What Drives Feminist Identification in Spain? A Structural Analysis of Affective, Perceptual, and Ideological Pathways

Abstract

Feminist identification has become an increasingly salient yet contested collective identity in contemporary societies marked by political polarization. This study examines how affective, perceptual, and ideological dimensions are associated with feminist identification in Spain, using data from a nationally representative sample of adults (N = 4005). Structural equation modeling was used to estimate the relationships between sympathy for progressive social movements, perceived gender discrimination, political ideology (understood as left–right political alignment), and feminist identification, with gender-stratified models estimated separately for women and men. Results indicate that affective alignment with progressive social movements and recognition of gender discrimination are consistently associated with feminist identification in both gender-stratified models. Political ideology shows a more limited pattern, emerging as significantly associated with feminist identification in the model estimated for women but not in the model estimated for men. Overall, the findings suggest that feminist identification in polarized contexts is anchored primarily in affective resonance and perceived injustice, while ideological positioning operates more conditionally, highlighting distinct relational configurations across the gender-stratified models in relation to feminist identification.

1. Introduction

Feminist identification has become an increasingly salient yet contested collective identity in contemporary societies marked by political polarization. Across diverse contexts, feminism has gained renewed public visibility through mass demonstrations, digital activism, and intensified public debates on gender justice, contributing to its consolidation as a recognizable sociopolitical identity (Alonso et al. 2023; Árbol-Pérez and Entrena-Durán 2022). At the same time, this visibility has been accompanied by growing resistance and backlash, with right-wing populist movements framing feminism as a threat to traditional values and established social orders (Kováts and Põim 2015; Verloo 2018).

This dual dynamic of mobilization and contestation has reshaped the social conditions under which feminist identification develops. While expanded opportunities for collective action and solidarity may facilitate emotional alignment with feminist goals, ideological polarization and persistent cultural stigma surrounding the feminist label continue to constrain public self-identification (Flood 2011; Gill 2007; Off 2022). Feminist identification therefore cannot be understood as a linear or uniform outcome of social change. Rather, it emerges through the interaction of affective, perceptual, and ideological processes (with ideology referring to left–right political self-placement) operating within contested sociopolitical environments.

In the Spanish context, debates surrounding gender equality policies, gender-based violence legislation, and feminist institutional reforms have increasingly become sites of political contestation, reflecting intensified polarization around gender-related rights (Alonso et al. 2023; Árbol-Pérez and Entrena-Durán 2022; Krizsán and Roggeband 2021). These dynamics underscore the importance of examining how collective identities are formed and sustained under conditions of ideological conflict. Recent population-based evidence from Spain further indicates that public alignment with feminism is strongly shaped by ideological beliefs (particularly left–right political orientation) and broader value systems, highlighting the relevance of examining feminist identification beyond identity salience alone (i.e., the subjective importance individuals assign to gender as a social identity) within polarized sociopolitical contexts (Fernández-Torres et al. 2025). Understanding how individuals navigate these tensions—through emotional alignment, perceptions of injustice, and ideological positioning—is therefore central to explaining contemporary configurations of feminist identification.

Importantly, feminist identification should not be conflated with conceptually adjacent constructs. Sympathy toward feminist or progressive causes, recognition of gender discrimination, and left–right ideological self-placement are analytically separable and may not align within individuals. Accordingly, feminist identification is treated here as a subjective sociopolitical self-definition—operationalized as feminist self-labeling and affective proximity to the feminist movement—rather than as ideological endorsement or generalized egalitarianism. This distinction helps explain why support for gender equality or progressive orientations may coexist with ambivalence toward adopting the feminist label.

Rather than assuming that feminist alignment follows directly from exposure to inequality or mobilization efforts, it is necessary to examine how emotional solidarities, perceptions of injustice, and ideological frameworks jointly structure identification processes. Building on research on politicized collective identities and collective action (Simon and Klandermans 2001; van Zomeren et al. 2008), the present study examines how three theoretically grounded domains—affective alignment with progressive social movements, perceived gender discrimination, and political ideology—relate to feminist identification. By integrating these domains within a single structural framework and estimating gender-stratified models for women and men, this study seeks to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the social processes through which feminist identification emerges in polarized contexts.

1.1. Affective Alignment with Feminist and Social Justice Causes

Affective responses to collective causes—such as sympathy, admiration, or emotional solidarity—play a central role in the formation of politicized collective identities. Research on collective action emphasizes that emotional engagement often precedes and sustains identification with social movements by shaping how individuals relate to group-based claims and perceived injustices (van Zomeren et al. 2008). Within the feminist domain, sympathy can be understood as an affective orientation toward the goals and actors of gender-justice movements, even in the absence of explicit ideological commitment or political self-definition (Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2010).

Such affective alignment may facilitate feminist identification, particularly among individuals who have not fully internalized feminist ideologies or who remain ambivalent toward politicized labels (Flood 2011; Girerd and Bonnot 2020). Group-based emotions—such as moral outrage, empathy, or hope—are widely recognized as central to sustained engagement with social-justice movements and to the development of politicized identities (Jost et al. 2017; Thomas and McGarty 2009; Thomas et al. 2022). By fostering emotional resonance with collective goals, affective alignment may be associated with lower perceived symbolic and social costs of feminist identification, especially in contexts where the feminist label is stigmatized or politically contested.

At the same time, prior research documents a gap between sympathy for feminist goals and adoption of the feminist label (Twenge and Zucker 1999; Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2010). In such cases, individuals may channel emotional engagement into issue-specific forms of activism—such as support for reproductive rights or opposition to gender-based violence—without embracing feminism as a broader identity framework (Off 2022; Siegel and Calogero 2021).

While feminist solidarity constitutes a central form of affective engagement, research also indicates that emotional alignment with broader progressive movements (e.g., LGBTQ+ and environmental activism) may contribute to feminist identification by reinforcing shared justice-oriented values (Thomas et al. 2022; van Zomeren et al. 2008). Within this broader constellation of progressive causes, affective alignment can be conceptualized as a social pathway that facilitates—but does not guarantee—the emergence of feminist identification.

1.2. Perceptions of Gender Discrimination

Prior research identifies perceived gender discrimination as a central component in the formation of politicized collective identities (Becker and Wagner 2009; Simon and Klandermans 2001). Awareness that women, as a social group, are subject to systematic inequalities across social, economic, and political domains provides a key interpretive framework through which gender relations are understood as unjust and morally problematic (Becker and Wright 2011; van Zomeren et al. 2008). Such perceptions contribute to the politicization of gender by framing inequality not as isolated experiences, but as a shared structural condition affecting a collective.

A substantial body of research links recognition of gender discrimination to stronger feminist beliefs, greater support for gender-equality policies, and increased engagement in collective action (Cassese and Holman 2016; Chamberlin and Plant 2023; Harbin and Margolis 2020). Individuals who interpret gender inequality as systemic rather than incidental are more likely to view feminist claims as legitimate and to endorse collective efforts aimed at challenging structural injustices (Becker and Wright 2011; Off 2022). In this sense, perceptions of discrimination play an important role in rendering feminist identification socially meaningful and politically justified.

At the same time, prior studies document variation in whether recognition of gender inequality becomes integrated into feminist self-identification. Many individuals acknowledge persistent gender inequalities while distancing themselves from feminist movements or rejecting the feminist label altogether (Girerd and Bonnot 2020; Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2010). This divergence may be shaped by cultural stigma surrounding feminism, the internalization of individualistic or meritocratic ideologies, or the perception that feminist movements no longer reflect one’s personal values or social position (Twenge and Zucker 1999; Moscatelli et al. 2021).

Importantly, perceptions of gender discrimination are neither uniform nor socially neutral. Research indicates that women and men differ in their thresholds for recognizing systemic inequality, with women generally reporting higher levels of perceived discrimination (Cassese and Holman 2016). Ideological orientation, age, education, and other social positioning factors may condition how gender inequalities are perceived, interpreted, and politicized (Becker and Wright 2011; Thomas et al. 2022). These variations underscore that the link between perceived discrimination and feminist identification is mediated by broader cultural narratives and ideological frames.

1.3. Political Ideology as an Interpretive Lens

Prior research positions political ideology as an interpretive lens through which individuals evaluate social inequalities, collective movements, and politicized identities (Cassese and Holman 2016; Schildkraut et al. 2020). Within this literature, ideology is conceptualized as shaping both cognitive interpretations of gender discrimination and the normative evaluation of feminist claims, thereby influencing how gender justice is understood, contested, or legitimized within the public sphere (Becker and Wright 2011; Sanders and Jenkins 2022).

Progressive or left-leaning ideological orientations tend to be associated with a greater propensity to interpret gender inequalities as structural problems requiring collective and institutional responses (Russell et al. 2024; Sevincer et al. 2023). By contrast, conservative ideological frameworks more often emphasize individual responsibility, meritocratic principles, and traditional social roles, which can reduce sensitivity to systemic explanations of gender inequality and to collective claims for social change (Osborne et al. 2022; Twenge and Zucker 1999).

Political ideology not only shapes perceptions of injustice but is also associated with differences in the perceived social legitimacy of emotional responses such as moral outrage, empathy, or solidarity. Emotional engagement with feminist causes is more likely to be validated and normalized within progressive ideological contexts, whereas similar emotional responses may be delegitimized, dismissed, or reframed as excessive within more conservative worldviews (Harbin and Margolis 2020; Redford et al. 2018; Thomas et al. 2022). In this sense, ideology functions as a normative filter governing which emotions and identities are perceived as socially acceptable.

At the same time, ideological divisions are neither fixed nor absolute. Individuals holding moderately conservative beliefs may support specific gender-equality measures without adopting a broader feminist identity, while ideological progressivism does not necessarily translate into feminist identification when feminism is framed as extreme, exclusionary, or politically polarizing (Off 2022; Swirsky and Angelone 2016; Gill 2007; Sanders and Jenkins 2022). These patterns highlight the contextual and discursive nature of ideology in shaping feminist alignment.

1.4. Gendered Pathways to Feminist Identification

A body of research indicates that the prevalence, social meanings, and underlying processes of feminist identification differ systematically between women and men (Becker and Wright 2011; David 2014; Swirsky and Angelone 2016). These differences reflect not only individual attitudes, but also gendered patterns of socialization, structural positioning, and differential exposure to inequality, which shape how feminist claims are perceived, negotiated, and embraced.

Among women, feminist identification often emerges from the convergence of cognitive recognition of structural gender inequalities, affective solidarity with feminist goals, and ideological commitment to gender justice (Becker and Wagner 2009; Hynes et al. 2022). Personal experiences of sexism, as well as vicarious exposure to discrimination affecting other women, tend to reinforce the alignment between perceptions of injustice, emotional engagement, and feminist self-identification (Leaper and Arias 2011).

By contrast, men’s pathways to feminist identification are often more fragmented and contingent. Men’s feminist alignment appears more likely to be shaped by interpersonal dynamics—such as empathy for close others—and broader attitudinal openness to social change, rather than by direct experiences of gender-based disadvantage (Conlin and Heesacker 2018; Flood 2011; Modica and Murnen 2022). Although men may endorse egalitarian values in principle, cultural stigma surrounding feminism and perceptions of exclusion from feminist discourse can limit their willingness to adopt a feminist identity (Beasley 1999; Swirsky and Angelone 2016). Moreover, gender identification itself may operate differently across groups: while strong gender identification among women is often associated with feminist engagement, among men it has been linked to adherence to traditional gender norms and lower support for feminism (Estevan-Reina et al. 2020; Mazzuca et al. 2022).

Taken together, this body of research suggests that feminist identification is shaped by gendered social processes in which affective, perceptual, and ideological dimensions may combine in different ways across women and men. Attending to these differentiated configurations is therefore essential for advancing theoretical understandings of feminist identification as a politicized collective identity.

1.5. The Significance of Feminist Identification

Feminist identification constitutes more than a personal label; it reflects the internalization of value-based commitments, emotional solidarities, and normative orientations toward gender justice (Becker and Wagner 2009; Siegel and Calogero 2021). Importantly, these dynamics are further shaped by the fact that feminism does not constitute a single or uniformly defined social concept, but rather encompasses multiple and evolving meanings that vary across time, place, and sociopolitical contexts (Irshad et al. 2025). As a multidimensional identity, it integrates cognitive awareness of systemic inequalities with affective investment in collective change, situating individuals in relation to broader struggles over gendered power and social transformation (Becker and Wright 2011; Redford et al. 2018). Empirical research consistently shows that feminist identification is closely linked to stronger support for gender-equality policies, greater resilience in the face of sexism, and higher levels of political and activist engagement (Chamberlin and Plant 2023; Harbin and Margolis 2020; Liss et al. 2004).

At the same time, feminist identification remains unevenly distributed, even among individuals who endorse gender-equality principles. Cultural stigma attached to feminism, political polarization, and competing identity narratives can discourage explicit feminist self-identification, particularly in contexts where feminism is framed as divisive or extreme (Twenge and Zucker 1999; Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2010). Qualitative research further shows that individuals may endorse feminist goals while holding heterogeneous or ambivalent understandings of what it means to be a feminist, which can contribute to distancing from feminist self-identification despite support for gender equality (Carrino et al. 2022). This disjunction highlights that feminist identification involves a distinct identity process, shaped not only by attitudes or beliefs, but by the social meaning, legitimacy, and personal costs associated with adopting the feminist label (Flood 2011; Girerd and Bonnot 2020).

Accordingly, understanding why some individuals embrace feminist identification while others distance themselves from it—despite holding egalitarian attitudes—requires examining how affective orientations, perceptions of injustice, and ideological frameworks jointly may structure this identity process. Although prior research has examined the roles of affective alignment with collective causes (van Zomeren et al. 2008), recognition of gender discrimination (Becker and Wagner 2009), and political ideology (Cassese and Holman 2016), relatively few studies have integrated these dimensions within a single analytical framework of feminist identification (e.g., Becker and Wright 2011; Siegel and Calogero 2021). Even fewer have examined whether these processes operate differently across women and men using large-scale or nationally representative data (e.g., Fernández-Torres et al. 2025). Addressing these gaps, the present study examines how affective, perceptual, and ideological dimensions jointly relate to feminist identification in contemporary Spain.

1.6. Present Study

The present study examines how affective, perceptual, and ideological dimensions are jointly related to feminist identification. Drawing on prior research on politicized collective identities, feminist identification is conceptualized as a multidimensional sociopolitical identity shaped by emotional alignment with collective causes, perceptions of structural gender inequality and ideological positioning. These three domains—Sympathy for Social Movements, Perceived Gender Discrimination, and Political Ideology—are modeled as interrelated latent constructs in relation to feminist identification. Figure 1 presents the theoretical framework guiding this study.

Rather than assuming linear or strictly causal relationships, the study adopts an exploratory–confirmatory approach. The proposed structural model integrates theoretically grounded associations while allowing the data to inform the relative salience and configuration of affective, perceptual, and ideological dimensions. All focal constructs are allowed to correlate, reflecting the assumption that emotional responses, cognitive interpretations of inequality, and political orientations are intertwined in the formation of politicized identities.

Given consistent evidence of gendered patterns in feminist identification, the structural model is estimated using gender-stratified models for women and men with identical specifications. This analytic strategy is intended to explore whether similar model structures yield different relational patterns across gender groups, rather than to formally test between-group differences. Accordingly, results are interpreted as indicative of distinct configurations within each group.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The study draws on a nationally representative sample of 4005 individuals residing in Spain, aged 16 years and older. Data were obtained from the Center for Sociological Research (CIS) survey Perceptions of Equality Between Men and Women and Gender Stereotyping (Study No. 3428; CIS 2023). Sampling followed CIS standard procedures, employing a probabilistic, stratified multistage design with proportional quotas by sex, age group, and region, consistent with best practices in large-scale survey research (Groves et al. 2009).

The inclusion of respondents aged 16 and above is consistent with CIS guidelines and allows coverage of political socialization processes during late adolescence. The final dataset comprised 51.2% women and 48.8% men, closely mirroring the gender composition of the Spanish population. Participants’ mean age was 42.7 years (SD = 15.3), with an age range from 16 to 85 years. The sample captured substantial heterogeneity in political orientations, religious affiliations, and educational backgrounds, supporting analyses of feminist identification across diverse social and ideological profiles.

2.2. Procedure

Data were drawn from a nationally representative survey conducted by the Spanish Centre for Sociological Research (CIS), using a probabilistic, stratified multistage sampling design. Participants were contacted via random-digit dialing of telephone numbers, following CIS standard fieldwork procedures, with stratification by municipality size and the application of demographic quotas for age and gender.

Regarding gender identification, the CIS survey included only binary response categories (woman/man), and no non-binary or gender-diverse options were available at the time of data collection. As such, the present study reflects the institutional design of the original survey instrument, which may also be shaped by broader cultural and administrative conventions within the Spanish context.

Data were collected through computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI), a method widely used in survey research due to its efficiency and its capacity to reduce interviewer bias and item nonresponse (Dillman et al. 2014). To ensure broad demographic coverage, interviews were conducted using randomly selected mobile (72.8%) and landline (27.2%) telephone numbers. Fieldwork took place over an eight-day period in November 2023 and adhered to CIS protocols for interview administration and sample substitution procedures (CIS 2023).

Item-level missingness was minimal, with nonresponse rates generally below 1%. Descriptive analyses were conducted using available data, while structural models were estimated using full information maximum likelihood (FIML), which allows the inclusion of all cases with partial data under the assumption that data are missing at random (Enders 2010). This approach preserves statistical power and minimizes bias associated with listwise deletion, particularly in large non-experimental datasets.

All respondents provided informed consent prior to participation, in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants (American Psychological Association 2020). The overall margin of error for the sample was ±1.58% at a 95.5% confidence level.

Although the CIS employs a probabilistic, stratified multistage sampling design, the present analyses were conducted without applying survey weights. This approach is consistent with prior research using CIS data when the primary objective is the examination of associations and structural relationships rather than population-level parameter estimation.

Standard errors were therefore estimated using conventional maximum likelihood procedures as implemented in the structural equation modeling framework, without design-based or cluster-robust corrections.

The margin of error reported corresponds to the CIS technical documentation and is based on assumptions of simple random sampling; it is therefore presented for descriptive reference only and not used for inferential purposes in the present analyses.

2.3. Measures

All variables were drawn from the CIS Study No. 3428 questionnaire (CIS 2023). Constructs were operationalized using multiple observed indicators selected on the basis of theoretical relevance, factorial validity, and consistency with prior research. For the purposes of latent variable modeling, ordinal items were treated as approximately continuous, following established practice in structural equation modeling with large samples (Hair et al. 2019; Rhemtulla et al. 2012).

Table 1. Operationalization of Study Constructs.

Construct	Number of Items	Item Content	Response Scale
Sympathy for Social Movements	4	How much sympathy do you feel toward environmentalist movements; pacifist movements; LGBTQ+ movements; and human rights movements?	0 (No sympathy) to 10 (Complete sympathy)
Perceived Gender Discrimination	4	Do you think women face more difficulties than men in achieving work–life balance; in accessing economic opportunities; and in avoiding sexual discrimination? In how many areas—such as salaries, employment, leadership, politics, caregiving, work–life balance, and gender-based violence—do you perceive inequality?	Items 1–3: 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree); Item 4 (composite index): 0 to 7 domains
Political Ideology	2	Where do you place yourself on a left–right political scale? Which political party best reflects your general political views?	1 (Far right) to 10 (Far left); 1 (Strongly conservative) to 7 (Strongly progressive)
Feminist Identification	2	To what extent do you identify as a feminist? How much sympathy do you feel toward the feminist movement?	0 (Not at all) to 10 (Completely)

Note. All items were adapted from the 2023 CIS Survey (Study No. 3428).

presents an overview of the constructs, items, and response scales.

2.4. Sympathy for Social Movements

This construct captured affective alignment with progressive social movements. It comprised four items assessing sympathy toward environmentalist, pacifist, LGBTQ+, and human rights movements (e.g., “I feel sympathy for environmentalist movements”), rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (No sympathy) to 10 (Complete sympathy). The item assessing sympathy toward the feminist movement was excluded from this construct and instead used as an indicator of feminist identification. Items were modeled as reflective indicators of a latent Sympathy for Social Movements factor, consistent with affective pathways proposed in collective action models (van Zomeren et al. 2008; Thomas et al. 2022). This factor does not capture discrete emotional states (e.g., anger, outrage, or hope), but rather a generalized affective orientation of sympathy toward collective causes framed around social justice. As such, it reflects an evaluative–emotional stance indicating affective proximity to progressive movements, rather than ideological self-placement or explicit political identification.

Importantly, this construct was not designed to assess support for feminism specifically, but to index broader affective affinity with progressive social causes. Although such affinity may partially overlap with left–right ideological orientation, it remains conceptually distinct in that it captures emotional alignment rather than cognitive or ideological positioning. This distinction allows the present study to examine affective and ideological dimensions as related but non-equivalent pathways associated with feminist identification.

2.5. Perceived Gender Discrimination

Perceived gender discrimination assessed recognition of structural inequalities affecting women. The construct included four indicators. One was a composite index developed by the CIS, based on seven dichotomous items capturing perceived unequal treatment of women in domains such as pay, employment opportunities, leadership positions, political representation, domestic responsibilities, work–life balance, and gender-based violence. Scores ranged from 0 to 7, reflecting the number of domains in which inequality was perceived.

The remaining three items assessed whether women face greater difficulties than men in achieving work–life balance, accessing economic opportunities, and avoiding sexual discrimination, rated on a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Indicators were specified as reflective measures of a latent Perceived Gender Discrimination factor, in line with prior research linking recognition of systemic injustice to feminist identification (Becker and Wagner 2009; van Zomeren et al. 2008; Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2010).

2.6. Political Ideology

Political ideology was operationalized using two conceptually aligned indicators capturing respondents’ general ideological orientation. The first was a left–right self-placement item measured on a 10-point scale, and the second was a party preference item reflecting general political affiliation. Both indicators were reverse-coded so that higher values indicated a more progressive ideological orientation. Although measured with two indicators, this specification is theoretically defensible and psychometrically acceptable when indicators demonstrate strong conceptual coherence and internal consistency (Bollen 1989).

2.7. Feminist Identification

Feminist identification was represented by two items capturing attitudinal affinity and political self-definition: self-identification with feminism and sympathy toward the feminist movement. Both items were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (Not at all) to 10 (Completely). Items were modeled as reflective indicators of a latent Feminist Identification factor, consistent with multidimensional conceptualizations of feminist identity integrating values, affect, and political self-concept (Becker and Wright 2011; Siegel and Calogero 2021). Importantly, this construct does not operationalize ideological endorsement or behavioral engagement, but rather reflects a subjective form of sociopolitical identification combining symbolic self-labeling and affective proximity to feminism as a collective identity.

2.8. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Data

Analyses followed a multi-stage strategy integrating exploratory and confirmatory procedures within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework (Kline 2016). First, a principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to explore the latent structure of the observed indicators. Sampling adequacy was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Components were extracted using the eigenvalue greater-than-one criterion and scree plot inspection, and oblimin rotation was applied to allow correlations among components (Jolliffe and Cadima 2016).

Based on theoretical expectations and PCA results, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) specified four latent constructs: Sympathy for Social Movements, Perceived Gender Discrimination, Political Ideology, and Feminist Identification. Model fit was evaluated using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), following established guidelines (Brown 2015; Kline 2016). All models were estimated using FIML.

Subsequently, a structural model was estimated in which Sympathy for Social Movements, Perceived Gender Discrimination, and Political Ideology were allowed to covary and were specified in relation to Feminist Identification. Indirect associations involving Political Ideology were also examined. To explore potential gendered configurations in the patterning of associations, gender-stratified models were estimated separately for women and men using identical specifications, consistent with prior research on gendered pathways to feminist identification (Swirsky and Angelone 2016; Russell et al. 2024). Formal tests of measurement invariance were not conducted, as the primary aim was exploratory–confirmatory and focused on within-group relational patterns rather than direct between-group comparisons.

Distributional properties were assessed using skewness and kurtosis statistics. Multicollinearity was examined via bivariate correlations (all |r| < 0.85) and variance inflation factors (all VIFs < 5). Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and composite reliability indices. All analyses were conducted using JASP (Version 0.19.3; JASP Team 2025).

All materials, data, and analysis scripts are available through the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/avtp2/?view_only=b5418bf07dcd4f2bb9d347ae2a79c2c5 (accessed on 16 April 2025).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics were computed for all observed indicators in the total sample (N = 4005) and separately for women and men.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Normality Indicators by Construct and Gender.

Construct/Item	Women (M/SD)	Men (M/SD)	Total (M/SD)	Skewness	Kurtosis
Sympathy for Social Movements
Environmentalism (ECOESCSYMPATHY)	7.19 (2.48)	6.37 (2.78)	6.77 (2.66)	−0.85	0.28
Pacifism (PACESCSYMPATHY)	7.40 (2.57)	6.58 (2.84)	6.98 (2.74)	−0.91	0.21
LGBTQ+ (LGTBIQ+ESCSYMPATHY)	7.18 (2.84)	6.00 (3.27)	6.58 (3.12)	−0.80	−0.36
Human Rights (PHRESCSYMPATHY)	8.59 (1.96)	8.05 (2.25)	8.32 (2.12)	−1.68	3.13
Perceived Gender Discrimination
Inequality Degree (INEQUALITYDEG)	2.80 (0.86)	2.44 (0.94)	2.62 (0.92)	−0.26	−0.74
Work–Life Balance (ACHIEVEQUALITY)	4.06 (1.19)	3.80 (1.35)	3.93 (1.28)	−1.15	0.07
Economic Discrimination (ECOGENDERDISCRIMINATION)	3.89 (2.05)	2.81 (2.10)	3.35 (2.15)	−0.15	−1.23
Sexual Discrimination (SEXGENDERDISCRIMINATION)	1.24 (1.38)	1.04 (1.17)	1.14 (1.29)	1.22	1.09
Political Ideology
Ideological Self-Placement (ESCLEFTIDEOL)	6.32 (2.55)	6.15 (2.48)	6.23 (2.52)	−0.32	−0.67
Party Identification (ESCLEFTVOTE)	4.17 (1.97)	4.01 (2.13)	4.09 (2.06)	−0.04	−1.43
Feminist Identification
Feminist Sympathy (FEMESCSYMPATHY)	6.58 (3.16)	5.64 (3.35)	6.11 (3.29)	−0.58	−0.82
Feminist Self-Definition (ESCFEMINIS)	6.74 (2.68)	5.77 (2.48)	6.27 (2.74)	−0.85	0.20

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. N = 4005.

reports means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for each item by construct. Overall, women showed higher mean levels of sympathy for progressive movements, perceived gender discrimination, and feminist identification than men, in line with previous work on gender and politicized identities (Becker and Wright 2011; Swirsky and Angelone 2016).

All variables showed acceptable univariate distributions (skewness and kurtosis within ±2), supporting the use of maximum likelihood estimation (Kline 2016). The only exception was the sympathy item for human rights movements, which exhibited slightly higher kurtosis (skewness = −1.68 and kurtosis = 3.13). Given evidence that full information maximum likelihood is robust to moderate departures from normality in large samples, no transformations were applied (Enders 2010).

Bivariate correlations among observed indicators are presented in

Table 3. Bivariate Correlations Among Observed Variables (Total Sample, N = 4005).

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Environmentalism	—
2. Pacifism	0.75 ***	—
3. LGBTQ+	0.64 ***	0.61 ***	—
4. Human Rights	0.56 ***	0.61 ***	0.57 ***	—
5. Inequality Degree	0.33 ***	0.29 ***	0.42 ***	0.27 ***	—
6. Work–Life Balance	0.35 ***	0.35 ***	0.43 ***	0.35 ***	0.38 ***	—
7. Economic Discrimination	0.36 ***	0.34 ***	0.47 ***	0.33 ***	0.53 ***	0.40 ***	—
8. Sexual Discrimination	0.29 ***	0.26 ***	0.36 ***	0.23 ***	0.28 ***	0.26 ***	0.35 ***	—
9. Feminist Sympathy	0.65 ***	0.64 ***	0.76 ***	0.54 ***	0.44 ***	0.45 ***	0.53 ***	0.38 ***	—
10. Feminist Self-Definition	0.46 ***	0.44 ***	0.59 ***	0.39 ***	0.38 ***	0.43 ***	0.47 ***	0.34 ***	0.70 ***	—
11. Self-Placement	0.41 ***	0.39 ***	0.52 ***	0.34 ***	0.36 ***	0.34 ***	0.43 ***	0.36 ***	0.56 ***	0.44 ***	—
12. Party Identification	0.49 ***	0.45 ***	0.60 ***	0.41 ***	0.42 ***	0.37 ***	0.47 ***	0.41 ***	0.63 ***	0.50 ***	0.74 ***	—

Note. All coefficients are Pearson’s r (two-tailed). *** p < 0.001. No correlation exceeded the multicollinearity threshold of r > 0.85.

. Associations ranged from small to strong (all p < 0.001). No correlation exceeded |r| = 0.85, and variance inflation factors remained below 5, indicating no evidence of problematic multicollinearity (Hair et al. 2019). These descriptive patterns supported proceeding to confirmatory and structural modeling.

3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A CFA evaluated the hypothesized measurement model comprising four latent constructs: Sympathy for Social Movements, Perceived Gender Discrimination, Political Ideology, and Feminist Identification. Model specification was guided by theory (Becker and Wright 2011; Thomas et al. 2022) and consistent with prior exploratory analyses.

All indicators loaded significantly on their intended factors (p < 0.001), with standardized loadings ranging from 0.520 to 0.953 (

Table 4. Standardized Factor Loadings from Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Total Sample, N = 4005).

Latent Construct	Indicator	Standardized Loading	p-Value
Sympathy for Social Movements	Environmentalism	0.816	<0.001
	Pacifism	0.812	<0.001
	LGBTQ+	0.843	<0.001
	Human Rights	0.715	<0.001
Perceived Gender Discrimination	Work–Life Balance	0.592	<0.001
	Inequality Degree	0.685	<0.001
	Economic Discrimination	0.761	<0.001
	Sexual Discrimination	0.520	<0.001
Political Ideology	Self-Placement	0.841	<0.001
	Party Identification	0.879	<0.001
Feminist Identification	Feminist Sympathy	0.953	<0.001
	Feminist Self-Definition	0.762	<0.001

Note. All loadings are significant at p < 0.001.

). Reliability estimates were high across constructs, with Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega values above 0.80, supporting internal consistency for latent modeling (Brown 2015; Hair et al. 2019).

Model fit was acceptable (CFI = 0.950, TLI = 0.932, RMSEA = 0.079, and SRMR = 0.039), consistent with recommended thresholds (Kline 2016). As expected with large samples, the chi-square test was significant; therefore, interpretation relied on incremental and residual-based fit indices (Bentler 2007). Overall, results supported the factorial validity of the measurement model and justified its use in subsequent structural analyses.

3.3. Structural Equation Modeling

SEM was estimated for the total sample and separately for women and men. These gender-stratified models were estimated independently to explore within-group relational patterns and do not constitute formal statistical tests of between-group differences. The model specified direct associations of Sympathy for Social Movements, Perceived Gender Discrimination, and Political Ideology with Feminist Identification, as well as indirect associations through Political Ideology.

Overall model fit was acceptable across samples (

Table 5. Model Fit Indices and Internal Consistency by Gender (CFA and SEM).

Sample	CFI (CFA/SEM)	TLI (CFA/SEM)	RMSEA (CFA/SEM)	SRMR (CFA/SEM)	α Range	ω Range
Total Sample	0.950/0.953	0.932/0.935	0.079/0.083	0.039/0.039	0.80–0.90	0.81–0.91
Women	0.947/0.952	0.928/0.933	0.077/0.080	0.045/0.043	0.84–0.90	0.85–0.91
Men	0.951/0.953	0.933/0.935	0.080/0.085	0.035/0.037	0.82–0.88	0.83–0.89

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; SEM = structural equation modeling. α = Cronbach’s alpha; ω = McDonald’s omega. Fit indices are reported separately for the measurement (CFA) and structural (SEM) models. All models were estimated using full information maximum likelihood (FIML).

). For the total sample, fit indices were CFI = 0.953, TLI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.083, and SRMR = 0.039. Gender-stratified models also showed satisfactory fit, consistent with established evaluation criteria (Brown 2015; Kline 2016). Chi-square tests were significant (p < 0.001), which is expected in large samples and does not, on its own, indicate poor fit (Bentler 2007).

In the total sample (

Table 6. Standardized Path Coefficients from Structural Equation Modeling.

Path	Total Sample	Women	Men
Sympathy for Social Movements → Feminist Identification	0.582 ***	0.541 ***	0.650 ***
Perceived Gender Discrimination → Feminist Identification	0.300 ***	0.288 ***	0.326 ***
Sympathy for Social Movements → Political Ideology	0.375 ***	0.280 ***	0.454 ***
Perceived Gender Discrimination → Political Ideology	0.463 ***	0.569 ***	0.416 ***
Political Ideology → Feminist Identification	0.123 ***	0.179 ***	0.022 (ns)
Indirect: Sympathy for Social Movements → Political Ideology → Feminist Identification	0.046 ***	0.050 ***	0.010 (ns)
Indirect: Perceived Gender Discrimination → Political Ideology → Feminist Identification	0.057 ***	0.102 ***	0.009 (ns)
Total Effect: Sympathy for Social Movements → Feminist Identification	0.629 ***	0.591 ***	0.660 ***
Total Effect: Perceived Gender Discrimination → Feminist Identification	0.357 ***	0.390 ***	0.336 ***

Note. All coefficients are standardized estimates from structural equation modeling. *** p < 0.001. (ns) = not significant.

; see Figure 2), all direct paths were statistically significant. Feminist Identification was strongly associated with Sympathy for Social Movements (β = 0.582, p < 0.001) and Perceived Gender Discrimination (β = 0.300, p < 0.001), while Political Ideology showed a smaller positive association (β = 0.123, p < 0.001). Indirect associations through Political Ideology were statistically significant but modest in magnitude for Sympathy for Social Movements (β = 0.046, p < 0.001) and Perceived Gender Discrimination (β = 0.057, p < 0.001).

Gender-stratified models suggested distinct relational patterns across women and men. Among women (see Figure 3), Feminist Identification was associated with Sympathy for Social Movements (β = 0.541, p < 0.001), Perceived Gender Discrimination (β = 0.288, p < 0.001), and Political Ideology (β = 0.179, p < 0.001). Indirect associations via Political Ideology were also significant for Sympathy for Social Movements (β = 0.050, p < 0.001) and Perceived Gender Discrimination (β = 0.102, p < 0.001).

Among men (see Figure 4), Feminist Identification was associated with Sympathy for Social Movements (β = 0.650, p < 0.001) and Perceived Gender Discrimination (β = 0.326, p < 0.001). By contrast, Political Ideology showed no significant direct association with Feminist Identification (β = 0.022, p = 0.600), and indirect associations via ideology were not significant (Sympathy for Social Movements: β = 0.010, p = 0.602; Perceived Gender Discrimination: β = 0.009, p = 0.597). Thus, in the men’s model, associations with feminist identification were concentrated in affective and perceptual pathways, whereas ideological associations were not supported within this subsample. These patterns should be interpreted as descriptive and exploratory, as no formal multi-group constraint tests were conducted.

4. Discussion

The present study examined how affective, perceptual, and ideological dimensions are associated with feminist identification in Spain, drawing on a nationally representative sample (N = 4005). Across the total sample, sympathy for progressive social movements and perceived gender discrimination showed strong associations with feminist identification, whereas political ideology displayed a comparatively modest contribution. Gender-stratified models suggested distinct relational configurations in the separately estimated models. In the model estimated for women, political ideology appeared more closely interwoven with affective and perceptual dimensions, whereas in the model estimated for men, feminist identification was primarily associated with emotional alignment and perceptions of injustice, with ideological orientation showing no meaningful association. Taken together, these findings are consistent with a multidimensional and gendered understanding of feminist identification as a politicized collective identity shaped by emotional solidarity, recognition of inequality, and the interpretive role of ideology (Simon and Klandermans 2001; Thomas et al. 2022; van Zomeren et al. 2008).

4.1. Affective Alignment with Social Movements and Feminist Identification

A central contribution of this study is the strong association between affective alignment with progressive social movements—captured through sympathy for environmental, pacifist, LGBTQ+, and human rights causes—and feminist identification. This pattern aligns with theoretical approaches that emphasize the emotional foundations of politicized identities and collective action (Simon and Klandermans 2001; Thomas et al. 2022; van Zomeren et al. 2008). Individuals expressing higher levels of sympathy toward broader justice causes tended to report feminist identification, suggesting that emotional solidarity is a meaningful correlate of how individuals relate to feminist identity claims. Here, sympathy is interpreted as a generalized evaluative–emotional affinity toward collective justice causes rather than as a direct proxy for left–right ideological self-placement. Although sympathy for progressive movements is empirically related to political ideology, the present study treats affective alignment and ideological self-placement as analytically distinct dimensions: affective alignment captures evaluative emotional affinity toward collective justice causes, whereas political ideology captures broader cognitive and normative orientations along the left–right spectrum. The structural models are consistent with this distinction, as both dimensions show independent associations with feminist identification.

These findings are consistent with prior research showing that emotional resonance with social justice goals may be associated with stronger feminist alignment in contexts where ideological labels carry symbolic and social costs (Flood 2011; Off 2022; Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2010). Sympathy may represent a lower-threshold form of engagement, particularly for individuals who are reluctant to publicly adopt the feminist label due to stigma or political polarization (Gill 2007; Redford et al. 2018). In this sense, affective alignment may operate as an emotionally accessible pathway into feminist identification that does not necessarily presuppose ideological coherence or explicit political positioning. The robustness of this association across gender groups further suggests that affective alignment represents a broadly shared dimension through which feminist identification is constructed, even in contested sociopolitical environments.

At the same time, gender-stratified analyses indicate that the articulation between affective alignment and ideological positioning follows different relational patterns across the separately estimated models. Among women, political ideology was more clearly embedded in the association between sympathy for progressive causes and feminist identification, echoing previous findings that women’s politicized identities tend to integrate emotional engagement with structural and ideological interpretations of injustice (David 2014; Swirsky and Angelone 2016). Among men, by contrast, affective alignment showed a strong association with feminist identification independently of ideological orientation, consistent with scholarship suggesting that men’s engagement with feminism is often more relational or attitudinal than ideologically anchored (Beasley 1999; Estevan-Reina et al. 2020).

Importantly, these results build on prior work (e.g., Becker and Wright 2011; Siegel and Calogero 2021) by showing that affective alignment with broader justice movements remains strongly associated with feminist identification in a context characterized by intense political polarization and public contestation of feminist claims (Alonso et al. 2023). Although sympathy for progressive movements may partially overlap with left-oriented value systems, the present findings suggest that affective resonance retains explanatory relevance beyond ideological self-placement alone. This suggests that emotional solidarity may reflect a relatively resilient dimension of feminist alignment, even as ideological debates intensify (Kováts and Põim 2015; Verloo 2018).

4.2. Perceived Gender Discrimination and Feminist Identification

Perceived gender discrimination also emerged as a central dimension associated with feminist identification. Participants who recognized structural inequalities in domains such as work–life balance, economic opportunities, and sexual discrimination were more likely to identify as feminists, consistent with research linking perceptions of injustice to politicized collective identities (Becker and Wagner 2009; Chamberlin and Plant 2023; van Zomeren et al. 2008). These findings align with theoretical models emphasizing that recognizing shared structural grievances is linked to the politicization of social categories and the legitimation of collective identity claims (Simon and Klandermans 2001; van Zomeren et al. 2008).

At a broader level, perceiving discrimination is associated with an interpretive framing through which gender inequality is understood as a collective, rather than individual, problem, which may be linked to viewing feminist identification socially meaningful and normatively justified (Becker and Wright 2011). In Spain, where public debates around gender violence, institutional sexism, and equality policies have been particularly salient, perceptions of discrimination may be especially relevant in structuring whether feminism is perceived as necessary, legitimate, and identity-relevant (Alonso et al. 2023; Árbol-Pérez and Entrena-Durán 2022). The consistency of this association across the national sample suggests that recognition of inequality remains a core dimension of feminist identification even under polarized conditions. Importantly, this pattern showed a high degree of consistency across women and men, with broadly similar directional associations across the separately estimated models.

4.3. Political Ideology and Gendered Patterns of Feminist Identification

Political ideology showed a pattern of associations that varied across the separately estimated models in relation to feminist identification. Among women, a more progressive ideological orientation was associated with stronger feminist identification and was more clearly intertwined with affective and perceptual dimensions. Ideological orientation showed no meaningful association with feminist identification in the men’s model. This pattern is consistent with research positioning ideology as a contextual lens through which individuals interpret social inequalities and evaluate collective movements (Cassese and Holman 2016; Schildkraut et al. 2020; Thomas et al. 2022).

One interpretation is that women may tend to integrate emotional solidarity and perceptions of discrimination into coherent ideological frameworks supportive of feminist identification, consistent with evidence that women tend to rely more on structural and ideological interpretations of inequality (David 2014; Swirsky and Angelone 2016). Within the female subsample, ideology may be associated with greater normative legitimacy of feminist identification in contexts where feminism is politically contested (Harbin and Margolis 2020; Sanders and Jenkins 2022). Progressive orientations emphasize systemic understandings of inequality and collective solutions, potentially aligning with feminist alignment, whereas conservative frameworks emphasizing individual responsibility and traditional roles may be associated with lower alignment even when inequality is acknowledged (Russell et al. 2024; Sevincer et al. 2023).

The absence of ideological associations among men may reflect that men’s feminist identification is less embedded in conventional ideological self-placement and more shaped by emotional proximity and relational engagement with feminist causes (Conlin and Heesacker 2018; Mazzuca et al. 2022). It may also reflect cultural narratives positioning feminism primarily as a women’s issue, reducing its relevance for men’s ideological self-definition even among those with progressive views (Beasley 1999; Flood 2011).

4.4. Theoretical and Practical Implications

The present findings contribute to theoretical models of feminist identification and collective identity formation by showing that feminist identification is associated with a constellation of affective, perceptual, and ideological dimensions that combine differently across gender groups (Simon and Klandermans 2001; Thomas et al. 2022; van Zomeren et al. 2008). Emotional alignment with broader justice movements and recognition of gender discrimination appear central across genders, whereas ideological positioning plays a more integrative role among women. These patterns underscore the importance of incorporating gendered dynamics into theories of politicized identities, activism, and political engagement (David 2014; Sanders and Jenkins 2022; Swirsky and Angelone 2016).

From an applied perspective, the findings suggest that communications emphasizing emotional solidarity with broader justice values may be associated with higher feminist identification, particularly among men, for whom ideological positioning appears less central. Messages emphasizing shared commitments to justice, freedom, and human rights may resonate with broader audiences beyond explicitly ideological framing (Conlin and Heesacker 2018; Flood 2011). At the same time, greater public recognition of structural gender inequalities may be relevant, especially given evidence that acknowledging inequality does not automatically translate into feminist identification (Girerd and Bonnot 2020; Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2010). Addressing stigma and contested cultural narratives surrounding feminism may be particularly relevant in polarized contexts (Moscatelli et al. 2021; Off 2022; Árbol-Pérez and Entrena-Durán 2022).

4.5. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design does not permit causal inference. Although the proposed associations are theoretically grounded, longitudinal and experimental designs are necessary to clarify temporal ordering among affective, perceptual, ideological, and identity-related dimensions (Kline 2016; Thomas et al. 2022).

Second, feminist identification was operationalized using two attitudinal indicators—self-identification and sympathy toward the feminist movement—which may not capture the full multidimensionality of feminist identity, including behavioral and cognitive components (Becker and Wright 2011; Siegel and Calogero 2021).

Third, data were collected via telephone interviews, which may be sensitive to social desirability effects for politically salient topics (Dillman et al. 2014). Future research could benefit from mixed-method approaches to better capture subjective meanings and ambivalences surrounding feminist identification.

Fourth, ideological orientation was measured using general self-placement and party preference, which may not fully reflect the complexity of political worldviews in polarized contexts (Huddy et al. 2015). Incorporating more fine-grained ideological measures may refine our understanding of how political schemas intersect with feminist identification (Schildkraut et al. 2020; Sanders and Jenkins 2022).

Finally, although gender-stratified models were estimated with identical specifications, measurement invariance was not formally tested. Future work should address measurement equivalence to strengthen cross-group comparability (Putnick and Bornstein 2016).

5. Conclusions

Overall, the present findings suggest that feminist identification in Spain is primarily associated with affective resonance and perceived injustice, while ideological positioning operates more conditionally and in gender-specific ways. Drawing on a nationally representative sample, the study shows that sympathy for progressive social movements and recognition of gender discrimination constitute robust correlates of feminist identification in both gender-stratified models. Political ideology, by contrast, plays a more selective role, emerging as relevant primarily among women and remaining non-significant among men.

These results support conceptualizations of feminist identification as a multidimensional and socially situated form of politicized identity. Emotional solidarity and perceptions of injustice appear as central correlates through which individuals relate to feminism, even in contexts marked by political polarization and public contestation of feminist claims. At the same time, the pattern observed across the gender-stratified models suggests that the integration of affective and perceptual experiences into broader ideological frameworks may not operate uniformly across contexts or gendered configurations.

By integrating affective, perceptual, and ideological dimensions within a single structural model, this study contributes to research on collective identity formation and gendered political engagement. More broadly, the findings underscore the importance of attending to differentiated social pathways when examining feminist identification and caution against assuming that ideological self-placement alone captures the complexity of feminist alignment in contemporary polarized societies.