Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The hypothesis that possessing multiple subordinate-group identities renders a person “invisible” relative to those with a single subordinate-group identity is developed. We propose that androcentric, ethnocentric, and heterocentric ideologies will cause people who have multiple subordinate-group identities to be defined as non-prototypical members of their respective identity groups. Because people with multiple subordinate-group identities (e.g., ethnic minority woman) do not fit the prototypes of their respective identity groups (e.g., ethnic minorities, women), they will experience what we have termed “intersectional invisibility.” In this article, our model of intersectional invisibility is developed and evidence from historical narratives, cultural representations, interest-group politics, and anti-discrimination legal frameworks is used to illustrate its utility. Implications for social psychological theory and research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almquist, E. M. (1975). Untangling the effects of race and sex: The disadvantaged status of Black women. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 129–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, I., & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in negotiation for the purchase of a new car. American Economic Review, 85, 304–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayard Rustin (1910–1987). These are his birth and death years. the citation is from Carbado, which is at the end of the sentence. no change necessary here.

  • Beale, F. (1979). Double jeopardy: To be black and female. In T. Cade (Ed.), The Black Woman (pp. 90–100). New York: New American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1994). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426–436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bérubé, A. (2001). How gay stays white and what kind of white it stays. In B. B. Rasmussen, E. Klinenberg, I. J. Nexica, & M. Wray (Eds.), The making and unmaking of whiteness (pp. 234–265). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., Sadler, M. S., & Jenkins, C. (2002). The role of Afrocentric features in person perception: Judging by features and categories. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonilla-Silva, E. (2000). “This is a White Country”: The racial ideology of the Western nations of the world-system. Sociological Quarterly, 70, 188–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowleg, L., Huang, J., Brooks, K., Black, A., & Burkholder, G. (2003). Triple jeopardy and beyond: Multiple minority stress and resilience among Black lesbians. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbado, D. W. (2000a). Black rights, gay rights, civil rights. UCLA Law Review, 47, 1467–1519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbado, D. W. (2000b). Race and sex in antidiscrimination law. In L. W. Levy, & K. L. Karst (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the American constitution (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbado, D. W. (2002). Race to the bottom. UCLA Law Review, 49, 1283–1313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbado, D. W., & Weise, W. (2004). The Civil Rights identity of Bayard Rustin. Texas Law Review, 82, 1133–1195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Y. B., & Katayama, M. (1998). Ethnic and sexual identity development of Asian- American lesbian and gay adolescents. Professional School Counseling, 1, 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, C. (1999). The boundaries of blackness: AIDS and the breakdown of black politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P. H. (1999). Moving beyond gender: Intersectionality and scientific knowledge. In M. F. Ferree (Ed.), Revisioning gender (pp. 261–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, L. (2001). Assessing sexual harassment among Latinas. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 164–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In K. Bartlett, & R. Kennedy (Eds.), Feminist legal theory: Readings in law and gender (pp. 57–80). San Francisco: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, K. W. (1992). Whose story is it anyway? Feminist and antiracist appropriations of Anita Hill. In T. Morrison (Ed.), Race-ing justice, en-gendering power: Essays on Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas and the construction of social reality (pp. 402–440). New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, K. W. (1995). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp. 357–383). New York: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. Y. (1981). Women, race, and class. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGraffenreid v. Gen. Motors Assembly Div. (1976). 558 F.2d 480, 484.

  • D’Emilio, J. (2004). Lost prophet: The life and times of Bayard Rustin. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denizet-Lewis, B. (2003). Double lives on the down low. New York Times Magazine (pp. 28–33), August 3.

  • Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = white? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. M. (2003a). Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 352–364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. M. (2003b). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both women and men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 451–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17, 383–386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhardt, J. L., Goff, P. A., Purdie, V. J., & Davies, P. G. (2004). Seeing black: Race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 876–963.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eibach, R. P., & Ehrlinger, J. (2006). Keep your eyes on the prize: Reference points and group differences in assessing progress towards equality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 66–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eibach, R. P., & Keegan, T. (2006). Free at last? Social dominance, loss aversion, and white and black Americans’ differing assessments of progress towards racial equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 453–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, C. F. (1973). Black and female: The double whammy. Psychology Today, 89, 57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., & Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double-minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 659–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, A. M. (2007). When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5, 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (1995). Contextual changes in the prototypicality of extreme and moderate outgroup members. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 509–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2004). The differences that norms make: Empiricism, social constructionism and the interpretation of group differences. Sex Roles, 50, 445–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, P., Pratto, F., & Lemieux, A. (2004). Heterocentric norms and heterosexist ambivalences: Drinking in intergroup discomfort. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston: Sound End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries, V., & Ransford, H. E. (1980). Social stratification: A multiple hierarchy approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D. H. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a black feminist ideology. Signs, 14, 42–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, M. (1975). Oppression and power: The unique status of Blackwomen in the American political system. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. R. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 22, 336–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Alcaraz, R., Scott, J., & Wilkins, P. (1995). Multiple variables in discrimination. In B. Lott & D. Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of interpersonal discrimination (pp. 183–224). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S., Sinclair, S., Veniegas, R. C., & Taylor, P. L. (2002). Perceived discrimination in the context of multiple group memberships. Psychological Science, 13, 557–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lien, P. (1994). Ethnicity and political participation: A comparison between Asian and Mexican Americans. Political Behavior, 16(2), 237–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, K. B. (2004). Perspectives on racial phenotypicality bias. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 383–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, J. D., & Owens, T. J. (2004). Psychological well-being in the early life course: Variations by socioeconomic status, gender, and race/ethnicity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 275–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T., Taylor, B., & Buck, M. L. (1991). Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 5–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, A. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, O. (1995). The crisis of gender relations among African-Americans. In A. Hill & E. C. Coleman (Eds.), Race, gender, and power in America: The legacy of the Hill-Thomas Hearings (pp. 56–104). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ransford, H. E., & Miller, J. (1983). Race, sex, and feminist outlooks. American Sociological Review, 48, 46–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, P. T. (1984). Feminism versus minority group identity: Not for Black women only. Sex Roles, 10, 247–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, P. T., & Comas-Diaz, L. (1990). Gender and ethnicity: Perspectives on dual status. Sex Roles, 22, 397–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salgado de Synder, N. V., Cervantes, R. C., & Padilla, A. M. (1990). Gender and ethnic differences in psychosocial stress and generalized distress among Hispanics. Sex Roles, 22, 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settles, I. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black women’s racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54, 589–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Kurzban, R. (2003). Evolutionary approaches to political psychology. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 146–181). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Veniegas, R. C. (2000). Gender and race discrimination: The interactive nature of disadvantage. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 47–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, R. G., Black, A., & Zhou, Y. (1991). African-American versus White children and the transition into junior high school. American Journal of Education, 99, 481–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims-Wood, J. (1988). The black female: Mammy, Jemima, Sapphire, and other images. In J. Smith (Ed.), Images of blacks in American culture (pp. 235–256). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., & Stewart, A. J. (1983). Approaches to studying racism and sexism in black women’s lives. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strolovitch, D. Z. (2007). Affirmative advocacy: Race, class, and gender in interest group politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong? American Psychologist, 54, 1070–7077.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, more, and morals. Boston, MA: Ginn & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt, S. H. (1981). Past perspectives and present problems. In Ohoyo Resource Center Staff (Ed.), Words of today’s American Indian women: Ohoyo Makachi (pp. 11–20). Wichita Falls, TX: Ohoya, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We extend thanks to Jack Dovidio, Steven Mock, Ruth Ditlmann, and Anna Christina Lopez for their valuable comments on drafts of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Yale University, 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Valerie Purdie-Vaughns & Richard P. Eibach

Authors
  1. Valerie Purdie-Vaughns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard P. Eibach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valerie Purdie-Vaughns.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Purdie-Vaughns, V., Eibach, R.P. Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities. Sex Roles 59, 377–391 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation