Women’s oppression undermines and inhibits women but may also prompt an enterprising reaction. In this paper, three studies explored the extent to which women respond to awareness of the oppression of other women with an increased desire for self-expression, a reactive but constructive response. Study 1 explored reactions to two forms of other women’s oppression: restricted self-expression and restricted economic opportunities. Women reported an increased desire to self-express after exposure to either form of oppression, as compared to a control group. Study 2 compared British women’s reactions to stories of a woman versus a man being oppressed, finding the former group wrote more words about an unrelated, but timely and consequential topic (Brexit). Finally, Study 3 replicated the effect of greater self-expression after being exposed to women’s oppression, and furthermore identified an indirect effect through reactance. Findings are discussed in relation to identity, constructive forms of reactance, and implications for current women’s rights movements.
Women experience restricted freedoms more often than men. These restrictions can take numerous forms, for example less economic independence and reduced self-expression (
Sexism can be understood as a form of oppression, defined as the unequal power relations between individuals, genders, classes, communities, and nations (
The extant body of work has primarily focused on how women accept, or internalize, unfair or oppressive social norms. In contexts where oppression is normative, women are more likely to censure themselves (
Though empirical work has focused on the ways in which women internalize social norms and inequalities, cases of women actively seeking self-expression in restricted or oppressive settings are increasing. For example, self-expression can take private forms including dress and the expression of one’s opinions in private, safe places (
While people benefit from expressing themselves, some of these efforts for women may be directly related to their felt oppression; for example, the possibility for oppression to foster expression can help explain how movements such as “Me Too” gain traction, which has inspired women to speak out about injustice (
For women, and other oppressed groups, self-expression might be a mechanism to maintain a sense of self and agency. Agency in this context is defined as one’s sense of individualization and self-affirmation; when people feel restricted, they may increase their efforts to exert power and influence within their surroundings (
The observations that women express themselves in restrictive contexts is further supported by theorizing through the motivational lens of self-determination theory. Self-determination theory posits that individuals have a need for autonomy, defined as the need to feel self-congruent and self-volitional: to experience oneself as having meaningful choices and opportunities, and the ability to express oneself honestly (
Previous research has found that when autonomy need satisfaction is thwarted, individuals seek to regain homeostasis of the thwarted need and are thus even more motivated to seek out opportunities that might provide the satisfaction of the need for autonomy (
Evidence informed by both self-determination theory and reactance theory has suggested that in the face of controlling, oppressive forces, individuals feel a certain tense rebelliousness that drives desires to reassert freedoms. Behaviorally, the focus has been on identifying manifestations of this in terms of antisocial, unhelpful, or counterproductive actions (e.g.,
Importantly, previous research shows such reactance can occur even if the freedom under threat is not directly related to the person. The restriction of a meaningful other’s freedom can elicit reactance from an individual, just as the individual would react to personal restrictions to their freedom (
The current studies expanded the previous research in four consequential ways. First, although most empirical research has focused on women’s tendency to
Second, whereas findings from self-determination theory and reactance theory have focused on the external defiance of reactance, there is reason to believe that motives to reassert freedoms in the form of greater self-expression may be a more subtle form of reactance. Third, although most extant research has focused on
The goal of Study 1 was to test the extent to which facing women’s oppression would increase desire to self-express. We examined two types of oppression women experience, namely, through reduced economic opportunity and through freedom to self-express. The two experimental conditions were contrasted against an outgroup control. Using both an economic and a self-expression oppression condition, we aimed to describe whether the desire to self-express is evident for both types of oppression. We wondered whether, alternatively, there would only be an effect when self-expression is oppressed—arguably a more proximal predictor of our outcome (desire to express).
One-hundred and fifty-two participants took part in an in-person lab study. We aimed to achieve 1-β err probability of 0.95 for two-tailed correlations (a conservative test, given the directional hypothesis proposed) to identify an effect size of 0.3 at 90% confidence. Power calculations indicated that minimum
After reading one of the articles, participants responded to five questions about the content of the articles and a 10-item emotion scale adapted from the Differential Emotion scale (
Participants completed the eight-item Willingness to Self-Censor scale (
A manipulation check was used to find whether the two sexism articles were effective at lowering perceived autonomy. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) identified a significant main effect of the three conditions on perceived autonomy,
Self-expression was measured pre- and post-manipulation, and as such a standardized residual of the variance at Time 2, controlling for the variance in Time 1, was used to predict post-self-expression from condition. Results showed an increase in the desire to self-express from pre- to post-manipulation based on condition,
Condition | 95% CI |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
Self-Expression | ||||
Study 1 | ||||
Expression oppression | 2.39* | .054 | 0.08 | 0.87 |
Econ oppression | 2.07* | .041 | 0.02 | 0.74 |
Study 2 | ||||
Women’s censorship | 2.34* | .045 | 0.02 | 0.26 |
Men’s censorship | 0.33 | .001 | −0.12 | 0.16 |
Study 3 | ||||
Women’s censorship | 4.39** | .106 | 1.61 | 1.92 |
Reactance | ||||
Study 3 | ||||
Women’s censorship | 2.81** | .052 | 0.08 | 0.43 |
*
Study 1 explored two types of women’s oppression: restriction of self-expression and restriction of economic opportunities. Two women’s oppression conditions were compared to an outgroup control condition (reporter oppression) to test the expectation that both would elicit in women a greater desire to self-express. Our findings supported this hypothesis: We found increased desire to self-express when participants were exposed to conditions that illustrated both women’s self-expression oppression and women’s economic oppression, as compared to the control condition. Although we tested two types of oppression: economic and self-expression, this study showed increased self-expression regardless of the type of oppression experienced, so long as it is related to the individual’s ingroup. Furthermore, although the reporter oppression condition was used as an outgroup control, this may not be considered a true outgroup to our sample. Self-expression was also measured using a self-report scale of desire to self-express. In Study 2 we sought to replicate this effect using a true outgroup control condition and a behavioral indicator of self-expression.
To conceptually replicate and expand on Study 1 findings that relied on self-report, Study 2 instead measured a behavioral indicator for self-expression: words written on a timely and consequential, but unrelated topic, namely Brexit. By focusing on an unrelated topic, but one which is important to many of our participants, we were able to isolate the desire to self-express from direct investment in the topic (e.g., gender inequality). Using this behavioral indicator of self-expression, we tested whether perceiving another women’s oppression causes women to not only have an increased desire for self-expression but also act in a manner in which they express themselves more. Additionally, Study 2 employed an oppression manipulation that was arguably cleaner (viewing images), in that it reduced the chance that the specific written content within our first set of stimuli drove the effect identified in the previous study. Further, in the second study we compared women’s censorship with men’s censorship and included a third condition wherein women were not censored. This allowed us to understand whether effects were driven by censorship (of any individual) more generally, versus ingroup censorship driven also by women’s systematic oppression (e.g.,
Before running Study 2, a pilot study was run to test whether our behavioral indicator of self-expression, word count, was indeed reflective of self-expression. One-hundred twenty women living in the U.K. and aged 20–30 years (
One-hundred seventy-seven female first- and second-year psychology undergraduates at Cardiff University aged 18–24 years took part in the study. To sign up for this study, participants could not have participated in the previous study. We aimed to achieve 1-β err prob of 0.95 for two-tailed correlations to identify an effect size of 0.3 at 90% confidence. Power calculations indicated that a minimum
After viewing one of the three conditions, participants were given the same 10-item emotion scale used in Study 1, four of which were autonomy-thwarting items used to verify that participants saw the conditions as differentially oppressive (α = .82). Participants rated the photos in terms of how much they fit four autonomy-thwarting related words. As in Study 1, participants’ data were collected in an in-person lab setting where full attention to the study was given, and all 177 participants who completed the study were included in the final sample. Scale responses were checked for outliers at ±
Participants answered questions on the unrelated but consequential topic of Brexit. They were first told to reflect and openly write about their “views, thoughts, or feelings on Brexit and its outcomes.” Participants were told to write “as few or as many words as you like.” Number of words written was used as our indicator for self-expression behavior (
A manipulation check was used to find whether the photos successfully made women’s oppression salient. An ANOVA showed a significant main effect of condition across the three groups,
A main effect was tested for condition, accounting for the strength of feelings toward Brexit given that individuals likely self-express more when feeling strongly about the position under discussion (
Those in the women’s censorship condition wrote the most words (log-transformed) (
By measuring the number of words participants wrote about Brexit, a topic on which many people within the U.K. have a strong opinion that could be expressed (
While Study 1 used reporters’ oppression as an outgroup condition, this study used the clear outgroup condition of men’s oppression. By adding a condition which depicts images of men with oppressive messages, we were able to tease apart the construct of gender from censoring: images of women being censored yielded the most self-expression, compared to images of men being censored and a neutral control condition. Additionally, no significant difference was found between the men’s censorship condition and women’s neutral condition. Among two female samples, we expected witnessing ingroup oppression to yield the greatest self-expression. Study 1 used self-report measures, while Study 2 used a behavioral indicator of self-expression, and both studies consistently found that women responded to another woman’s oppression with a greater desire to self-express. Although these studies largely found support for the hypothesized effect, they did not explore
In a final study we sought to explain the effect of greater self-expression after women’s oppression was made salient in Studies 1 and 2 by testing feelings of reactance. To this end, the final study utilized the same methods as in Study 2 to replicate the effect of oppression salience on self-expression, and it expanded on the previous two studies with an additional test of reactance, which we expected would indirectly link salience of other women’s oppression to one’s own self-expression. While Studies 1 and 2 had limited generalizability because findings were based on student samples that were presumably relatively homogeneous in their ages and socioeconomic backgrounds, this study addresses this issue by employing a community sample.
One-hundred fifty-one female participants aged 18–73 years (
After viewing one of the two conditions, participants completed the 10-item emotion scale (four autonomy-thwarting items; α = .93), a three-item reactance scale (see below), and the same outcome measures relating to Brexit as in Study 2. As before, strength of position was selected a priori as a control variable. The number of words written about Brexit (
Three items measured general reactance felt in this moment, adapted from the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale’s factors of “emotional response toward restricted choice” and “resisting influence from others” to test for state responses (
The same four autonomy-thwarting words (from Studies 1 and 2) were used to check that participants perceived oppression in the manipulation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a main effect, such that participants rated the women’s censorship condition (
Replicating the findings from Study 2, an ANCOVA identified a significant main effect of condition on log-transformed word count when controlling for strength of feelings toward Brexit, such that participants in the women’s censorship condition (
The women’s censorship condition showed more reactance
Path | Power | |
---|---|---|
a | −0.25* | .88 |
b | 0.13* | .34 |
c (total) | −0.05 | .10 |
c' (direct) | −0.02 | .06 |
ab (indirect) | −0.03* | .30 |
This final study identified a mechanism that we anticipated would explain the effects found in Studies 1 and 2: Feelings of reactance partially explained why women wrote more after women’s oppression was made salient. Findings directly and conceptually replicated previous ones with a direct effect of condition found on self-expression behavior (words written about Brexit): Women’s oppression being made salient led to greater self-expression. Further, observing another woman’s oppression increased feelings of reactance, which in turn related to greater self-expression in the form of longer written statements about one’s views on Brexit.
In three studies we investigated the hypothesis that women would have a greater desire to self-express when faced with other women’s oppression. Self-reported desire for self-expression was considered in Study 1, while behavioral self-expression—writing about one’s views on the unrelated topic of Brexit, a method used to separate self-expression from investment in the topic itself—was measured in Studies 2 and 3. The focus on Brexit was strategic in our U.K. sample, selected as a topic that can be discussed at some length and one on which most hold a strong opinion that could be expressed (
All three studies showed greater self-expression when women were exposed to other women’s oppression, as compared to control conditions, regardless of whether the manipulation was in the form of a news article (Study 1) or a picture ad campaign (Studies 2 and 3). Study 3 revealed that this effect was mediated by reactance, or a desire to defy restrictions; in this case such reactance led to a constructive end, namely the desire to self-express.
These findings complement writings in feminist literature on sexism, which characterize women’s desire to correct wrong doings by defying oppressive cultural norms and passionately self-expressing (
Although Studies 2 and 3 tested oppression as a combination of economic (through opportunities for socioeconomic advances) and self-expression (through opportunities for speech) oppression simultaneously, findings from Study 1, which separately examined both forms of oppression, showed increased self-expression when perceiving economic oppression of women alone. This is important because economic oppression of women is an occurrence worldwide, even within countries otherwise seen as modern or progressive (
We do not consider these effects of increased self-expression as an “upside” to or a benefit of the oppression of women. Rather, increased self-expression in this case seems to be functioning as a positive coping mechanism. When people find that they, or their ingroup, are being oppressed, a negative emotional state may ensue (stress resulting from oppression) that the individual seeks to alleviate (
The effect of increased self-expression observed throughout our studies also can be thought of as resistance to oppression. Resistance, or external coping by acting in ways which undermine power, has been thought to help offset the negative consequences of ingroup disadvantage (
The positive psychological effects of self-expression have been documented in previous studies. For example, one intervention gave people the opportunity to express their emotions about how they are managing their breast cancer and evidenced consequent positive psychological and physical outcomes (e.g., less distress and fewer symptoms;
The conditions manipulating oppression of self-expression across the three studies showed women being urged to self-silence (
The finding in Study 1 that women’s self-expression and economic oppression conditions both increased the desire to self-express is noteworthy. While the reporter’s self-expression oppression condition had lowered perceived autonomy, the desire for participants to self-express did not increase. This is presumably because the observed effect of increased self-expression only occurs when the in-group is involved (i.e., because both these conditions involved women specifically). This finding was replicated in Study 2, where we found outgroup oppression (men’s censorship) did not promote increased self-expression. Further, the reactance effect identified in Study 3 was specific to having an ingroup’s oppression (in this case, other women) made salient. Such a finding was anticipated because previous studies suggest that when a social group’s collective autonomy is undermined, individuals who identify with that group are directly affected, with lowered personal autonomy and well-being (
Similar effects may be evident in other disadvantaged or marginalized groups, for example, we may observe increased desire for self-expression in racial minority and sexual and gender minority groups who are reflecting on oppression of someone in their ingroup, due to reduced collective autonomy (e.g.,
Several limitations of these studies bear mention. Firstly, these findings reflect a broadly Western perspective on self-expression. Self-expression has been shown to carry greater significance among people from Western cultures, to establish and affirm who they are, whereas this form of self-expression may play a lesser role in East Asian cultures (
The United Kingdom is a country known to be relatively gender-equal and developed. Although gender equality is expected in the United Kingdom, discrimination against women persists, for example through stereotypes and social norms (e.g.,
Though the present studies should be extended for a better understanding of women’s desire to self-express under oppressive conditions around the globe, across three studies we found a consistent effect of increased self-expression in women when exposed to the oppression of other women. The final study revealed reactance as a mediator driving this increase. These studies reveal a likely benefit of psychological reactance, contrary to some studies which find negative effects of reactance (e.g.,
The authors have no funding to report.
The authors have no support to report.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.