Theorizing and Studying Reactions to Gender Norm Violations

It has now been 25 years since Laurie Rudman first coined the backlash effect to refer to the sanctions that self-promoting – and thus counter-stereotypical – women face (Rudman, 1998). Backlash research has since investigated how and why individuals who violate stereotypic expectations are sanctioned by others for doing so (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, et al., 2012). Most backlash research is aimed at the specific case of gender backlash, meaning the sanctioning of individuals who deviate from gender stereotypes (though other research has looked at other kinds of backlash targeting, for instance, those who deviate from racial stereotypes, Phelan & Rudman, 2010). However, research carried under this framework (mostly within social psychology) has developed in parallel with a large amount of research on the more general phenomenon of reactions to gender norm violations. In fact, research on this phenomenon predates research on the backlash effect¹ (Carter & McCloskey, 1984) and has been carried out in many disciplines, particularly in developmental psychology (e.g., J. E. O. Blakemore, 2003; Lobel et al., 2004), as well as political psychology (e.g., Holmes, 2021), industrial and organizational psychology (e.g., Li & Wei, 2022), and sociology (e.g., Quadlin, 2018). Though they investigate very similar phenomena, these lines of research have developed mostly independently and without much crossover. Evidence of this independent development includes the theoretical and methodological divergences between areas of research. Indeed, between disciplines, reactions to gender norm violations are studied using different and sometimes contradictory theoretical perspectives, relevant concepts are often operationalized differently and studied using different methodological approaches. Finally, this independent development results in a lack of integration of incongruent findings, such as those not showing negative reactions or even finding positive reactions to gender norm violations.

It is, however, paramount for research to consider the full body of literature on the phenomenon and for theoretical divergences to be settled, as reactions to gender norm violations can lead to several negative consequences. Indeed, individuals’ reactions can have proximal consequences on the recipients of reactions such as bullying and exclusion and their associated consequences on academic achievement and mental health in childhood and adolescence (Gordon et al., 2018; Hitti et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2020; van Der Werf, 2014; S. X. Xiao et al., 2022). Similarly, in adulthood, negative reactions can lead to lower hireability, lower salary allocations and overall worsened professional and personal outcomes (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, et al., 2012) explaining for example the lower representation of women in leadership positions (Manzi et al., 2024). Furthermore, in a more distal way, individuals’ reactions to violations of gender norms can serve to enforce gender stereotypes and overall contribute to the maintenance of gender inequalities (Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Ewing-Lee & Troop-Gordon, 2011; Vial & Cimpian, 2020).

Our goal in this paper is threefold: (1) to bridge the gap between these isolated literatures in hopes that future research will take into account the totality of work and methodological approaches when studying reactions to gender norm violations; (2) to highlight the theoretical divergences between these lines of research that need to be clarified in order to better understand the underlying mechanisms driving the phenomenon; and (3) to bring attention to recent research which calls into question the ubiquity of sanctioning of gender norm violations. We start by giving an overview of the main findings of research on negative reactions to gender norm violations for both adults and children/adolescents.

Perhaps one of the main reasons for the parallel development of research lines working on the phenomenon of reactions to gender norm violations is the theoretical frameworks employed by researchers. Indeed, while backlash research has predominantly utilized system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994) to explain individuals’ motivation to sanction counter-stereotypicality, some research has instead used social identity theory (Iacoviello et al., 2021; Tajfel, 2010). Concurrent with these theoretical distinctions are also distinctions in the characteristics of targets that are being investigated. Indeed, we highlight two distinct research areas: “adult research,” which is mostly focused on how adults react to adults’ gender norm violations, and “youth research” which has investigated how peers (and sometimes adults) react to adolescents/children who violate gender norms. Indeed, backlash research using system justification theory has mostly been focused on adults as enactors and targets of sanctions (thus embedded in what we call “adult research”) while “youth research” has mostly used the social identity perspective to explain the phenomenon. Finally, some researchers have not adhered to either of these frameworks and developed or utilized different theoretical approaches to study reactions to gender norm violations. However, as we will detail later, some of these theoretical frameworks are complementary with the system justification or social identity theory explanations.

Research on negative reactions to gender norm violating adults has mostly been carried out under the name and framework of the backlash effect. Backlash research started as a way to understand why so few women were found in high leadership positions (Rudman, 1998). One of the reasons, postulated by Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick and collaborators (2012) is that in order to be viewed as competent enough to reach these positions, women have to display masculine/agentic traits and behaviors, which are counter-stereotypical for them. This counter-stereotypicality, however, is then sanctioned because it is perceived as a threat to the existing gender system. This perspective rests on system justification theory, which proposes that individuals are motivated to defend the systems that they exist in (Jost & Banaji, 1994). This theoretical view was applied by Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, et al. (2012), who formulated the status incongruity hypothesis, which argues that behaving counter-stereotypically necessarily leads to a threat against the gender system because it involves adopting characteristics whose status is incongruent with the status associated with one’s gender. Thus, by violating gender norms (for instance by expressing agentic traits), women not only display masculine traits, they also display high status traits and thus are perceived as attempting to rise in the gender hierarchy. Conversely, counter-stereotypical men, by behaving in a feminine manner, might be perceived as losing their privileged place in the gender hierarchy (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). A further mechanism proposed within the backlash framework is the notion of dominance and weakness penalties: in order to justify their sanctioning and not appear prejudiced, perceivers reframe gender norm violators’ behaviors as dominant (for women) or weak (for men) (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, et al., 2012).

Supporting these theoretical propositions, research has shown that women who display counter-stereotypical traits and behaviors such as assertiveness (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, et al., 2012), self-promotion (Rudman, 1998), and “masculine” emotions such as anger (Raymondie & Steiner, 2021) are sanctioned for doing so. The sanctions that norm violators receive can be of a social nature such as more negative social evaluations; however, research has also shown that economic sanctions can be leveled against counter-stereotypical individuals. Indeed, in one experiment, participants were less likely to hire an agentic woman compared to a similarly described man (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, et al., 2012). In another experiment (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008), after viewing a videotaped job interview of either an angry or sad man or woman, participants had to report (among other things) the yearly salary they would pay the target. Researchers found that angry women received lower salaries than men who behaved similarly. Similarly, men who fail to display prescriptive traits (such as assertiveness), or who do display proscriptive masculine traits (such as weakness), risk facing social backlash (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). Furthermore, like women, men have been shown to receive social sanctions when they display counter-stereotypical emotions (such as sadness; Raymondie & Steiner, 2021). This sanctioning of both men and women who engage in counter-stereotypical conduct has often been found – by backlash research – to occur independently of reactors’ gender meaning both men and women sanctioned counter-stereotypical behavior (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, et al., 2012).

While most studies on reactions to adults’ gender norm violations have been conducted under the framework of the backlash effect, some studies have rather used social identity based motivations to explain negative reactions. This perspective rests on the idea that belonging to a gender group – like other groups – comes with certain needs, such as the need for a positive social identity, group-norm conformity, and group distinctiveness (Tajfel, 2010). Thus, according to social identity theory, a threat against these group needs would predict the sanctioning of gender counter-stereotypical individuals. Indeed, failure to conform to gender norms could be seen as threatening to the distinctiveness and the positive social identity associated with one’s gender ingroup (Branscombe et al., 1999; Falomir-Pichastor et al., 2019). For instance, research has used this social identity perspective to explain the reactions of men to increasing counter-stereotypicality from their gender in-group (Falomir-Pichastor et al., 2019). In one other experiment, researchers showed that after being exposed to a gender in-group threat (a description of men’s overall “feminization” as a group in recent years), men who endorsed traditional masculinity beliefs were more likely to sanction a counter-stereotypical man (Iacoviello et al., 2021). Thus, sanctioning of gender counter-stereotypicality in adult targets has both been apprehended using the notion of system-threat (the backlash framework) and group-threat (social identity framework).

Like research on adults as targets of sanctioning of gender norm violations, “youth research” has largely found that when children and adolescents violate gender norms, others tend to sanction them. These sanctions mostly take the form of negative social evaluations as well as age-specific sanctions such as peer group exclusion, lower popularity ratings, and bullying (Gordon et al., 2018; Kleiser & Mayeux, 2023; Lobel et al., 2004; Mulvey & Killen, 2015). Indeed, a strength of “youth research” on the subject of reactions to gender norm violations is its use of ecological research methods, such as cross-sectional and longitudinal designs as well as peer-rating measures (relying on peer judgments in classrooms, for example), which can investigate the real-world consequences of gender norm violations for children and particularly adolescents. Research in school contexts has found that gender counter-stereotypicality is a predictor of experiencing school victimization (Gordon et al., 2018; Jackson et al., 2020). The use of peer judgments has also revealed that counter-stereotypical adolescents are judged by their peers as less popular (Kleiser & Mayeux, 2023). These cross-sectional studies in school contexts have also found that boys tend to experience more severe bullying and are seen as less popular when they violate gender norms than girls who do so (Gordon et al., 2018; Jewell & Brown, 2014). Finally, revealing the long-term consequences of gender norm violations, some longitudinal studies have found that pay gaps in adulthood may be in part linked with non-conformity to gender norms throughout development (Kaestner & Malamud, 2023; see also Banan et al., 2023).

In terms of theorizing, research on the cognitive and social development of children and adolescents has also been useful in understanding developmental trajectories of reactions to gender norm violations. First, according to gender schema theory, children as they grow up, develop a certain degree of gender identification (i.e., identification with a gender group) which in turn motivates their acquisition of gender-related knowledge (Martin et al., 2002). In other words, children, as soon as they identify with a gender group, begin to seek out information about how “either” gender behaves and does not behave. This information can be gathered from various sources such as modeling of adults’ and peers’ behaviors or media representations; as well as direct or vicarious learnings of the consequences of “congruent” and “incongruent” gendered behavior (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Thus, as they become aware of gender categorization, children begin to acquire knowledge of gender norms and stereotypes. Through development, this gender identification and the adherence to gender norms heightens during the middle of childhood when gender segregation reaches a peak (Kwan et al., 2020). Thus, consistent with a social identity motivation, as children’s identification grows with age, their reactions to gender norm violations tend to become more negative (J. E. O. Blakemore, 2003; Nabbijohn et al., 2020). Further on in development, research on the gender intensification hypothesis (Hill & Lynch, 1983) allows to understand why particularly negative reactions tend to emerge in adolescence. According to this idea, adolescents are more likely to adhere to gendered beliefs such as stereotypes, to generalize gender stereotypes to others and to behave in gender normative ways, compared to younger children or older adults (Klaczynski et al., 2020). Theoretical explanations of this phenomenon suggest that this intensification arises because the start of adolescence is accompanied with biological (i.e., puberty) and social changes (i.e., new social environment; emergence of heteronormative romantic relationships; Hill & Lynch, 1983). Though the role of puberty has not received much support from the literature, the general phenomenon of intensification has (Galambos et al., 1990; Klaczynski et al., 2020). Following from this hypothesis and the heightened importance of group norms and conformity to peer-groups in adolescence (S.-J. Blakemore & Mills, 2014), it is easy to see why this developmental period is associated with such negative reactions and consequences of gender norm violations.

From a motivational perspective, in contrast to “adult research,” research with children and adolescents has not really utilized the backlash effect framework and its theoretical explanation. In fact, to our knowledge, only two studies have explicitly grounded their research in this theoretical framework. In these studies, authors referred to the theoretical framework of the backlash effect and used experimental designs common for this body of research, to study how adult participants reacted to gender norm-violating pre-school children (Sullivan et al., 2018) and how adolescents reacted to counter-stereotypical target peers (Meimoun et al., 2023). As already mentioned, “youth research” has mostly made use of the social identity perspective in theorizing about the motivations for reactions to gender norm violations. For example, one experiment with adolescent participants found that adolescents expected more social exclusion in a gender in-group context for peer targets who were counter-stereotypical compared to peers who were not counter-stereotypical (i.e., counter-stereotypical boy targets being excluded by other boys and counter-stereotypical girl targets being excluded by other girls, Mulvey & Killen, 2015). Furthermore, coherent with previous cross-sectional research, this finding was particularly strong for gender norm violating boys compared to girls. Another experiment which used a methodology and theoretical rationale which is aligned with a social identity perspective found similar results. Researchers presented early and late adolescent boys as well as young adult men with one of three targets for a fictional class representative election. The targets were boys described as either masculine and outstandingly competent, feminine and outstandingly competent, or masculine but average in competence. Compared to both masculine targets, adolescent boys (but not young adults) rated the feminine target as less likeable and were less likely to choose this target as a class representative (Lobel et al., 2004). Consistent with a social identity perspective, the sanctions against the feminine target were especially strong among highly masculine participants, meaning those who adhered most strongly to masculinity group norms. Other studies have found similar results, especially regarding boys’ reactions to gender norm violations within their own gender group (McGuire et al., 2020).

In both of the lines of research discussed above, studies often find that individuals tend to react negatively to those who violate gender norms (although research is not unanimous as we discuss further on). However, the underlying motivational mechanism that leads to the sanctioning of gender norm violating individuals is much less well established. Indeed, the two main theoretical frameworks (i.e., the system justification perspective and the social identity perspective) used to study this phenomenon underlie important theoretical divergences.

Although both the system-justification and social identity frameworks have been used to explain why individuals tend to sanction gender counter-stereotypicality, very few studies have actually tested the underlying assumptions of either theoretical perspective. In fact, once again probably due to the independent development of these separate lines of research, very few authors who subscribe to one perspective acknowledge in their writing the existence of the other perspective (though there are exceptions – see Iacoviello et al., 2021). Thus, it is not surprising that no research has pitted these two explanatory mechanisms against each other. Both the system-justification and social identity perspectives of reactions to gender norm violations rest on the idea of reactions to threat (Rivera-Rodriguez et al., 2022; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, et al., 2012; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, et al., 2012). Indeed, the system-justification perspective postulates that perceived threat to the gender system should explain sanctioning of gender norm violations, while the social identity perspective postulates that, perceived gender in-group threat should lead to this sanctioning. In the case of the system-justification perspective, studies have shown that those who are more inclined to justify the gender hierarchy are more likely to react negatively and that being exposed to a general (i.e., not gender-related) system threat leads to more severe sanctioning of counter-stereotypicality (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, et al., 2012). These studies, however, have not tested the central idea that gender norm violations from women or men lead individuals to perceive a threat against the gender hierarchy which is in turn defended by sanctioning the counter-stereotypical individual (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, et al., 2012). Indeed, this could be done first by showing the impact of gender norm violations on perceptions of threat against the gender system and then showing the effect of gender system threat on sanctioning of counter-stereotypical individuals. However, no research has carried out this test as of yet.

In the case of the social identity theoretical framework, the literature has predominantly focused on how men are susceptible to masculinity threats when exposed to counter-stereotypical behavior enacted by other men (Rivera-Rodriguez et al., 2022). Indeed, coming closer to providing a test of the central postulate of the social identity theory as an explanation for sanctioning of gender norm violations, Iacoviello and collaborators’ study mentioned earlier showed that exposure to a threat against their gender in-group led traditional men to sanction a counter-stereotypical man (Iacoviello et al., 2021). These results were, however, not consistent throughout the reported studies. Thus, whether it is the perceived system-threat or the perceived group-threat that motivates individuals to sanction gender norm violators has not yet been convincingly tested. Research could as a first step pit these two perspectives against each other by measuring whether gender counter-stereotypicality leads to a system threat (i.e., a threat to the power disparities between men and women) or a gender in-group threat (i.e., a threat to the identity of the group or the distinctiveness of the ingroup from the outgroup).

In addition to these two mechanisms proposed by the system justification and the social identity frameworks, other researchers have also put forward other more individual-level explanations of negative reactions, such as uncertainty reduction theory (Mitchell et al., 2023) or perceivers’ affective responses (Raymondie & Steiner, 2021). However, we argue that these two perspectives can be seen as congruent with the system justification framework, which postulates that counter-stereotypicality violates expectations. Indeed, the concept of system justification and system threat as a mechanism, rests on the idea that individuals are motivated to “keep things as they are.” Thus, uncertainty reduction, the idea that individuals would be motivated to sanction counter-stereotypicality because it violates their expectations, seems rather congruent with this perspective. Secondly, the proposition of Raymondie and Steiner (2021), that perceivers’ negative affective response to the threat/unexpected nature of counter-stereotypical behavior should explain sanctioning at the individual level is also consistent with some research on the backlash effect which shows how emotions linked to morality such as anger, contempt and disgust, are a particularly important facet of sanctioning of counter-stereotypicality (Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010; Skewes et al., 2018). Finally, other perspectives such as role congruity theory (Atkinson et al., 2023; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Li & Wei, 2022) and the sexual orientation inference (Sanborn-Overby & Powlishta, 2020) seem rather consistent with the social identity perspective and the idea that it is protection of a gender-group identity (with heterosexuality often being included in traditional gender norms, Morgan & Davis-Delano, 2016) that leads to sanctioning of counter-stereotypicality (Tajfel, 2010).

The contrasting theoretical perspectives, and specifically the different mechanisms, involved in negative reactions to gender norm violations are further reflected in the contrasting predictions made by each model, particularly regarding the role of participants’ and targets’ gender in reactions.

As we alluded to, most studies in the system-justification literature report “no effects” of participants’ gender, showing that men and women may be equally likely to exhibit sanctions against counter stereotypical individuals (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). This is explained by authors by referring to the complementary nature of gender stereotypes and thus the equal motivation of both men and women to maintain the gender hierarchy (Jost & Kay, 2005; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, et al., 2012). However, though most research in this section of the literature report no effects, some inconsistent findings regarding the role of perceivers’ gender have been found. In a study of the backlash effect, Rudman et al. (1998) reported that women participants imposed harsher sanctions on self-promoting women than men participants while another research has shown that men reacted more negatively to gender norm violating men more so than women (Bosak et al., 2016).

However, from a social identity point of view, men (who have a higher place in the hierarchy) should be predicted to sanction those who violate gender norms more strongly than women. This is because men, being members of a high-status group, have more to risk from a threat to their gender in-group’s status (Branscombe et al., 1999; Owuamalam et al., 2019) and furthermore, women have more to gain from gender norm violations which threaten the system that awards their group a lower social position. However, one issue with the social identity perspective is that several studies have investigated reactions to gender norm violations by adopting experimental designs that do not allow for a comparison of differing sanctions based on participants’ gender, because samples did not include both men and women (Iacoviello et al., 2021; Lobel et al., 2004). Indeed, it seems that the theoretical assumptions adopted by researchers lead to operationalizations that do not allow for the competing predictions of theories to be tested (e.g., focusing only on within gender-group sanctioning). To summarize, while the system justification perspective predicts no effect of participants’ gender, the social identity perspective leads to the prediction that men would react more negatively to gender norm violations than women. However, as of yet these contradictions have not been resolved by empirical research.

These conflicting predictions then lead to further complications when taking into account the gender of targets that are evaluated. Indeed, when taking both reactors’ and targets’ gender into account, the possibility of a “black sheep” effect emerges (Marques et al., 1988). In other words, individuals could react particularly negatively to those who violate the gender norms of their gender-group, in comparison with those who do not belong to their gender-group. Previous research has already shown that individuals tend to sanction gender counter-stereotypical women more if they belong to their own racial in-group (V. L. Xiao et al., 2023). It is thus theoretically and empirically not clear whether reactors’ gender should be expected to moderate expression of reactions and what form this pattern will take when also considering targets’ gender. We could expect that men overall would sanction counter-stereotypicality more strongly than women (based on some tenets of social identity theory) or that men would sanction men more so than women and women sanction women more so than men (i.e., a black sheep effect).

Here, the system-justification position is rather clear, both men and women having equal motives to defend the gender hierarchy, should sanction both men and women who violate gender norms. More precisely, the system justification perspective should also lead to the prediction that boys/men should receive more negative reactions than girls/women as their gender norm violations may be seen as more threatening to the gender hierarchy than women’s (Chrisler, 2013; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, et al., 2012; Sirin et al., 2004). However, most of the findings supporting the prediction of equally negative reactions from men(boys)/women(girls) rest on non-significant moderation of reactions by participants’ gender which is not a very strong test of the prediction (Altman & Bland, 1995; Lakens et al., 2018).

On the other hand, the social identity perspective is, however, not so clear. Indeed, a threat to one’s gender ingroup (its norms and its distinctiveness) could theoretically come from gender norm violations of both one’s own-gender members or other-gender members (i.e., an infringement on one’s group norms or non-conformism to one’s group norms). However, it could be expected that one’s own gender member may threaten ingroup identity more so than outgroup members infringing on one’s group norms (i.e., black sheep effect). Furthermore, while from a social identity perspective, negative reactions from men/boys can be understood as motivated by a desire to remain on top of the gender hierarchy, negative reactions from women are less easily understandable. However, it could nevertheless be predicted, using the social identity model of system attitudes (Rubin et al., 2023), that though they may be less motivated to react negatively women may still exhibit negative reactions. Indeed, women may be motivated to protect their group’s norms and distinctiveness because it allows them to downwardly compare themselves to men on a complementary dimension (i.e., communion over agency). Regarding differing reactions to boys/men and girls/women’s gender norm violations, the social identity perspective should lead to predict no main effect of this variable but rather an interaction with reactors’ gender. Thus, the social identity perspective could predict more negative reactions towards one’s own-gender group member than outgroup member and overall, more negative reactions from men than women. However, admittedly few researchers have theorized these points specifically with regards to reactions to gender norm violations or have empirically tested them.

A final difference in predictions between the models of system justification and social identity theory which has not yet received attention from the literature concerns the importance of the content of gender norm violations. Indeed, as we mentioned, the system justification perspective of reactions is based on the status incongruity hypothesis (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, et al., 2012), which states that status norm violations are confounded with gender norm violations leading to negative reactions. Thus, from this perspective, individuals should only (or mostly) be sanctioned if they violate gender norms which have been shown to be associated with a certain status. However, from a social identity perspective, the simple fact of “crossing over the gender barrier” should be enough to warrant negative reactions. Indeed, the mere idea of girls behaving like boys and boys behaving like girls, whether this behavior is associated with status or not, should lead individuals to react negatively. This is an additional way that future research could pit these two competing motivational explanations against each other. Researchers could in an orthogonal design manipulate both the stereotypicality of traits and behaviors that targets possess, as well as the status associated with these traits and behaviors. In Table 1 below, we summarize the main predictions of both motivational models of reactions to gender norm violations – social identity and system justification theory – highlighting similarities and divergences.

In this first part of the paper, we have argued that the independent development of research on a similar phenomenon – the reactions that people have to gender norm violations – within different subdisciplines of psychology has led to a literature of unclear and sometimes contradictory theoretical perspectives which have not been thoroughly tested. In the second part of the paper, we will discuss some of the conflicting findings of recent research and their implications for future research as well as propose ways to improve this research field, both at a methodological and theoretical level.

So far, whether under the system justification or social identity framework or within the adult or youth literature, research has overwhelmingly shown that individuals tend to sanction those who do not conform to gender stereotypes. However, in recent years, more and more published and unpublished experimental research has reported results that either are in direct opposition to negative reactions or that establish boundary conditions of these negative reactions (Meeussen & Koudenburg, 2022; Mitchell et al., 2023; Wen et al., 2020). For example, in one line of studies, researchers found that the perceived “cleverness” of a counter-stereotypical target – defined by the authors as “creativity” or as behavior that helps “gain an advantage over others who act in line with their gender roles” – influenced how participants reacted to this counter-stereotypicality (Meijs et al., 2015). In these studies, participants had to evaluate targets who behaved counter-stereotypically but did so in a “clever” manner. Targets were either men or women using either dominance (stereotypically masculine trait) or attractiveness (stereotypically feminine trait) in order to get out of paying a fine. In contrast with some research which showed that counter-stereotypical men received the most severe sanctions (Moss-Racusin, 2014; Sanborn-Overby & Powlishta, 2020), results in these studies showed that participants judged a “feminine” man more positively compared to a similarly behaving woman. In addition, results either did not show that dominant women were sanctioned compared to men or in some cases that they were preferred (depending on the study). We nevertheless acknowledge that the situation used by Meijs and colleagues (2015) is different from the one used in past research in that it does not imply any consequences². Indeed, contexts such as political elections (Brescoll et al., 2018), professional promotion evaluation (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, et al., 2012) or in-group inclusion in school, (Mulvey & Killen, 2015) may have been more successful in triggering some of the previously mentioned mechanisms that lead to the sanctioning of gender norm violations. Therefore, future research could test whether the effect of the cleverness of the norm violation applies to those contexts as well. Furthermore, other experimental research has also found that people overestimate the extent to which others sanction counter-stereotypical helpers (i.e., individuals who help others in gender incongruent ways, Atkinson et al., 2023). This idea is even supported in developmental research, which shows that children tend to find gender counter-stereotypical behavior more acceptable when it is helpful to others (Conry-Murray et al., 2015).

Another section of the literature has also shed light on different kinds of reactions that individuals can have to gender norm violations. Indeed, research which uses continuous conceptualizations of gender norm violations have tended to highlight different kinds of reactions that are not solely negative (Wen et al., 2020). In their research, Wen et al. (2020) showed that balanced levels of stereotypical and counter-stereotypical behaviors, personality traits, and even facial features all predicted fewer negative evaluations compared to strictly displaying gender stereotypical or counter-stereotypical features. These results can also be seen as a lack of negative reactions against some form of gender norm violations, which is further supported by cross-sectional research which has found similar patterns (Gordon et al., 2018).

Another important research finding that should be pointed out is that some recent experiments have failed to find any differing reactions between stereotypical and counter-stereotypical targets. In one experiment with a large sample of adolescent participants, researchers found no evidence of negative reactions and in fact found some modest evidence of a more positive evaluation of counter-stereotypical adolescent targets (Meimoun et al., 2023). Another recent study with in-training educators did not find any evidence that participants evaluated counter-stereotypical children targets differently from stereotypical targets (Streck & Kessels, 2024). Furthermore, we also wish to highlight unpublished research which failed to replicate negative reactions to gender norm violations. Indeed, in one unpublished set of two experiments, researchers did not find any sanctioning of counter-stereotypical women or men in a professional evaluation context (Born & Erle, 2020). Considering the difficulty of publishing null results, it could be expected that a larger proportion of unpublished than published research has failed to replicate the sanctioning of counter-stereotypicality effect (Franco et al., 2014).

We have highlighted that the phenomenon of reactions to gender norm violations is very much not straightforward and cannot be thought of only in terms of negative reactions. Of course, we do not mean to suggest that nowadays, reactions to gender norm violations never take the form of sanctions or that counter-stereotypicality is always evaluated more positively. In fact, research has even found that more positive evaluations of counter-stereotypicality could lead to a reinforcement of descriptive gender norms (Meeussen & Koudenburg, 2022). Thus, research which highlights more positive kinds of reactions should warrant further investigation into the consequences of these reactions. In addition, there is still relatively recent experimental work that shows gender counter-stereotypicality being sanctioned, particularly in cultural contexts where gender norms are stricter (i.e., China; Li & Wei, 2022). Even more convincing are recent studies which use longitudinal data to investigate the long-term consequences of gender counter-stereotypicality, showing for example that individuals who grew up being more counter-stereotypical tended to receive salary penalties (Kaestner & Malamud, 2023). Similarly, recent research in school contexts and professional settings which use methodology with high ecological validity (such as peer-ratings) also tends to show the negative interpersonal repercussions of gender counter-stereotypicality (Choi & Anderson, 2024; Gordon et al., 2018; Kleiser & Mayeux, 2023).

Thus, it seems that negative reactions to gender norm violations is not a phenomenon of the past, and recent evidence of opposite effects or lack of replication of previously accepted effects should only fuel research to establish the circumstances in which individuals might respond in different ways to gender norm violations. There seems to be a divide between studies using certain methodologies and operationalizations of gender norm violations which produce different reactions. These studies mostly differ in their designs (i.e., experimental vs non-experimental), their realism (i.e., hypothetical scenarios and targets vs realistic scenarios and targets) and their operationalizations of gender norm violations (i.e., objective vs relative and dichotomous vs continuous). We provide in Table 2 an overview of the different ways that gender norm violations have been manipulated, measured and operationalized throughout the literature. In the next section, we review these conceptual and methodological differences and how engaging with them could improve understanding of the phenomenon of reactions to gender norm violations.

What we have tried to argue in favor of in this paper is a better acknowledgment of all research on the phenomenon of reactions to gender norm violations. Indeed, some interesting new findings and methodological approaches have been proposed and highlighted by research, but are seldom acknowledged by others working on the same phenomenon.

As we suggested previously, several different operationalizations of gender norm violations have been used throughout the literature. These differences in operationalizations lead to differences in the hypotheses which can be tested and the reactions that people have to violations of gender norms. First, a distinction can be made in the way researchers operationalize the granularity of gender norm violations. In other words, whether research operationalize gender norm violations as binary or continuous. By this, we mean research which conceptualizes individuals or targets as either gender norm violating or not (i.e., counter-stereotypical vs stereotypical) or research which takes into account the possibly varying degrees of gender norm violations. In general, experimental research has used binary operationalizations, while non-experimental research has studied gender norm violations by measuring them on continuous scales. However, a couple of studies have manipulated the degree of gender norm violations of targets presented in experimental situations (Wen et al., 2020; Zucker et al., 1995). The upside of such continuous conceptualizations is that they allow to test more precisely the shape of individuals’ reactions to gender norm violations of differing magnitudes. For example, the previously mentioned study from Wen and collaborators (2020) showed that individuals’ reactions could take a quadratic shape where individuals who could be classified as androgynous (i.e., those possessing a balance of feminine and masculine traits) were evaluated more positively than strictly stereotypical or counter-stereotypical targets. Thus, on this first dimension, different ways to conceptualize the construct of gender norm violations can reveal different reaction shapes.

A second point with regards to the operationalization of gender norm violations concerns its content. Again, there seems to be a separation between experimental research and non-experimental research. Experimental studies have tended to use what we call objective operationalizations, meaning that gender norm violations are operationalized by specific traits, behaviors, activities or appearances that have been shown to be more stereotypically masculine or feminine (Meimoun et al., 2023; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, et al., 2012; Sullivan et al., 2018; Wen et al., 2020). Another way to operationalize gender norm violations, which have mostly been used by non-experimental research are relative operationalizations. With relative operationalizations of gender norm violations, participants are asked to report their similarity or dissimilarity to their own and/or the “other” gender. For example, some studies have used items from the Egan and Perry (2001) Multidimensional Gender Identity Inventory which asks participants to report whether they are “good examples of being a girl (or a boy)” or whether their personalities or behaviors are similar to other girls/boys (Jewell & Brown, 2014; Smith & Leaper, 2006). Some limitations are that such operationalizations do not allow for a precise understanding of which domain of violations leads to negative reactions. Still, we argue that relative operationalizations present several advantages such as their resistance to changes in gender norms and stereotypes across cultures and across time. Furthermore, the major benefit of such operationalization of gender norm violations is that it directly taps into the construct of interest which is that boys/men and girls/women can behave like the “other” gender is supposed to. Future experimental research could do well to use such relative conceptualizations as they may capture current gender norms better than objective operationalizations.

Most of the literature mentioned in this article (regardless of its theoretical background or discipline) has investigated how individuals react to targets whose gender expression is manipulated (or measured). On the other hand, a large literature studying LGBTQIA+ discrimination has focused on the reaction to individuals’ gender identity violations. Indeed, we distinguish the two concepts as others have previously done (Fine et al., 2023), by defining gender identity as a personal characteristic and gender expression as the socially perceived facet of gender. The two concepts are orthogonal in that one does not dictate the other, however research has mostly looked at either one independently. Still, some recent studies have examined both gender identity and gender expression and compared both gender non-conforming and transgender targets to gender conforming targets. Although no comparison was made between individuals who are transgender and those who “simply” violate gender norms, research has shown that both are sanctioned compared to gender typical targets (Broussard & Warner, 2019; see also, McGuire et al., 2022). When taking into account both gender identity and expression, several questions arise, such as whether or not perceivers differentiate between individuals whose gender expression is “incongruent” and those whose gender identity is. Future research could investigate which “violation” is perceived as more severe (i.e., is a violation of the sex-binary more harshly sanctioned than violations of gender stereotypes?). Furthermore, some research has already shown that individuals might sanction gender norm violating heterosexual and homosexual targets indiscriminately (Horn, 2007), meaning that there is no additive “punishment” for gender non-conformity when associated with sexual orientation. Research could adopt a similar research question and test whether a violation of gender expression norms is punished more severely when gender identity is also incongruent with sex assigned at birth.

As discussed throughout the paper, by integrating works from different subdisciplines and theoretical backgrounds, researchers could be exposed to other ways of studying reactions to gender norm violations. One specificity of recent research has been to study reactions to gender norm violations coming from close ones. For example, research has studied how adolescents react to their classmates violating gender norms (Kleiser & Mayeux, 2023), how parents react to their children (Spivey et al., 2018) and how colleagues react to their coworkers (Choi & Anderson, 2024). A descriptive (and non-exhaustive) overview of the recent literature on reactions to gender norm violations shows that research which studies reactions from close ones tends to report negative reactions and thus more theoretically coherent findings compared to recent experimental works. Of course, other factors could influence these differences in results, as experimental studies which have reported positive or neutral reactions to gender norm violations present hypothetical scenarios which may not trigger the relevant mechanisms that produce negative reactions (Erfanian et al., 2020). However, it is worth noting that previous research on the more general phenomenon of norm violations (i.e., cutting in line, stealing…) has found that individuals are more likely to react negatively to norm violations coming from their close ones (Moisuc & Brauer, 2019). Indeed, consistent with the theoretical explanation of the justification-suppression model of prejudice, it would make sense for individuals to react especially negatively to their close ones’ gender norm violations as individuals have more ways to justify their negative reactions (e.g., concern for one’s child or fear for one’s reputation due to closeness with a gender norm violator; Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). Regardless, whether it is the case that gender norm violations from one’s close ones produces particularly negative reactions or whether it is simply the higher ecological validity and realism of non-experimental studies that produces such results, researchers should carefully consider the methodology they use to study the phenomenon. Specifically because experimental methods lead to unexpected results which are incoherent with the explanatory theoretical models, researchers should more than ever engage with other methodologies including qualitative methods for studying reactions to gender norm violations (Yu et al., 2017).

Finally, the topic of reactions to gender norm violations is one that is especially sensitive to the cultural, historical, and social context in which it is studied. Indeed, past empirical analyses have shown that failures to replicate key findings can be associated with sensitivity to contextual factors (Matsick et al., 2021; van Bavel et al., 2016). In recent years, particularly among younger generations, questions of gender norms, gender identity, and diversity have received tremendous amounts of attention (Bragg et al., 2018; Cover, 2019; Gravillon, 2022), and it could thus be expected that with more people being engaged in these discussions, reactions to gender norm violations take a different form. This new normative context could lead to two potential changes in individuals’ reactions to gender norm violations. It could be that, especially younger generations’ attitudes towards gender norm violations are now truly changing and that individuals are less motivated to react negatively to those who violate gender norms. However, a second possibility, which would be coherent with the recent non-experimental literature which still report negative reactions, is that this new normative context imposes pressure on individuals to appear non-discriminatory and to be accepting of gender diversity. In other words, again following logic based on the justification-suppression model of prejudice (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003), normative pressure to suppress negative reactions to gender norm violations may now be strong enough to influence individuals’ responses to experimental studies. However, as we suggested previously, situations which provide opportunities to justify negative reactions may still produce such reactions. Future research could be conducted to test these possible explanations for example by measuring individuals’ knowledge of the normative context or by quantifying the normative context surrounding issues of gender diversity and discrimination of a certain environment and looking for associations between this context and individuals’ reactions to gender norm violations. Indeed, because of the contextual nature of reactions to gender norm violations, it is also possible that cultural differences emerge in the ways individuals react to gender norm violations. In other words, negative reactions to gender norm violations may still be more freely expressed in cultural contexts which place less emphasis on the normativity of non-discrimination (as recent experimental research on the phenomenon in China has shown, Li & Wei, 2022). The phenomenon of reactions to gender norm violations is one that cannot be understood in abstraction from the broader social context and future research should consider the role of this context on theorization as well as empirical work.

Research on the reactions that people have when encountering individuals who violate gender norms seems to be at a crossroads, with more and more papers being published that challenge the once-accepted notion that those reactions can only be negative (Born & Erle, 2020; Meimoun et al., 2023; Mitchell et al., 2023; Streck & Kessels, 2024; Wen et al., 2020). It is, however, more necessary than ever for research on this topic to establish clear and robust phenomena, meaning elucidating when those reactions are positive and when they are negative, before any meaningful work can be done on the “why” of these reactions (Dubin, 1969; Eronen & Bringmann, 2021; Scheel et al., 2021). Indeed, understanding the psychological mechanisms explaining why individuals sometimes sanction those who deviate from gender norms is necessary in order to reduce the numerous negative consequences that these sanctions can have (bullying, social exclusion, gender discrimination in the job market, and ultimately the maintenance of gender stereotypes and gender inequality). However, for this to happen, the literature must first fully integrate the whole body of research on the topic and pursue new research lines, methods and possible explanations of the non-ubiquity of negative reactions to gender norm violations.

Ethan Meimoun: Conceptualization, Original Draft Preparation, Writing;

Cristina Aelenei: Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision;

Virginie Bonnot: Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision.

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

This research was supported by the Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation and the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-19-CE41-0001-01; research project URGEN).