reflects intersectionality and singularity, respectively. For
example, intersectional gender consciousness—that is, an
understanding that gendered discrimination is rooted in mul-
tiple interlocking systems of oppression, as theorized by
intersectionality (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016)—was measured
with items such as ‘‘Black and White women experience
sexism in different ways’’ and ‘‘Sex and race are inseparable
issues in the lives of women.’’ By contrast, singular gender
consciousness—that is, an understanding of gendered dis-
crimination as singular and solely rooted in patriarchy—was
measured with items such as ‘‘Sexism is women’s primary
oppression’’ and ‘‘Poor women experience sexism in ways
that are the same as middle-class women.’’ Explicitly derived
from intersectional theory, Greenwood’s scales quantify
intersectional consciousness. In addition, Greenwood found
that intersectional consciousness moderated the link between
organizational diversity and solidarity within a sample of
women activists working within various social change
organizations.
Additional considerations on the measurement of person
variables. Previously (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016), we discussed
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
Psychology of Women Quarterly
the implications of the fluidity and social construction of social
categories for intersectional research. We noted that the social
construction of categories can present a challenge in empiri-
cal research, insofar as we may impose a particular framework
on participants, may create logical dichotomies within social
categories, and may ignore the potentially fluid nature of those
categories. We revisit that discussion to offer some additional
considerations relevant to intersectionality measurement.
Techniques such as a between-groups comparison design
and stratified random sampling, for example, are complicated
by the social construction of social categories and groups.
That is, researchers often construct a social category such
as gender as categorical, nonfluid, and binary; grouping par-
ticipants as either ‘‘male’’ or ‘‘female’’ is problematic for the
construct validity of gender. Moreover, researchers depend
upon participants’ personally selected labels and self-
identification, which may or may not map onto the research-
ers’ framework. Assuming that participants will self-identify
as members of particular groups within social categories is
problematic because participants may not identify themselves
as belonging to any of the groups provided, for example, on a
demographics survey. The problem may be that (1) the group
with which participants identify is not presented, (2) partici-
pants identify with more than one of the groups provided, (3)
they privately identify with one of the groups but are motivated
not to disclose or publicly identify as such, or (4) they reject
that categorical framework altogether. Each of these cases
speaks to a slightly different challenge to the assumption of
accurate self-identification. One alternative is to allow partici-
pants to self-identify in their own words. When a participant
provides a response that does not fit within the researcher’s
categorical framework, it is the researcher’s responsibility to
follow up with the participant to understand if and how that
framework might accommodate the participant.
Savin-Williams (2006) described how estimates of homo-
sexuality depended on whether researchers referenced partici-
pants’ sexual identity, sexual or romantic attraction, or sexual
behavior in defining sexual orientation. These three measures of
sexual orientation are imperfectly correlated; they potentially
overidentify as well as underidentify individuals as members of
a group. While the inconsistency among these measures may
reflect measurement error, it also may reflect a conceptual
problem articulated by McCall’s (2005) anticategorical
approach (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). Thus, we encourage
researchers to consider how reliance on participants’ self-
identification might present challenges but also caution against
imposing a particular categorical framework upon participants
who may not self-identify within that framework.
Component 5: Data Analytic Strategies
Many basic as well as advanced data-analytic techniques are
available that might be applied to intersectional analyses in
quantitative or mixed-methods research. We focus here on a
few commonly used techniques that can be used in
Else-Quest and Hyde 11

straightforward ways to implement an intersectional the salience of one group or identity may be heightened or
approach, as well as some more advanced techniques that emphasized over another in some contexts (e.g., Szymanski
create additional possibilities. & Gupta, 2009). Such multiplicative effects can reflect a
buffering or moderation of a disadvantage by an advantage.
Method A: Multiple main effects. In Method 5.A, the analysis
Alternatively, membership in one disadvantaged group may
of intersectionality frames categories as having multiple main
exacerbate the effects of belonging to another disadvan-
effects, which reflects the assessment of additive effects,
taged group.
typically within an analysis of variance or multiple regression
An example of multiplicative, buffering effects described
framework. Not to be confused with additive approaches (i.e.,
earlier in this article is Bogart and colleagues’ (2011)
approaches that are not intersectional; see Else-Quest &
research on the experience of discrimination among HIVþ
Hyde, 2016), additive effects have been reported in studies
Black MSM; they demonstrated a three-way interaction
invoking intersectionality (e.g., Sandil, Robinson, Brewster,
among discrimination linked to HIV serostatus, sexual orien-
Wong, & Geiger, 2015; Szymanski & Gupta, 2009; Szy-
tation, and race. The effects of discrimination based on HIV
manski & Henrichs-Beck, 2014). Crenshaw (1991) described
serostatus and sexual orientation depended on the level of
additive or multiple main effects when she argued that some-
racial discrimination experienced by the men, such that
times Black women experience double discrimination, that is,
higher levels of racial discrimination were linked to lower
discrimination on the basis of both race and gender.
depressive symptoms, when there were low levels of discrim-
Method 5.A requires the kind of inclusive sampling
ination from HIV serostatus and sexual orientation. Yet, in
described in Component 3.A but adds a statistical component.
the context of high levels of discrimination from HIV seros-
Continuing with the example from Method 3.A with stratified
tatus and sexual orientation, the additional experience of high
random sampling that produces a 2 (Gender)  3 (Race)
levels of racial discrimination was linked to worse mental
quasiexperimental design with roughly equal numbers of par-
health outcomes.
ticipants in each cell or group, suppose that the outcome
Another empirical example demonstrating statistical inter-
variable is self-esteem; the analysis would examine main
actions is Irvine’s (1985, 1986) research on teacher feedback
effects of both gender and race. From an intersectionality
in elementary school classrooms. Irvine demonstrated that
framework, those statistical results would be interpreted as
student gender and ethnicity significantly interact to shape
indicating that both race and gender are linked to self-esteem.
the quantity and quality of feedback that Black and White
For example, Sandil, Robinson, Brewster, Wong, and Gei-
children receive. When observations of teacher feedback
ger (2015) examined how South Asian LGBQ individuals’
were examined by student ethnicity and gender separately
experience of heterosexist and racist discrimination predicts
(i.e., as main effects), results indicated that Black students
psychological distress. Results demonstrated additive effects,
received more negative teacher feedback than White students
developed from minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003) and
and that girls received less overall communication and less
feminist multicultural theory (Brown, 1994), such that both
praise than boys. That is, main effects were found for both
heterosexist and racist discrimination accounted for unique
ethnicity and gender. Yet, significant interactions of student
variance in psychological distress. Sandil and colleagues’
ethnicity and gender were also found; White girls received
study focuses on the experiences of individuals at one loca-
the least amount of feedback from teachers, and Black boys
tion of the intersection of race/ethnicity and sexual orienta-
and girls did not differ in teacher feedback. In other words,
tion, considering how power and inequality—in the form of
the effect of gender depended on race or ethnicity, and the
discrimination—linked to those categories shape personal
effect of race or ethnicity depended on gender. Identifying
experience. In reporting unique contributions of both hetero-
this pattern of differences in teacher feedback at the intersec-
sexist discrimination and racist discrimination, their results
tion of ethnicity and gender is the first step in ameliorating
demonstrate additive or multiple main effects.
educational disparities, further bolstering the case for an
Method B: Statistical interactions. Method 5.B within an intersectional approach. Consistent with Cole’s (2009) guide-
intersectional approach focuses on the statistical interactions lines for intersectional questions, Irvine (1985, 1986) identi-
between two or more categories and is one way of assessing fied commonalities among experiences at the intersection of
multiplicative effects (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). Multipli- gender and ethnicity, demonstrating gender similarities
cative effects are implied in descriptions of discrimination among Black boys and girls. Irvine’s approach echoes
against Black women as more than the sum of racism and McCall’s (2005) observation about intercategorical complex-
sexism (e.g., Crenshaw, 1991); the effects of racist discrim- ity by examining mechanisms that contribute to inequality
ination depend on gender, and the effects of sexist discrimi- linked to gender and ethnicity.
nation depend on race. Multiplicative effects may be Similarly, Kang and Chasteen’s (2009) series of experi-
produced in different ways. Categories such as race and gen- ments on emotion change detection as a function of perceived
der might exert effects such that they contradict one another race and age is an example of an intersectional approach to
or cancel each other out (Smith & Stewart, 1983). One group data analysis, and to theory in which social categories are
may afford privilege while another confers disadvantage, and framed as stimulus variables. They tested the double-

Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016

12 Psychology of Women Quarterly

jeopardy hypothesis (Beale, 1970), which predicts additive Hyde, and Linn (2010) examined the intersection of gender
effects from membership in multiple social categories that and culture in a meta-analysis of gender differences in mathe-
confer power or disadvantage. Kang and Chasteen examined matics achievement and attitudes cross-nationally. They used
how male faces categorized by race (Black or White) and by moderator analyses that linked cross-national variations in
age (young and old) shape the perception of emotional math gender gaps to societal inequality based on gender.
expressions on those faces. As the emotional expressions of They reported that the magnitude of gender differences in
computer-animated targets fluctuated between angry, happy, mathematics achievement, a negligible gender difference of
and neutral, participants reported the boundaries or distinc- d ¼ 0.01 across 46 nations, varied cross-nationally and that
tions in the expressions. Researchers reported a significant the variability was predicted by gender equity in access to
interaction between race and age, such that, for Black faces, secondary education. That is, in nations where girls had lower
the perception of anger lasted longer on young, compared to enrollments in high school than boys (relative to population
old faces; for White faces, the reverse pattern emerged. Kang shares), boys outperformed girls on math achievement tests.
and Chasteen maintained that the effects of racism and age- This example also demonstrates one way that attention to
ism were not additive, but that the hostile stereotype of Black power and inequality can be examined in quantitative inter-
men as angry and aggressive was inhibited by the benevolent sectional analyses.
stereotype of older adults as warm. Thus, their study also
Method D: Multilevel modeling. Given that some groups can
explored McCall’s (2005) theorizing about intercategorical
be nested within other groups, multilevel modeling (Snijders
complexity in that it analyzed the relationships and processes
& Bosker, 2012) could be used to test how linkages vary
that produce inequalities across groups.
among different groups within multiple levels. For example,
Cole (2009) cautioned that the inclusion of statistical
Asian American persons are often considered a group in
interactions among social categories is not sufficient for an
research, but in fact, there are multiple subgroups, including
approach to be considered intersectional; researchers must
Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, and Hmong Amer-
also consider the meaning and underlying processes of the
icans, nested within the broader group of Asian Americans. In
interactions. We agree it is important to elucidate the mean-
a study of schooling, these groups might be nested within
ing and nature of statistical interactions and the processes or
schools or within neighborhoods; such variables are also
mechanisms responsible for the interactions in any research,
groups and can be examined with an intersectional approach.
and a number of approaches can be used to that end. Still, we
In their discussion of the practice of intersectionality in
maintain that testing for statistical interactions can be a
sociology, Choo and Ferree (2010) recommended multilevel
useful method in identifying differences and similarities
analysis in both quantitative and qualitative methods. They
among multiple locations at an intersection, provided that
emphasized that multilevel analyses (e.g., in quantitative
researchers also engage in intersectional interpretations of
methods, hierarchical linear modeling) have the capacity for
power and inequality.
identifying interactions as well as specific contexts, such as
schools or neighborhoods. Thus, Method 5.D makes use of
Method C: Moderators in meta-analysis. Meta-analyses also
multilevel modeling as an intersectional data-analytic strat-
can be used in intersectionality research. Moderator anal-
egy. For example, Roy, Hughes, and Yoshikawa (2013) used
yses are used in meta-analysis to test the hypothesis that
multilevel modeling to examine the intersection of
the magnitude of an effect depends on another variable
neighborhood-level variables, including SES and ethnic den-
(Lipsey & Wilson, 2001); in other words, it tests for a
sity, with individuals’ nativity and ethnicity (i.e., being
statistical interaction. Thus, Method 5.C involves testing
island- or mainland-born Puerto Rican). Analyses indicated
for moderators in meta-analyses and is another example of
that, for island-born Puerto Ricans, living in an ethnically
multiplicative effects. As an example, Kling and col-
dense neighborhood—in this case, living in a neighborhood
leagues conducted a meta-analysis of research on gender
populated largely by other Puerto Ricans—was detrimental to
differences in self-esteem (Kling, Hyde, Showers, & Bus-
their health outcomes, only when the neighborhood was also of
well, 1999). The overall effect size, averaged over all
low SES. Alone, these neighborhood-level variables did not
ages, ethnicities, nations, and so on, was d ¼ 0.21, indi-
predict the health outcomes of the mainland-born Puerto
cating a small male advantage in self-esteem. However, a
Ricans in the study. Thus, using multilevel modeling to exam-
moderator analysis, based on U.S. studies, indicated d ¼
ine intersectionality among neighborhood-level and
0.20 for White participants but 0.04 for Black partici-
individual-level variables, Roy and colleagues demonstrated
pants. That is, the small male advantage in self-esteem
how membership in multiple social categories shapes individ-
was present for White participants but disappeared for
ual psychology within a dynamic context. The authors inter-
Black participants, demonstrating an interaction of gender
preted their findings with attention to inequities, such as access
and race, such that the male advantage in self-esteem
to resources, social support, and English proficiency.
depended, in part, on race.
Moderator analyses in meta-analysis can also employ a Method E: Moderated mediation. Moderated mediation
multiple regression framework. For example, Else-Quest, (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007), Method 5.E in Table 1,

Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016

Else-Quest and Hyde 13

models could be used. For example, latent class analysis

organizes a population into mutually exclusive and exhaus-
Race Social Class
tive classes or subgroups on the basis of behaviors or char-
acteristics (Lanza & Cooper, 2016); those latent classes
describe or explain heterogeneity among individuals within
a population. More detailed reviews of person-centered meth-
ods are available elsewhere (e.g., Lanza & Cooper, 2016;
Intervenon Engagement Course Grade McLachlan & Peel, 2000). Latent class analysis might be
used to discern commonalities across intersectional locations
by identifying classes of people with similar experiences of
Figure 1. An example of moderated mediation (Method 5.E), from disadvantage or privilege. In addition, latent transition anal-
Harackiewicz and colleagues (2015), in which the mediation of an ysis, another person-centered method, might be used with
intervention is moderated by the social categories of race and social longitudinal data to assess instability in such class
class. membership.
Garnett et al. (2014) applied an intersectional approach in
is another quantitative method that could be used for inter-
conducting latent class analysis in a sample of adolescents
sectional analysis. For example, Harackiewicz, Canning, Tib-
from the 2006 Boston Youth Survey by examining the experi-
betts, Priniski, and Hyde (2015) investigated the intersection
ences of multiple forms of discrimination and identity-based
of race and social class using a mediation model to test an
bullying. Adolescents responded to items about their experi-
intervention among college students in an upper-level intro-
ence of discrimination and bullying based on the character-
ductory biology course. Students in the intervention group
istics of race/ethnicity, immigration status, perceived sexual
wrote about the usefulness of the material in the most recent
orientation, and weight; next, models organized the sample
unit of their course; in the control group, students simply
into four classes based on the adolescents’ patterns of
summarized the course material. The intervention increased
responding to those items. One class was characterized by
students’ engagement (as measured by the length of their
low discrimination, two classes were characterized by a sin-
essays), compared with the control group. Engagement
gular form of discrimination (based on either race/ethnicity or
mediated the effect of the intervention on the outcome of
sexual orientation), and one class was characterized by high
grade for the course, and students in the intervention group
endorsement of multiple forms of discrimination (based on
earned higher grades than those in the control group. However,
race/ethnicity, immigration, and weight) with high levels of
these effects were moderated by the intersection of race and
bullying. Subsequent analyses indicated that these classes
social class; Figure 1 shows Harackiewicz et al.’s moderated
explained variability in outcomes such as suicidal ideation
mediation model, simplified for illustrative purposes. The
and depressive symptoms. For example, youth in the class
intervention was particularly effective for underrepresented
characterized by multiple forms of discrimination had the
minority students (i.e., African American, Latino, and/or
highest odds of suicidal ideation, demonstrating additive
American Indian students), and the intervention was most
effects of racial and weight-based discrimination and bully-
effective for underrepresented minority students who were
ing. Thus, rather than analyzing variability in an outcome
first generation in their families to attend college (a measure
among predetermined groups of individuals based on their
of social class), compared with those who had at least one
intersectional locations, classes were constructed on the basis
parent who had graduated from college. First generation
of the experience of discrimination and bullying, and those
underrepresented minority students in the intervention group
classes were then compared on outcomes.
showed the greatest gains in engagement and grades, com-
Person-centered methods such as latent class analysis rep-
pared with controls. Overall, as Figure 1 shows, engagement
resent an innovative quantitative method for intersectional
mediated the effect of the intervention on course grade, and
approaches insofar as they have the potential to shift focus
the mediation model was moderated by the intersection of
away from discrete social category membership and empha-
race and social class. In other words, the mediated effect of
size experiences of power and inequality that may be similar
an intervention depended upon two social categories. Note
across intersectional locations. Moreover, such techniques
that such a model could also assess multiple simultaneous
might be used by researchers adopting McCall’s (2005) antic-
moderators. Moderated mediation models hold much promise
ategorical approach.
for quantitative studies using an intersectional approach in that
researchers might explore how mediating effects or processes
vary across different intersectional locations. Component 6: Interpretation and Framing
Model F: Person-centered methods. Other more advanced In contrast to each of the other methodological compo-
statistical techniques might also be deployed with an inter- nents described here, some of which may or may not be
sectional approach. Person-centered methods such as latent used in a particular study, an intersectional interpretation
class analysis, latent profile analysis, and other finite mixture of results is a requirement for research that claims to be

Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016

14
intersectional. There is agreement across intersectionality
scholars (e.g., Cho et al., 2013; Cole, 2009; McCall, 2005)
that an intersectional approach should attend to the roles
that power and inequality play in constructing the experi-
ence of belonging to multiple social categories. Thus,
intersectional interpretations require attention to power
and inequality (Method 6.A.).
Method A: Attention to power and inequality. Analysis of
power and inequality is inherent, although not always expli-
cit, in feminist psychology (Hyde, 2012). Although there is
often a focus on identity and differences among groups and
locations in intersectionality research, a focus on identities or
groups without attention to power and inequality is inade-
quate, because groups and categories are themselves the
‘‘instruments of inequality . . . the ossified outcomes of the
dynamic intersection of multiple hierarchies, not the dynamic
that creates them’’ (MacKinnon, 2013, p. 1023). Thus, inter-
sectional interpretations must examine how power and
inequality construct the experience or meaning of member-
ship in multiple social categories.
For example, A. J. Thomas, Witherspoon, and Speight
(2004) designed and evaluated the Stereotypic Roles for
Black Women Scale, a 34-item self-report scale, to measure
internalized stereotypes about Black women. Confirmatory
factor analysis provided support for their theory that the
stereotypic roles of Mammy, Sapphire, Jezebel, and Super-
woman comprised four distinct, separate factors that were
predictive of self-esteem among Black women. An item on
the Mammy subscale reads, ‘‘People often expect me to take
care of them’’; an item on the Sapphire subscale reads,
‘‘Black women are usually angry with others’’; an item on
the Jezebel subscale reads, ‘‘Black women will use sex to get
what they want’’; and an item on the Superwoman subscale
reads, ‘‘Black women have to be strong to survive.’’ In addi-
tion to using an intersectional approach in their design and
measurement, Thomas and colleagues used an intersectional
interpretation. They articulated how power, linked to a spe-
cific location on the gender by ethnicity intersection, is
expressed or enacted via stereotypes and how, in turn, those
stereotypes exert power on individuals at that location. A. J.
Thomas et al. (2004) described the interaction of sexism and
racism and noted the limitations of a singular approach to
identity, positing that the interaction of sexism and racism
influences the identity development of Black women. Their
interpretation expands upon theorizing of stereotypes and
power as mutually facilitating (Fiske, 1993) to expose how
power and stereotypes are embedded within the intersection
of gender and ethnicity. The stereotypes serve to perpetuate
gendered racism, whereby Black women are uniquely
oppressed by stereotypes that undermine their psychological
well-being.
A comprehensive intersectional approach makes the role
of power and inequality explicit and requires interpretation of
findings with the knowledge that groups exist within a
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
Psychology of Women Quarterly
context in which power and inequality are linked, rooted in,
and perpetuated by social categories. Without intersectional
interpretations, research can become a study of essentialized
differences. Intersectional interpretations have the potential
to advance knowledge and research as well as public policy
and clinical practice.
Final Reflections
Practice Implications
Beyond psychological research, the importance of imple-
menting an intersectional approach in psychological practice
has been articulated in the literature (e.g., Constantine, 2002;
Enns, 2010; Harley, Jolivette, McCormick, & Tice, 2002).
There are two broad categories of practice implications (a)
using an intersectional approach in practice by recognizing
the intersectional nature of clients’ identities and experiences
and (b) enabling practitioners to be sophisticated consumers
of research applying intersectionality. Regarding the former,
empirical examples of intersectional approaches in counsel-
ing have been described (e.g., Poteat, Mereish, DiGiovanni,
& Koenig, 2011). A content analysis of articles published in
the Journal of Counseling Psychology between 1954 and
2009 (Lee, Rosen, & Burns, 2013) described the historical
increase in attention to membership in social categories and
intersectionality in counseling. Poteat and colleagues (2011)
concluded that ‘‘deeply attending to intersections of identity
is critical in accurately contextualizing a person’s experience
related to these issues’’ (p. 160). Although our article focuses
on offering guidance on implementing an intersectional
approach with quantitative methods, this guidance can also
be extended to the consumption and critical analysis of inter-
sectional quantitative research by practitioners. Rigorous
intersectional research can and should inform clinical prac-
tice, as contextualizing experiences and identifying how the
personal is political are essential components of feminist
therapy.
Conclusions
Although relatively few quantitative studies in psychology
have applied an intersectionality framework (e.g., Bowleg
et al., 2016; Else-Quest et al., 2013; Ghavami & Peplau,
2013; Seaton et al., 2010), social science in general and psy-
chology researchers in particular need clear articulation about
how to implement an intersectional approach with quantita-
tive techniques. Quantitative methods can advance intersec-
tional research and can foster the development and
integration of intersectionality within mainstream psychol-
ogy. In this article, we identified six broad components of
research in which intersectionality can be applied, along with
multiple methods that can be used to implement an intersec-
tional approach within each component. Although it is not
expected (or perhaps even possible) that each of these meth-
ods would be used in a single study, some of the techniques
Else-Quest and Hyde
(e.g., interactions of categories) will necessarily involve oth-
ers (e.g., between-groups design). Researchers should opt for
as many of these techniques as appropriate for the research
question, yet stay mindful of concerns for statistical power
and statistical assumptions. Nonetheless, it is insufficient to
apply any of these intersectional methods without intersec-
tional interpretations and framing (i.e., those that attend to
power and structural inequality), which are fundamental and
necessary in intersectional research. Moving forward, we
hope that our two-part series on intersectionality in quantita-
tive research will be generative for feminist psychology and
that our guidelines will stimulate more intersectionality
research within psychology and rigorous and innovative
quantitative methods within intersectionality research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Balsam, K. F., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K.
(2011). Measuring multiple minority stress: The LGBT People of
Color Microaggressions Scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 17, 163–174. doi:10.1037/a0023244
Bauer, G. R. (2014). Incorporating intersectionality theory in pop-
ulation health research methodology: Challenges and the poten-
tial to advance health equity. Social Science & Medicine, 110,
10–17. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.022
Beale, F. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. In T.
Cade (Ed.), The Black woman: An anthology (pp. 90–100). New
York, NY: New American Library.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
doi:10.1037/h0036215
Bodenhausen, G. V. (2010). Diversity in the person, diversity in the
group: Challenges of identity complexity for social perception
and social interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology,
40, 1–16. doi:10.1002/ejsp.647
Bogart, L. M., Wagner, G. J., Galvan, F. H., Landrine, H., Klein, D.
J., & Sticklor, L. A. (2011). Perceived discrimination and mental
health symptoms among Black men with HIV. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 295–302. doi:10.1037/
a0024056
Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black þ lesbian þ woman 6¼ Black les-
bian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and
quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59, 312–325.
doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9400-z
Bowleg, L., English, D., del Rio-Gonzalez, A. M., Burkholder, G. J.,
Teti, M., & Tschann, J. M. (2016). Measuring the pros and cons
of what it means to be a Black man: Development and validation
of the Black Men’s Experiences Scale (BMES). Psychology of
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
15
Men and Masculinity. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/
men0000026
Bowleg, L., Teti, M., Malebranche, D. J., & Tschann, J. M. (2013).
‘‘It’s an uphill battle every day’’: Intersectionality, low-income
Black heterosexual men, and implications for HIV prevention
research and interventions. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
14, 25–34. doi:10.1037/a0028392
Brondolo, E., Beatty, D. L., Cubbin, C., Pencille, M., Saegart, S.,
Wellington, R., . . . Schwartz, J. (2009). Sociodemographic var-
iations in perceived racism in a community sample of Blacks and
Latino(a)s. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 407–429.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00444.x
Brown, L. S. (1994). Subversive dialogues. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Calasanti, T., Pietilä, I., Ojala, H., & King, N. (2013). Men, bodily
control, and health behaviors: The importance of age. Health
Psychology, 32, 15–23. doi:10.1037/a0029300
Charmaraman, L., Woo, M., Quach, A., & Erkut, S. (2014). How have
researchers studied multiracial populations? A content and meth-
odological review of 20 years of research. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 336–352. doi:10.1037/a0035437
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-
fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equa-
tion Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of
intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38, 785–810. doi:10.
1086/669608
Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in
sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interac-
tions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological
Theory, 28, 129–149. doi:10.2307/25746220
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology.
American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. doi:10.1037/a0014564
Cole, E. R., & Sabik, N. J. (2009). Repairing a broken mirror:
Intersectional approaches to diverse women’s perceptions of
beauty and bodies. In M. T. Berger & K. Guidroz (Eds.), The
intersectional approach: Transforming the academy through
race, class, & gender (pp. 173–192). Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press.
Constantine, M. G. (2002). The intersection of race, ethnicity, gen-
der, and social class in counseling: Examining selves in cultural
contexts. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
30, 210–215. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2002.tb00520.x
Corral, I., & Landrine, H. (2010). Methodological and statistical
issues in research with diverse samples: The problem of mea-
surement equivalence. In H. Landrine & N. F. Russo (Eds.),
Handbook of diversity in feminist psychology (pp. 83–134). New
York, NY: Springer.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, iden-
tity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law
Review, 43, 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The
self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96,
608–630. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608
16
Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social cate-
gories: Analysis of a decade’s research on gender. American
Psychologist, 39, 105–116. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.105
Diamond, L. M., & Butterworth, M. (2008). Questioning gender and
sexual identity: Dynamic links over time. Sex Roles, 59,
365–376. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9425-3
Downing, R. A., LaVeist, T. A., & Bullock, H. E. (2007). Intersec-
tions of ethnicity and social class in provider advice regarding
reproductive health. American Journal of Public Health, 97,
1803–1807. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2006.092585
Elder, G. H. J., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The
emergence and development of life course theory. In J. T.
Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life
course (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Intersectionality in quanti-
tative psychological research: I. Theoretical and epistemological
issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 155–170. doi:10.
1177/0361684316629797
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national
patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. doi:10.1037/a0018053
Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and
science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender
and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 293–309.
doi:10.1177/0361684313480694
Enns, C. Z. (2010). Locational feminisms and feminist social iden-
tity analysis. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
41, 333–339. doi:10.1037/a0020260
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary
theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fiske, S. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on
stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628. doi:10.1037/
0003-066X.48.6.621
Garnett, B. R., Masyn, K. E., Austin, S. B., Miller, M., Williams, D.
R., & Viswanath, K. (2014). The intersectionality of discrimina-
tion attributes and bullying among youth: An applied latent class
analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1225–1239. doi:
10.1007/s10964-013-0073-8
Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. A. (2013). An intersectional analysis
of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 113–127. doi:10.1177/
0361684312464203
Goff, P. A., & Kahn, K. B. (2013). How psychological science
impedes intersectional thinking. Du Bois Review, 10, 365–384.
doi:10.1017/S1742058X13000313
Grabe, S., Grose, R. G., & Dutt, A. (2015). Women’s land ownership
and relationship power: A mixed methods approach to under-
standing structural inequities and violence against women.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 7–19. doi:10.1177/
0361684314533485
Greenwood, R. M. (2008). Intersectional political consciousness:
Appreciation for intragroup differences and solidarity in diverse
groups. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 36–47. doi:10.
1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00405.x
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
Psychology of Women Quarterly
Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., &
Hyde, J. S. (2015). Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value
intervention: Disentangling race and social class. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. doi:10.1037/pspp0000075
Harley, D. A., Jolivette, K., McCormick, K., & Tice, K. (2002).
Race, class, and gender: A constellation of positionalities with
implications for counseling. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
& Development, 30, 216–238. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2002.
tb00521.x
Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of
race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Census
Bureau.
Hurtado, A., & Sinha, M. (2008). More than men: Latino feminist
masculinities and intersectionality. Sex Roles, 59, 337–349. doi:
10.1007/s11199-008-9405-7
Hyde, J. S. (2012). Nation-level indicators of gender equity in psy-
chological research: Theoretical and methodological issues.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 145–148. doi:10.1177/
0361684312441448
Irvine, J. J. (1985). Teacher communication patterns as related to the
race and sex of the student. Journal of Educational Research, 78,
338–345. doi:10.1080/00220671.1985.10885627
Irvine, J. J. (1986). Teacher-student interactions: Effects of student
race, sex, and grade level. Journal of Educational Psychology,
78, 14–21. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.1.14
Johnson, K. L., Freeman, J. B., & Pauker, K. (2012). Race is gen-
dered: How covarying phenotypes and stereotypes bias sex cate-
gorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102,
116–131. doi:10.1037/a0025335
Kang, S. K., & Chasteen, A. L. (2009). Beyond the double-jeopardy
hypothesis: Assessing emotion on the faces of multiply-
categorizable targets of prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 1281–1285. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002
Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N.
(1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 470–500. doi:10.1037/a0013689
Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1995). The Schedule of Sexist
Events: A measure of lifetime and recent sexist discrimination
in women’s lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 439–472.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00086.x
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., & Brown-Collins, A. (1992). Cultural
diversity and methodology in feminist psychology. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 16, 145–163. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.
1992.tb00246.x
Lanza, S. T., & Cooper, B. R. (2016). Latent class analysis for
developmental research. Child Development Perspectives, 10,
59–64. doi:10.1111/cdep.12163
Lee, D. L., Rosen, A. D., & Burns, V. (2013). Over a half-century
encapsulated: A multicultural content analysis of the Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1954-2009. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 60, 154–161. doi:10.1037/a0031002
Lewis, J. A., & Neville, H. A. (2015). Construction and initial vali-
dation of the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale for Black
Women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 289–302. doi:
10.1037/cou0000062
Else-Quest and Hyde
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lott, B., & Bullock, H. E. (2007). Psychology and economic injus-
tice: Personal, professional, and political intersections.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
MacKinnon, C. (2013). Intersectionality as method: A note. Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38, 1019–1030. doi:
10.1086/669570
May, V. M. (2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant
imaginaries. New York, NY: Routledge.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1771–1800. doi:
10.1086/426800
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and
factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. doi:10.1007/
BF02294825
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in
lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and
research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. doi:
10.1037/0033- 2909.129.5.674
Nadal, K. L. (2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions
Scale (REMS): Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 58, 470–480. doi:10.1037/
a0025193
Operario, D., Yang, M., Reisner, S. L., Iwamoto, M., & Nemoto, T.
(2014). Stigma and the syndemic of HIV-related health risk
behaviors in a diverse sample of transgender women. Journal
of Community Psychology, 42, 544–557. doi:10.1002/jcop.
21636
Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., DiGiovanni, C. D., & Koenig, B. W.
(2011). The effects of general and homophobic victimization on
adolescents’ psychosocial and educational concerns: The impor-
tance of intersecting identities and parent support. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 58, 597–609. doi:10.1037/a0025095
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing
moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and pre-
scriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
doi:10.1080/00273170701341316
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisi-
bility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple
subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. doi:10.
1007/s11199-008-9424-4
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106. doi:10.
1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01
Roy, A. L., Hughes, D., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Intersections
between nativity, ethnic density, and neighborhood SES: Using
an ethnic enclave framework to explore variation in Puerto
Ricans’ physical health. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 51, 468–479. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9564-0
Sandil, R., Robinson, M., Brewster, M. E., Wong, S., & Geiger, E.
(2015). Negotiating multiple marginalizations: Experiences of
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
17
South Asian LGBQ individuals. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 21, 76–88. doi:10.1037/a0037070
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2006). Who’s gay? Does it matter? Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 40–44. doi:10.1111/j.
0963-7214.2006.00403.x
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2014). An exploratory study of the catego-
rical versus spectrum nature of sexual orientation. Journal of Sex
Research, 51, 446–453. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.871691
Seaton, E. K., Caldwell, C. H., Sellers, R. M., & Jackson, J. S.
(2010). An intersectional approach for understanding perceived
discrimination and psychological well-being among African
American and Caribbean Black youth. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 46, 1372–1379. doi:10.1037/a0019869
Sesko, A. K., & Biernat, M. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender:
The invisibility of Black women. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46, 356–360. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.10.016
Settles, I. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to under-
stand Black women’s racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54,
589–601. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9029-8
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experi-
mental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal
inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Shaw, L. R., Chan, F., & McMahon, B. T. (2012). Intersectionality
and disability harassment: The interactive effects of disability,
race, age, and gender. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55,
82–91. doi:10.1177/0034355211431167
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup
theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Smith, A., & Stewart, A. J. (1983). Approaches to studying racism
and sexism in Black women’s lives. Journal of Social Issues, 39,
1–15. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1983.tb00151.x
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Sue, S., & Sue, D. W. (2000). Conducting psychological research
with the Asian American/Pacific Islander population. In Council
of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of
Ethnic Minority Interests (Ed.), Guidelines for research in ethnic
minority communities (pp. 2–4). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Sulik, M., Huerta, S., Zerr, A. A., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L.,
Valiente, C., . . . Taylor, H. B. (2010). The factor structure of
effortful control and measurement invariance across ethnicity
and sex in a high-risk sample. Journal of Psychopathology
Behavioral Assessment, 32, 8–22. doi:10.1007/s10862-009-
9164-y
Syed, M. (2010). Disciplinarity and methodology in intersectional-
ity theory and research. American Psychologist, 65, 61–62. doi:
10.1037/a0017495
Szymanski, D. M., & Gupta, A. (2009). Examining the relationship
between multiple internalized oppressions and African American
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning persons’ self-esteem and
psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56,
110–118. doi:10.1037/a0013317
18
Szymanski, D. M., & Henrichs-Beck, C. (2014). Exploring sexual
minority women’s experiences of external and internalized het-
erosexism and sexism and their links to coping and distress. Sex
Roles, 70, 28–42. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0329-5
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology
with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 77–100.
doi:10.1177/ 2345678906292430
Thomas, A. J., Witherspoon, K. M., & Speight, S. L. (2004). Toward
the development of the Stereotypic Roles for Black Women
Scale. Journal of Black Psychology, 30, 426–442. doi:10.1177/
0095798404266061
Thomas, E. L., Dovidio, J. F., & West, T. V. (2014). Lost in the
categorical shuffle: Evidence for the social non-prototypicality
of Black women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 20, 370–376. doi:10.1037/a0035096
Tolhurst, R., Leach, B., Price, J., Robinson, J., Ettore, E., Scott-
Samuel, A., . . . Theobald, S. (2012). Intersectionality and gen-
der mainstreaming in international health: Using a feminist par-
ticipatory action research process to analyze voices and debates
from the global south and north. Social Science and Medicine,
74, 1825–1832. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.08.025
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synth-
esis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions,
practices, and recommendations for organizational research.
Downloaded from pwq.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 4, 2016
Psychology of Women Quarterly
Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70. doi:10.1177/
109442810031002
Warner, D. F., & Brown, T. H. (2011). Understanding how race/
ethnicity and gender define age-trajectories of disability: An
intersectionality approach. Social Science & Medicine, 72,
1236–1248. doi:10.1016/jsocscimed.2011.02.034
Warner, L. R. (2008). A best practices guide to intersectional
approaches in psychological research. Sex Roles, 59, 454–463.
doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9504-5
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and
Society, 1, 125–151. doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002
Williams, S. L., & Fredrick, E. G. (2015). One size may not fit all:
The need for a more inclusive and intersectional psychological
science on stigma. Sex Roles, 73, 384–390. doi:10.1007/s11199-
015-0491-z
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.
doi:10.1037/a0013541
Zadnik, E., Sabina, C., & Cuevas, C. A. (2016). Violence against
Latinas: The effects of undocumented status on rates of victimi-
zation and help-seeking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31,
1141–1153. doi:10.1177/0886260514564062