Gender Equality and Sustainable Societies: The Role of Identity Salience, Ideological Beliefs, and Support for Feminism

Abstract

The pursuit of gender equality and inclusive societies—key goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda—depends in part on public alignment with feminist movements. This study examines associations between ideological beliefs, gender identity salience, and identification across multiple social categories and support for feminism in Spain. Drawing on a nationally representative sample (N = 3928) from the 2024 CIS survey, we assess whether individuals who view gender as their most salient identity report higher support for feminism, and whether progressive ideological orientations—such as left–right political positioning, environmental values, and lower moral conservatism—as well as broader single-axis identifications across social domains, are linked to feminist alignment. Results from descriptive and regression analyses indicate that support for feminism is strongly associated with ideological and environmental values, while gender identity salience shows no independent association once these beliefs are taken into account. Analyses conducted separately for women and men suggest different patterns: among women, feminist support aligns with progressive values and broader identifications; among men, greater gender salience coexists with some marginalized identifications but is not positively linked to feminist alignment. These findings highlight that value-oriented and multi-identity approaches are more effective in fostering feminist engagement than appeals based solely on gender salience. The study outlines implications for inclusive policy, civic education, and cross-sector strategies to advance SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

1. Introduction

1.1. Identity, Ideology, and Sociopolitical Attitudes in the Sustainability Context

Achieving gender equality and fostering inclusive, cohesive societies are central objectives of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG 5 and SDG 10). However, public attitudes toward social justice movements—such as feminism—remain deeply divided across ideological and cultural lines, making it essential to understand the sociopolitical, attitudinal, and identity-based dynamics that underpin these divisions in order to promote social and cultural sustainability (Scoones et al. 2020).

These attitudes toward feminist movements do not emerge in a vacuum; rather, they are shaped by complex sociocultural, ideological, and identity-related processes that reflect how individuals perceive their place in society and their commitment to shared values (Jost et al. 2009; Tajfel et al. 1979). In particular, social identity—the sense of belonging to particular social categories such as gender, class, political ideology, or religion—functions both as a lens through which people interpret social reality and as a motivational anchor for political and moral beliefs (Ashmore et al. 2004; Deaux 1996).

Ideological beliefs, in turn, operate as cognitive frameworks that help individuals evaluate claims about justice, fairness, and change. On one hand, those who endorse system-justifying beliefs—such as meritocracy, traditional morality, or hierarchical worldviews—are more likely to oppose movements perceived as redistributive or disruptive, including feminism (Duckitt and Sibley 2010). On the other hand, individuals who prioritize prosocial and sustainability-oriented values, such as environmental concern or social solidarity, or who identify with marginalized groups, tend to be more receptive to feminist claims (Sanders and Jenkins 2022).

Despite this growing empirical evidence linking ideology to feminist support, the role of identity salience—particularly gender identity salience—remains understudied. Few studies have examined how the self-perceived centrality of gender in one’s identity interacts with ideological beliefs to shape attitudes toward gender equality, especially in nationally representative samples or in sociopolitical contexts marked by polarization.

1.2. Feminist Support as a Social and Political Construct for Sustainable Societies

Gender equality is not only a matter of individual rights, but also a cornerstone of socially sustainable and just societies. As emphasized by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals—particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality)—advancing equality between women and men requires not only institutional reforms, but also broad public support for feminist principles and initiatives (Leal Filho et al. 2023). Understanding the factors that shape this support is therefore essential for informing effective policy, educational interventions, and civic engagement strategies aimed at fostering inclusive and resilient communities (Merma-Molina et al. 2024). Beyond its ethical and social dimensions, gender equality also enhances productivity and economic outcomes, potentially increasing GDP by up to 34% (Jeevanasai et al. 2023).

Feminism, understood as both a social movement and an ideological framework, seeks to dismantle gender-based inequalities and challenge entrenched power hierarchies. However, despite decades of progress in formal legislation and mainstream discourse, public support for feminism remains uneven and, in many cases, politically polarized (Kantola and Lombardo 2019). This polarization reflects not only ideological divisions, but also deeper cultural and psychological tensions around issues such as gender roles, morality, authority, and the pace of societal change (Bareket and Fiske 2023).

Recent research conceptualizes support for feminism as a multidimensional construct, including personal identification with feminist values, agreement with feminist goals, and engagement in behaviors that promote gender equality (Siegel and Calogero 2021). Among these dimensions, explicit agreement with the idea that the feminist movement is necessary to achieve gender equality has emerged as a particularly robust and policy-relevant indicator of public alignment with gender justice (Cassese and Holman 2016; Gartzia 2021; Wang et al. 2023). Although based on a single-item measure, this indicator has been widely used as a survey-based proxy for broader alignment with feminist principles and social commitment to gender equality. It captures the perceived legitimacy, urgency, and systemic importance of feminist action in current sociopolitical contexts.

Moreover, support for feminism often reflects not only ideological divides but also identity-based cleavages. Individuals aligned with progressive or left-wing values are typically more supportive of feminist claims, whereas those who endorse conservative or traditionalist beliefs tend to express skepticism or resistance (Mikołajczak et al. 2022; Suhay et al. 2017; Swirsky and Angelone 2016). In this sense, support for feminism functions simultaneously as a gendered stance and as a symbolic marker of ideological and cultural orientation in public debates about social transformation.

Nevertheless, this support is not explained solely by political orientation or demographic factors. It is also influenced by individuals’ subjective perceptions of inequality, moral reasoning, and identity salience—namely, how central gender is to their sense of self (Becker and Wright 2011; Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2010). For instance, individuals who view inequality as a structural issue and integrate gender into their self-concept are more likely to regard feminist movements as both personally meaningful and socially necessary. In contrast, those who interpret social outcomes through individualistic or moral traditionalist lenses may perceive feminist claims as exaggerated or unjustified. These divergent interpretations illustrate the critical role of identity and ideological frames in shaping public receptiveness to gender-related social change.

1.3. Identity Salience, Multiple Identifications, and Feminist Attitudes in the Framework of Social Sustainability

Social identities are not merely descriptive labels; they also shape people’s sense of belonging, motivation, and social participation. Within the framework of sustainable development, the ways in which individuals define themselves—and the social categories they prioritize—carry significant implications for their engagement with issues of justice, equality, and collective well-being (Crocetti et al. 2022; Guerrero et al. 2021). In this context, sustainable societies rely not only on institutional inclusion but also on public attitudes that embrace identity diversity and actively challenge structural inequalities.

According to social identity theory, people derive meaning from multiple group memberships—such as gender, class, religion, ethnicity, or political ideology—which vary in salience, or subjective centrality, across individuals and situations (Ashmore et al. 2004; Deaux 1996; Tajfel et al. 1979). When a particular identity—such as gender—is perceived as highly important by individuals, it tends to function as a dominant interpretive lens through which they perceive social experiences, inequalities, and policy discourses (Brown and Craig 2019; Petsko et al. 2022). Following this logic, the perceived salience of gender identity has been associated with greater openness to collective justice movements.

Indeed, previous research has shown that gender salience is a key predictor of attitudes toward gender equality, particularly among women. Individuals who consider gender a central component of their self-concept are more likely to detect gender-based injustices and to align with feminist goals (Alexander et al. 2022; Chamberlin and Plant 2023). In turn, this identity-based awareness supports broader sensitivity to structural inequality and facilitates engagement with gender justice as an integral element of social sustainability and collective empowerment (Scoones et al. 2020).

Among men, however, gender tends to be a less salient identity domain. Nevertheless, when gender becomes more central to male self-definition—whether through personal experiences, education, or relationships—research suggests a potential shift toward greater receptivity to egalitarian and feminist perspectives (Drury and Kaiser 2014; Edwards 2022). These findings point to the possibility that increasing awareness of gender as a socially constructed and politicized identity may help broaden coalitions and foster more inclusive support for gender equality.

Yet, gender is not always the dominant identity for everyone. Many individuals prioritize other identity domains—such as religion, profession, political ideology, or national belonging—which can strongly influence their stance toward feminism (van Breen et al. 2017). For example, those who identify closely with traditional or moral frameworks may view feminist claims as incompatible with their core values (Cassese and Holman 2016; Modica and Murnen 2022). In contrast, individuals who identify with marginalized or politicized groups—such as LGBTQ+ communities, ethnic minorities, or working-class movements—often display heightened sensitivity to systemic injustice and greater alignment with feminist goals (Harbin and Margolis 2020; Sanders and Jenkins 2022; Silverman et al. 2023).

Taken together, this complexity underscores the importance of approaching identity not in binary or isolated terms—such as gender alone—but through a multi-identity perspective that recognizes how multiple identity dimensions interact in shaping attitudes and political engagement. Such an approach is essential for designing inclusive and effective sustainability strategies that account for overlapping forms of exclusion and empower diverse communities to participate in democratic transformation and co-construct socially just and sustainable futures.

1.4. Ideological Beliefs and Values as Predictors of Feminist Support

Alongside identity-based processes, ideological worldviews and value systems are associated with differing responses to feminist and equality-based discourses (Liaquat et al. 2023; Van Ditmars 2023). Within the broader pursuit of social and ethical sustainability, understanding how people interpret societal structures—through lenses of merit, tradition, or justice—is crucial for fostering inclusive mindsets and mobilizing support for structural change aligned with the goals of sustainable and equitable societies (Avelino et al. 2024).

Political ideology is among the most consistent predictors of support for gender equality and feminist goals. Individuals who locate themselves on the political left typically express stronger alignment with values such as redistribution, inclusion, and equality—principles that resonate with the aims of feminist movements (Cassese and Holman 2016; Sevincer et al. 2023; Suhay et al. 2017). In contrast, those aligned with conservative or right-leaning ideologies are more likely to perceive feminism as excessive, destabilizing, or incompatible with their normative values and social priorities (Barnett 2023; Jost et al. 2022). These ideological divisions reflect broader tensions about societal change, authority, and fairness that are central to the politics of gender justice.

Closely related to political ideology is moral conservatism, which emphasizes tradition, family cohesion, and clearly defined gender roles. We assessed moral conservatism through selected survey items reflecting traditional values. While such values may contribute to cultural continuity and social order, they can also hinder progress toward gender justice when used to legitimize structural hierarchies or resist policy reforms (Modica and Murnen 2022). As a result, individuals who strongly endorse moral traditionalism often express resistance to feminist claims, especially in sociopolitical contexts where feminist progress challenges dominant cultural narratives.

Another critical ideological lens is belief in meritocracy—the notion that individuals succeed purely based on effort and talent (Bettache et al. 2020). Although meritocracy is widely upheld in democratic societies and can promote individual responsibility, strong adherence to this belief may obscure systemic inequalities, including those based on gender (Batruch et al. 2022; Carian and Johnson 2022; Sanders and Jenkins 2022). In this sense, people who endorse meritocratic ideals may be less likely to recognize the need for collective action to address structural barriers, thereby showing reduced support for feminist movements and policies aimed at correcting gendered disadvantages (Clarke et al. 2024).

In contrast, prosocial values—such as concern for the environment—are often embedded within broader progressive worldviews that emphasize equity, solidarity, and interdependence, which are core tenets of sustainability (Nezlek 2022). Although environmentalism and feminism may appear distinct, they frequently co-occur within integrated ethical frameworks aimed at promoting justice across social, ecological, and economic domains (Cuenca-Soto et al. 2023; Echavarren 2023). Individuals who prioritize environmental protection tend to be more receptive to feminist ideals, reflecting an overarching commitment to justice, sustainability, and human dignity (Neaman et al. 2022).

In sum, our approach integrates (a) social identity perspectives highlighting the role of self-categorization and identity salience, (b) system justification and ideological worldviews shaping responses to equality claims, and (c) ideological prosociality linking environmental and social justice concerns. This integrated lens motivates our population-level examination of how identity configurations and ideological beliefs relate to support for feminism in Spain.

1.5. Gaps in the Literature and the Spanish Context

Despite increasing scholarly interest in the ideological and identity-related foundations of feminist attitudes, few studies have systematically explored how the perceived salience of specific social identities—particularly gender—and ideological worldviews interact to shape public support for gender equality. Much of the existing literature has focused on isolated predictors—such as gender, political ideology, or religiosity—without considering how individuals prioritize different social identities or how these priorities interact with belief systems to influence attitudes toward feminism and equality-related issues (Dehingia et al. 2022).

In particular, the subjective importance of gender identity—that is, how important individuals perceive their gender to be within their self-concept—has received limited empirical attention, despite strong theoretical arguments pointing to its relevance for awareness and support for gender justice (Chen et al. 2024). Individuals who view gender as central to who they are may be more attuned to experiences of inequality and more inclined to perceive feminist movements as both personally meaningful and socially necessary (Cameron and Lalonde 2001). In contrast, those whose primary identities lie in other domains—such as religion, profession, or nationality—may interpret feminist goals through more distant or even conflicting value frameworks, especially when these identities are tied to traditional or hierarchical worldviews (Anjum 2020).

This theoretical gap becomes particularly salient in the Spanish context, which offers a compelling and timely case for studying feminist attitudes. Spain has witnessed an intensification of gender-related debates in both institutional and grassroots spheres, set against a backdrop of cultural transformation, democratic consolidation, and contested narratives about sustainability and identity. Feminism in Spain has evolved into not only a political issue but also a symbolic battleground at the heart of broader cultural and political struggles over national identity, moral values, generational divides, and democratic principles (Delgado 2021; Willem and Tortajada 2021). These dynamics make it essential to examine how ideological beliefs and perceived identity salience interact to shape public support for gender equality in this complex sociopolitical landscape.

Taken together, these gaps underscore the need for an integrative approach that considers both ideological orientations and identity salience in shaping feminist support. Building on this rationale, the present study uses nationally representative data from Spain to analyze how these dimensions are associated with support for feminism, thereby addressing both theoretical and contextual shortcomings in the existing literature.

1.6. Present Study

The present study aims to address the empirical and theoretical gaps outlined above by investigating the identity-based and ideological correlates of public support for feminism in contemporary Spain—a context marked by both progressive advances and growing ideological polarization. In doing so, this research contributes to the advancement of social and cultural sustainability, particularly in relation to Sustainable Development Goals 5 (Gender Equality) and 10 (Reduced Inequalities). By focusing on public attitudes toward feminist movements—a key driver of gender justice—this study offers valuable insights for scholars, educators, policymakers, and civic actors committed to building more inclusive and equitable societies.

Moving beyond traditional demographic correlations, the study emphasizes the interplay between ideological beliefs, gender identity salience, and identification across multiple social categories. These factors are expected to play a crucial role in shaping how individuals engage with collective justice movements and interpret demands for structural change. Specifically, we examine whether individuals who report gender as their most salient identity report higher levels of support for feminist ideals than those who prioritize other social categories, such as religion, profession, political ideology, or nationality. Moreover, we assess whether gender identity salience is associated with feminist support once ideological beliefs are taken into account. In this study, we treat gender identity salience as an associative and potentially contextual factor, rather than assuming it mediates ideological influences.

Importantly, we integrate measures of identification across twelve social categories—an approach rarely employed in nationally representative studies. This allows us to explore whether identification with marginalized or politicized groups (e.g., LGBTQ+ communities, working-class identities, ethnic minorities) is linked to greater receptivity to feminist ideals. While these items capture diversity in self-definition, they represent parallel single-axis identifications rather than fully interdependent intersectional constructs. In doing so, the study responds to current calls for multi-identity and multi-level approaches to sustainability that can capture the complex ways in which identity politics influence public attitudes and civic engagement.

Given the well-documented gender gap in feminist alignment, we also examine whether these associations function differently among women and men. On the one hand, we expect women to report higher support for feminism and a greater likelihood of prioritizing gender as a core identity. On the other hand, we explore whether gender identity salience shows different associations in both groups, potentially reflecting complementary pathways to feminist support.

To address these questions, we examine four guiding research questions:

• Do individuals who report gender as their most salient identity report higher support for feminism?
• Do ideological and moral beliefs (e.g., conservatism, meritocracy, environmental values) relate to feminist support?
• Is gender identity salience associated with variations in the relationship between these belief systems and feminist attitudes?
• How do these associations differ between women and men?

By integrating these dimensions, the study aims to deepen our understanding of how identity configurations and ideological worldviews are associated with societal support for gender equality. Ultimately, the findings are expected to inform the design of evidence-based policies, educational initiatives, and democratic innovations that strengthen public alignment with gender justice and sustainability goals.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and Procedure

Data for this study were drawn from CIS Study No. 3480, Ideology and Polarization, conducted by the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS) in October 2024 (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 2024). The survey employed a nationally representative sample of adults (aged 18 and older) residing in Spain (final sample size N = 3928). Participants were selected through stratified random sampling, with quotas based on age, gender, autonomous community, and municipality size, covering 1153 municipalities across all 50 provinces.

Interviews were carried out using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI), with 82% via mobile and 18% via landline. Data collection took place between 11 and 21 October 2024. The estimated sampling error was ±1.6% at a 95.5% confidence level, assuming simple random sampling. The study complies with all applicable ethical and data protection regulations for publicly funded social research in Spain, and the anonymized dataset is publicly available through CIS.

2.2. Survey Indicators and Variables

To examine the sociopolitical and identity-related correlates of feminist support, the study drew on multiple survey items included in the CIS dataset (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 2024). All items were recoded so that higher scores reflect stronger alignment with egalitarian, progressive, or feminist-supportive positions.

2.3. Political Orientation

Political orientation was assessed using an 11-point left–right self-placement scale (ESCIDEOL), ranging from 0 (far right) to 10 (far left). For consistency in interpretation, the scale was reverse-coded so that higher values indicate stronger identification with left-wing ideology.

2.4. Support for Feminism

Support for feminism was captured through item P6_3: “The feminist movement is necessary to achieve equality between women and men.” Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree) and reverse-coded, so that higher scores reflect stronger agreement with the necessity of feminism for achieving gender equality. While single-item indicators do not allow for reliability analysis, this item has been used in previous research as a proxy for broader attitudes toward gender justice. Although this is a single-item indicator, it has been widely used in prior survey research as a proxy for broader attitudes toward gender justice.

2.5. Ideological and Moral Beliefs

Three domains were explored through selected survey items. Meritocratic orientation was examined using two items (P3_1 and P3_2) that asked about the perceived importance of individual effort versus family background in determining life success. Higher scores reflect weaker endorsement of meritocratic assumptions. Moral conservatism was assessed through two items (P6_1 and P6_2) addressing traditional moral views and the role of state authority. Higher scores indicate lower agreement with conservative positions. Environmental values were captured using one item (P6_4), which asked respondents to choose between prioritizing environmental protection or economic growth. This item was reverse-coded so that higher scores reflect stronger preference for environmental sustainability.

These indicators were selected to reflect prevalent ideological dimensions in Spanish public discourse, rather than to represent standardized psychological scales.

2.6. Identity Salience

To measure identity salience, we used item P2A1, which asked participants to select the single social category they considered most central to their self-concept. Responses included twelve options (e.g., gender, religion, profession, class, nationality).

This single-choice format was set by the CIS to reduce respondent burden in CATI interviews and to enable clear comparisons across identity domains in a national sample.

2.7. Identification Across Multiple Social Categories

Participants also rated their level of identification with each of the twelve social domains (items P2_1 to P2_12), using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly identify, 5 = do not identify at all). Items were reverse-coded so that higher scores reflect stronger identification with each domain. This allows for the analysis of how parallel identifications across multiple social categories (e.g., class, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity) relate to feminist support.

2.8. Analytic Strategy

The analytic strategy was structured in several stages to examine the relationships between identity salience, ideological beliefs, identification across multiple social categories, and support for feminism. First, descriptive statistics were computed for all variables, including means and standard deviations. Second, independent-samples t-tests were conducted to explore differences by Gender Identity Salience (1 = other identity, 2 = gender) in all key variables: political orientation, ideological and moral beliefs, environmental values, identification across multiple social categories (P2_1 to P2_12), identity salience, and support for feminism (P6_3). Third, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed using Gender Identity Salience and Gender (men, women) as between-subjects factors. All study variables—including political orientation, meritocratic and conservative beliefs, environmental values, the twelve domains of identification across social categories, and support for feminism (P6_3)—served as dependent variables. Fourth, follow-up univariate ANOVAs were conducted for each dependent variable to identify specific effects of gender, gender identity salience, and their interaction. These tests were used for exploratory purposes and are reported in a more concise form, while descriptive statistics and regression models serve as the primary analytic focus. Fifth, multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine whether ideological beliefs (moral conservatism, meritocratic beliefs), environmental values, and identification across social categories were associated with support for feminism (P6_3), controlling for gender.

Finally, separate models were estimated for women and men to determine whether the predictors of feminist support differed across gender groups, as suggested by previous literature on gendered political attitudes. All analyses were conducted using JASP version 0.18.3 (JASP Team, 2025). Missing data were handled via listwise deletion.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for total sample, women, and men.

Variable	Women Sample M (SD)	Men Sample M (SD)	Total Sample M (SD)	Total Sample Skewness	Total Sample Kurtosis
Support for Feminism (P6_3)	3.71 (1.34)	3.39 (1.41)	3.54 (1.39)	−1.63	1.93
Political Orientation (ESCIDEOL)	6.30 (2.49)	6.10 (2.30)	6.19 (2.39)	−1.19	0.22
Success depends on effort (P3_2)	2.77 (1.32)	2.73 (1.33)	2.75 (1.32)	−2.61	8.68
Lack of effort causes failure (P3_1)	3.00 (1.37)	2.78 (1.39)	2.88 (1.39)	−1.46	1.89
Abortion is immoral even if legal (P6_1)	3.69 (1.31)	3.31 (1.43)	3.48 (1.39)	−1.08	−0.10
Security justifies limiting freedoms (P6_2)	3.30 (1.28)	3.12 (1.36)	3.20 (1.33)	−1.29	0.71
Environmental protection over economic growth (P6_4)	3.37 (1.24)	3.44 (1.28)	3.41 (1.26)	−1.23	0.69
Identification with Profession (P2_1)	4.17 (1.13)	4.28 (1.01)	4.23 (1.07)	0.04	−1.63
Identification with Country (P2_2)	4.07 (1.18)	4.05 (1.19)	4.06 (1.19)	−2.35	6.27
Identification with Gender (P2_3)	4.74 (0.55)	4.59 (0.73)	4.66 (0.66)	−1.47	1.12
Identification with Social Class (P2_4)	4.20 (0.92)	4.08 (0.99)	4.13 (0.96)	−1.75	3.20
Identification with Political Ideology (P2_5)	3.88 (1.30)	3.93 (1.25)	3.91 (1.28)	−1.45	1.38
Identification with Place of Residence (P2_6)	4.16 (1.05)	4.09 (1.09)	4.12 (1.08)	0.17	−1.44
Identification with Generation (P2_7)	4.14 (0.98)	4.03 (1.08)	4.08 (1.04)	0.30	−1.32
Identification with Religion (P2_8)	3.11 (1.58)	2.84 (1.57)	2.96 (1.58)	−0.52	−1.17
Identification with Sexual Orientation (P2_9)	4.59 (0.75)	4.53 (0.80)	4.55 (0.78)	−0.18	−1.40
Identification with Race (P2_10)	4.33 (1.02)	4.01 (1.26)	4.16 (1.17)	−0.59	−1.09
Identification with Cultural Origin (P2_11)	4.38 (0.84)	4.34 (0.89)	4.36 (0.87)	−0.40	−1.22
Identification with Hobbies (P2_12)	4.20 (1.02)	4.15 (1.05)	4.17 (1.04)	−0.24	−0.53

Note. All variables were recoded so that higher values reflect greater alignment with feminist-supportive or progressive positions.

presents the means and standard deviations for all key study variables, disaggregated by gender. Overall, participants expressed moderate support for feminist ideals (M = 3.54, SD = 1.39), with women reporting significantly higher endorsement (M = 3.71) than men (M = 3.39). Similarly, average political orientation leaned moderately left (M = 6.19, SD = 2.39), with women identifying slightly more with left-wing views than men.

Regarding ideological and moral beliefs, the sample reported moderate rejection of meritocratic assumptions, as shown by mean scores on “Success depends on effort” (M = 2.75) and “Lack of effort causes failure” (M = 2.88), both of which were lower among women than men. Moral conservatism was also moderately rejected: participants scored around the midpoint on the statement “Abortion is immoral even if legal” (M = 3.48) and showed slightly less agreement with “Security justifies limiting freedoms” (M = 3.20). In terms of environmental values, most participants favored environmental protection over economic growth (M = 3.41).

Gender identity salience was relatively low across the sample (9.2%), although more salient among women (16.4%) than men (3.7%). At the same time, gender was the strongest domain of identification (M = 4.66), followed by sexual orientation (M = 4.55) and cultural origin (M = 4.36), whereas religion (M = 2.96) and political ideology (M = 3.91) received the lowest scores. This highlights a contrast between the low proportion of participants who chose gender as their single most salient identity and the generally high mean levels of gender identification. Notably, women reported higher identification with their race, religion, and gender compared to men, while men reported stronger identification with profession and political ideology.

We therefore examined skewness and kurtosis to assess univariate normality. Most variables fell within the commonly accepted thresholds of ±2 for skewness and ±3 for kurtosis (Kline 2016). However, three variables—P3_2 (Success depends on effort: skewness = −2.61, kurtosis = 8.68), P2_2 (Identification with country: skewness = −2.35, kurtosis = 6.27), and P2_4 (Identification with social class: kurtosis = 3.20)—exceeded these cut-offs, particularly in terms of kurtosis. These deviations suggest slight departures from normality, with heavier tails and negative skewness in the distribution.

Nevertheless, given the large sample size (N > 3000), such deviations are not expected to substantially bias the results, especially when using robust estimation methods. Moreover, these items capture conceptually relevant constructs with meaningful variability in the population, so they were retained in all analyses.

3.2. Group Differences Based on Gender Identity Salience

Following the descriptive analyses, independent-samples t-tests were conducted to explore mean differences in key variables between participants who prioritized gender as their most salient identity (Group 2) and those who prioritized another category (Group 1). This approach provided an initial, exploratory examination of how identity salience was associated with feminist support, ideological beliefs, environmental values, and identification across multiple social categories, both in the total sample and by gender.

As shown in

Table 2. Group differences by gender identity salience (independent samples t-tests).

Variable	Total Sample d	p	Women d	p	Men d	p
Identification with Profession (P2_1)	0.246	<0.001 ***	0.285	<0.001 ***	−0.052	0.700
Identification with Gender (P2_3)	−0.295	<0.001 ***	−0.184	0.020 *	−0.328	0.016 *
Identification with Religion (P2_8)	0.062	0.352	0.193	0.015 *	−0.103	0.448
Identification with Sexual Orientation (P2_9)	−0.169	0.011 *	−0.041	0.607	−0.424	0.002 **
Identification with Race (P2_10)	−0.193	0.004 **	0.015	0.845	−0.387	0.005 **
Identification with Hobbies (P2_12)	0.158	0.018 *	0.234	0.003 **	0.081	0.551
Abortion is immoral even if legal (P6_1)	−0.200	0.003 **	−0.173	0.029 *	0.107	0.432
Support for Feminism (P6_3)	−0.041	0.544	−0.092	0.246	0.492	<0.001 ***

Note. Independent samples t-tests were conducted comparing participants who prioritized gender as their most salient identity (Group 2) versus those who prioritized another identity (Group 1). Analyses were conducted separately for the total sample (n = 2693), women (n = 1166), and men (n = 1527). Only variables showing statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in at least one group are displayed. Positive d values indicate higher means for Group 1 (other identity more salient); negative d values indicate higher means for Group 2 (gender most salient). p < 0.05 *, p < 0.01 **, p < 0.001 ***.

, several significant differences emerged. In the total sample, participants who prioritized gender reported higher identification with their gender, sexual orientation, and race, as well as lower moral conservatism, whereas those who prioritized another category reported higher identification with profession and hobbies. No significant differences were observed for feminist support, environmental values, or political orientation.

Among women, those who prioritized gender showed higher identification with gender and religion, and lower support for moral conservatism, while women in the other-identity group reported stronger identification with profession and hobbies. Among men, prioritizing gender was associated with stronger identification with gender, sexual orientation, and race, as well as higher support for environmental protection and a more left-leaning political orientation. Notably, however, men in this group expressed lower support for feminism.

These preliminary t-tests should be interpreted as exploratory, offering an initial picture of group differences. The subsequent multivariate and regression analyses provide a more integrative test of these associations.

3.3. Multivariate and Univariate Group Differences by Gender Identity Salience

To explore broader patterns of social identification, ideological beliefs, and feminist attitudes associated with gender identity salience, a one-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted. This multivariate approach extends the previous t-test comparisons by assessing whether individuals who prioritized gender as their most salient identity (Group 2) differed significantly from those who prioritized another identity category (Group 1) across a comprehensive set of dependent variables. These included twelve domains of social identification (P2_1–P2_12), ideological beliefs (P3_1, P3_2, ESCIDEOL), moral and environmental values (P6_1–P6_4), and support for feminism (P6_3). Unlike the t-tests, which evaluate mean differences variable by variable, the MANOVA accounts for the covariance structure among all outcome variables, offering a more integrative test of group-level differences.

In the total sample (n = 2693), results indicated a statistically significant multivariate effect of gender identity salience, suggesting that participants who prioritized gender differed across the combined set of variables. Separate analyses by gender also showed significant but smaller multivariate effects among both women and men, pointing to subgroup-specific dynamics.

Follow-up univariate ANOVAs (see

Table 3. Follow-up univariate ANOVA results by gender identity salience (P2A1) across total sample, women, and men.

Variable	VS-MPR (Total)	p (Total)	VS-MPR (Women)	p (Women)	VS-MPR (Men)	p (Men)
Identification with Profession (P2_1)	185.19	<0.001	140.46	<0.001	—	—
Identification with Gender (P2_3)	3089.45	<0.001	4.65	0.020	5.50	0.016
Identification with Religion (P2_8)	—	—	5.92	0.015	—	—
Identification with Sexual Orientation (P2_9)	7.25	0.011	—	—	31.35	0.002
Identification with Race (P2_10)	16.93	0.004	—	—	15.02	0.005
Identification with Hobbies (P2_12)	5.02	0.018	20.07	0.003	—	—
Abortion is immoral even if legal (P6_1)	22.69	0.003	3.57	0.029	—	—
Support for Feminism (P6_3)	—	—	—	—	144.83	<0.001
Environmental protection over economic growth (P6_4)	—	—	—	—	4.08	0.024
Political Orientation (ESCIDEOL)	—	—	—	—	9.43	0.008

Note. P2A1 = gender identity salience (gender vs. other category). This table reports results of univariate ANOVAs conducted as follow-up analyses to the significant MANOVA reported in the text. All variables were tested independently for group differences. Only significant results (p < 0.05) are shown. VS-MPR = Vovk–Sellke maximum p-ratio.

) showed that, in the total sample, prioritizing gender was associated with stronger identification with gender and weaker identification with profession, sexual orientation, and race, as well as lower moral conservatism. Among women, those who prioritized gender showed higher identification with religion (t(1164) = 2.442, p = 0.015, d = 0.19) and gender (t(1164) = −2.323, p = 0.020, d = −0.18), but lower support for moral conservatism (t(1164) = −2.184, p = 0.029, d = −0.17). Women in the other-identity group reported stronger identification with profession and hobbies.

Among men, those who prioritized gender reported higher identification with gender (t(1525) = −2.406, p = 0.016, d = −0.33), sexual orientation (t(1525) = −3.116, p = 0.002, d = −0.42), and race (t(1525) = −2.842, p = 0.005, d = −0.39). Importantly, they expressed lower support for feminism (t(1525) = 3.611, p < 0.001, d = 0.49), along with higher support for environmental protection (t(1525) = 2.255, p = 0.024, d = 0.31) and a more left-leaning political orientation (t(1525) = 2.651, p = 0.008, d = 0.36).

Altogether, these results are consistent with and complement the exploratory t-test findings, indicating that gender salience is associated with multiple identity domains and ideological orientations, though the pattern differs between women and men. These multivariate tests should be viewed as exploratory, while the regression analyses presented below provide a more robust assessment of how ideological beliefs and identity configurations relate to feminist support.

3.4. Generalized Linear Models Predicting Support for Feminism

To further explore the variables associated with Support for Feminism, a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) was estimated for the total sample and separately by gender. The dependent variable was the item P6_3, recoded such that higher values reflected stronger support for feminism as necessary to achieve gender equality.

As shown in

Table 4. Generalized linear model predicting feminist support (P6_3) by sample.

Predictor	B (Total Sample)	SE	B (Women)	SE	B (Men)	SE
Intercept	0.388 ***	0.115	0.539 **	0.196	0.371 *	0.149
P2_1 Profession	0.008	0.010	0.007	0.015	0.019	0.015
P2_2 Country	0.003	0.010	0.016	0.015	−0.007	0.013
P2_3 Gender	−0.000	0.019	0.008	0.033	−0.014	0.023
P2_4 Social class	0.012	0.012	−0.005	0.020	0.019	0.016
P2_5 Political ideology	0.005	0.009	0.001	0.013	0.014	0.013
P2_6 Region	0.014	0.010	0.015	0.016	0.010	0.014
P2_7 Generation	0.003	0.011	−0.009	0.018	0.005	0.014
P2_8 Religion	−0.017 *	0.008	−0.026 *	0.012	−0.016	0.011
P2_9 Sexual orientation	−0.025	0.016	−0.020	0.025	−0.022	0.022
P2_10 Race	−0.009	0.011	−0.014	0.018	−0.012	0.013
P2_11 Cultural origin	−0.002	0.014	0.015	0.023	−0.009	0.018
P2_12 Hobbies	0.016	0.011	0.020	0.017	0.012	0.015
P3_1 Abortion is immoral	0.031 **	0.010	0.027 †	0.014	0.027 †	0.014
P3_2 Security	0.010	0.010	0.010	0.014	0.013	0.014
P6_1 Moral conservatism	0.038 ***	0.009	0.027 †	0.014	0.033 **	0.013
P6_2 State control	−0.000	0.009	0.001	0.013	−0.005	0.012
P6_4 Environmental values	0.081 ***	0.009	0.069 ***	0.014	0.093 ***	0.013
ESCIDEOL (Left-wing)	0.044 ***	0.006	0.039 ***	0.008	0.049 ***	0.008
P2A1 Gender salience	0.020	0.036	0.019	0.042	−0.112	0.084
Pseudo-R2 (McFadden)	0.327		0.289		0.364

Note. DV = Support for Feminism (P6_3). B = unstandardized coefficient. SE = standard error. Pseudo-R² values are based on McFadden’s formula for Poisson log-link models and reflect variance explained. † p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

, in the total sample, the model showed good fit to the data (Δχ²(19) = 565.94, p < 0.001; pseudo R² = 0.327). Environmental values (B = 0.081, p < 0.001), political orientation toward the left (B = 0.044, p < 0.001), and lower moral conservatism (B = 0.038, p < 0.001) showed the strongest positive associations with feminist support. In addition, endorsement of the belief that abortion is immoral showed a small but significant positive association (B = 0.031, p = 0.002), while identification with religion was negatively associated with support for feminism (B = −0.017, p = 0.037). No other domains of identification displayed significant effects.

In the women’s subsample (n = 1166; pseudo R2 = 0.289), the results were largely consistent with the total sample: environmental values (B = 0.069, p < 0.001) and left-wing orientation (B = 0.039, p < 0.001) again emerged as strong positive correlates. Identification with religion was negatively associated (B = −0.026, p = 0.031), while moral conservatism and abortion attitudes showed only small or marginal effects. Importantly, gender identity salience was not significantly associated with feminist support (B = 0.019, ns).

Among men (n = 1527; pseudo R2 = 0.364), the results also highlighted environmental values (B = 0.093, p < 0.001), left-wing orientation (B = 0.049, p < 0.001), and lower moral conservatism (B = 0.033, p = 0.009) as robust positive correlates of feminist support. Abortion attitudes were marginally significant (p = 0.058), and identification with religion did not reach significance. Gender identity salience was again non-significant (B = −0.112, ns).

Altogether, these regression analyses underscore the central role of environmental values, political orientation, and rejection of moral conservatism in shaping support for feminism across groups. Although certain domains—such as religion among women—exert additional influence, gender identity salience does not independently explain feminist support once ideological and value-based variables are taken into account.

4. Discussion

4.1. Ideological Beliefs, Identity Salience, and Feminist Support: An Integrated Perspective

The findings of this study provide robust empirical evidence on the psychological and ideological foundations of feminist support in contemporary Spain. Consistent with prior theoretical frameworks (Duckitt and Sibley 2010; Jost et al. 2009), a left-wing political orientation, a rejection of moral conservatism, and the endorsement of environmental values emerged as significant and consistent associates of public agreementwith the idea that the feminist movement is necessary to achieve gender equality. These results underscore the notion that feminism operates not only as a gender-related issue but also as a symbolic marker of broader ideological worldviews (Cassese and Holman 2016; Mikołajczak et al. 2022; Suhay et al. 2017).

In the Spanish context—where public opinion on feminism is shaped by both ideological polarization and recent institutional debates about gender equality—this finding reinforces the idea that feminist support reflects deeper value systems rather than isolated identity claims. This is particularly relevant in national debates where feminism is often politicized and linked to broader concerns about justice and societal change (Kantola and Lombardo 2019; Willem and Tortajada 2021).

The particularly strong association between environmental values and feminist support—especially among men—suggests that integrated ethical worldviews linking social and ecological concerns are increasingly relevant in shaping public attitudes. This aligns with emerging ecofeminist and sustainability literature highlighting the convergence of justice-oriented values across domains (Cuenca-Soto et al. 2023; Echavarren 2023; Neaman et al. 2022). Moral conservatism, assessed through statements such as “abortion is immoral even if legal,” also demonstrated a clear negative association with feminist support. This supports previous findings that traditional moral beliefs often serve as barriers to social change efforts that challenge established gender hierarchies (Bareket and Fiske 2023; Modica and Murnen 2022). Importantly, these ideological and moral values exerted influence even when controlling for political orientation, reinforcing the importance of addressing deep-seated moral narratives when promoting gender-equitable discourses in the public sphere.

In Spain’s polarized communication ecosystem, exposure to elite rhetoric—including far-right framings of gender equality—likely conditions the interpretation of feminist claims (Jost et al. 2022). Generational cleavages may further amplify these dynamics, as younger cohorts tend to endorse more progressive value profiles and digital repertoires of participation, whereas older cohorts are more embedded in legacy media and traditional frames (Kantola and Lombardo 2019; Willem and Tortajada 2021). Our results—linking feminist support to ideological and environmental values—are consistent with this broader context, suggesting that cohort-linked media diets and partisan cues may differentially activate value-consistent responses to gender-equality discourse.

Interestingly, gender identity salience—defined as perceiving gender as the most central domain of one’s self-concept—did not show an independent association with feminist support in the multivariate models. This suggests that although gender salience may enhance awareness of structural inequalities (Becker and Wright 2011; Chamberlin and Plant 2023), its direct impact on attitudes toward feminist movements is likely conditioned by or outweighed by broader ideological and value-based beliefs (van Breen et al. 2017). This finding is consistent with research emphasizing the primacy of cognitive and moral frameworks over identity-based variables in shaping public attitudes toward justice-oriented movements (Bettache et al. 2020; Carian and Johnson 2022).

4.2. Gendered Patterns and Multi-Identity Dynamics in Feminist Alignment

While ideological and moral beliefs proved to be significant variables associated with feminist support across the board, the analysis revealed clear gender differences in how identity salience and multiple identifications across social categories relate to support for feminism. As anticipated by gender identity theory and prior feminist research (Alexander et al. 2022; Ashmore et al. 2004; Deaux 1996), women were significantly more likely than men to report gender as their most central identity and to express stronger overall support for feminist ideals. However, the relationship between gender identity salience and feminist support did not hold uniformly across groups, suggesting that identity salience plays different roles in shaping feminist alignment depending on gender and broader identification profiles.

Among men, those who reported gender as their most salient identity also showed stronger identification with other marginalized categories, such as sexual orientation and race. This group simultaneously endorsed more progressive values—prioritizing environmental sustainability and expressing left-wing political views—yet paradoxically expressed lower support for feminism. This unexpected combination suggests a complex identity configuration in which heightened gender salience does not necessarily translate into alignment with feminist goals. One interpretation is that for some men, gender salience may reflect a defensive or essentialist understanding of masculinity, rather than a politicized or justice-oriented perspective on gender (Drury and Kaiser 2014; Edwards 2022). Alternatively, men with minority sexual or racial identities may experience heightened gender awareness as a function of marginalization, but without necessarily embracing feminist narratives—possibly due to tensions between individual identity struggles and collective justice discourses.

In contrast, women who prioritized gender identity showed more coherent patterns of feminist alignment. This group reported higher identification not only with their gender, but also with other identity domains such as religion and race, echoing previous research suggesting that broader multi-identity awareness strengthens engagement with feminist causes (Brown and Craig 2019; Chamberlin and Plant 2023). However, even among these women, ideological and moral beliefs remained stronger correlates of feminist support than gender salience itself, reinforcing the idea that attitudes toward feminism are more consistently grounded in value systems than in identity centrality (van Breen et al. 2017).

Taken together, these gendered patterns support an intersectional framework in which individuals engage with feminist ideas through multidimensional and overlapping identifications. Rather than functioning as additive or isolated variables, identities interact with ideological positions to shape political attitudes (Harbin and Margolis 2020; Sanders and Jenkins 2022). This supports calls from recent social psychology and sustainability research to move beyond binary identity categories and examine how multiple identity dimensions—such as gender, sexual orientation, race, and moral beliefs—co-produce engagement with social justice causes (Crocetti et al. 2022; Petsko et al. 2022).

4.3. Implications for Social Sustainability, Education, and Policy

The results of this study carry important implications for advancing cultural and social sustainability, particularly in line with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Achieving these goals requires not only structural or institutional reforms but also active public engagement with values that promote equity, justice, and inclusion. Our findings confirm that such engagement is strongly associated with individuals’ ideological frameworks, especially progressive worldviews that integrate environmental values and moral openness.

Participants who endorsed environmental sustainability, rejected moral conservatism, and positioned themselves on the political left were more strongly associated with support for feminist movements and view them as legitimate and necessary. These findings align with recent scholarship highlighting the role of justice-oriented value systems as drivers of social transformation (Avelino et al. 2024; Nezlek 2022), and they underscore the ideological nature of feminist support—not reducible to gender identity alone.

From a policy perspective, these findings suggest that gender equality initiatives should not be siloed or limited to women’s issues, but rather embedded in broader educational and civic frameworks that foster critical thinking, moral reasoning, and ethical engagement. For example, educational strategies that integrate gender justice and environmental sustainability in formal curricula—particularly at secondary and higher education levels—could encourage younger generations to view feminism not as an isolated issue but as part of a holistic vision of societal well-being and shared responsibility (Cuenca-Soto et al. 2023; Neaman et al. 2022).

Furthermore, the limited independent association of gender identity salience—compared to ideological beliefs—indicates that identity alone is not enough. Supporting gender equality requires more than identifying as a woman or seeing gender as central; it demands reflexivity about structural inequalities and a commitment to justice-oriented values. As such, educational and civic programs should go beyond identity-based appeals and create spaces for critical engagement with the social construction of gender, power, and privilege (Becker and Wright 2011; Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2010).

Finally, in national contexts such as Spain—where feminist discourse is often polarized and framed within broader cultural conflicts (Kantola and Lombardo 2019; Willem and Tortajada 2021)—policy efforts must account for ideological divides and the diversity of identifications across multiple social categories that shape public opinion. Promoting awareness of these overlapping identities, cultural literacy, and inclusive civic dialog is essential to cultivating the broad societal support required for sustainable and equitable transformations in the realm of gender justice.

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged, as they also point to promising directions for future work. First, the cross-sectional design restricts causal inference; longitudinal or experimental studies are needed to capture temporal dynamics in feminist attitudes.

Second, although the survey included a wide array of ideological and identity-related variables, it did not capture contextual or behavioral dimensions such as activist participation, media exposure, everyday experiences of discrimination, or engagement in feminist practices. Future research in Spain should incorporate such measures—demonstrations, organizational membership, voting intentions, donations, or online mobilization—to assess how ideological and identity profiles translate into lived experiences and collective action.

Third, gender identity salience was assessed with a single-choice item that required respondents to select only one central identity. While this design allowed for comparative analyses in a large CATI survey, it simplifies multidimensional self-definitions and does not capture identity centrality. Future studies should employ multi-item measures and allow for multiple salient identities. Similarly, feminist support was measured with a single item (P6_3). Although widely used in population surveys, single-item indicators limit reliability. Multi-item scales that capture attitudinal, identificational, and behavioral facets are therefore recommended (e.g., Siegel and Calogero 2021).

Finally, several methodological considerations should be noted. Including both gender salience (P2A1) and gender identification (P2_3) in the same models may raise collinearity concerns, even though diagnostics indicated acceptable levels (VIF < 2). Moreover, while stratified models by gender are consistent with prior literature, unified models with gender interaction terms could provide a more direct statistical test of gender differences. In addition, the measures of identification across social categories (P2_1–P2_12) should be interpreted as single-axis identifications rather than fully interdependent intersectional constructs. Future research should refine these approaches with integrated models and more robust measures of intersectionality (e.g., gender × race, gender × class).

Despite these limitations, the use of a nationally representative sample (N = 3928) enhances the generalizability of the findings. This study therefore provides a strong foundation for advancing future research, education, and policy on gender justice within sustainability frameworks.

5. Conclusions

This study offers a nuanced contribution to understanding how ideological beliefs, identity salience, and identification across multiple social categories shape public support for feminist movements—an essential component of social and cultural sustainability. Drawing on a large, nationally representative dataset from Spain, the findings provide robust evidence that support for feminism is more strongly associated with progressive ideological orientations and environmental values, together with moral openness, than with gender identity salience alone.

Although women were generally more supportive of feminist ideals, the specific pathways toward this support differed by gender and by the interplay of other salient identities. These results emphasize the importance of considering multi-identity perspectives when examining public engagement with gender justice. Moreover, they suggest that fostering feminist alignment requires more than appealing to identity labels; it involves addressing individuals’ broader ethical worldviews and ideological commitments.

By integrating ideological and identity-related dimensions in a population-level analysis, this research contributes valuable insights for the development of inclusive educational programs, civic initiatives, and public policy. Advancing feminist support as part of a broader sustainability agenda calls for interventions that not only target structural inequality, but also engage with the symbolic and moral frameworks that shape attitudes toward justice and equality in contemporary societies.