# Rethinking gendered product perceptions: evidence from France, Italy and Sweden

Magali Trelohan

► To cite this version:

Magali Trelohan. Rethinking gendered product perceptions: evidence from France, Italy and Sweden. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2025, 42 (7), pp.908-921. 10.1108/JCM-11-2024-7348. hal-05399105

HAL Id: hal-05399105

https://hal.science/hal-05399105v1

Submitted on 3 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Rethinking Gendered Product Perceptions: Evidence from France, Italy, and Sweden

**Abstract:**

**Purpose**

This research aims to revisit and extend the work of Fugate and Phillips (2010) on product gender perceptions by examining whether societal changes, such as the #MeToo movement and shifts in gender roles, have altered the determinants of product gender perceptions in France, Italy, and Sweden.

**Design/methodology/approach**

The study replicates and extends the original model with samples from three European countries, using t-tests and structural equation modeling (SEM).

**Findings**

The results show that while self-congruency remains a strong driver of Need for Product Gender Congruity (NPCG), modern sex role perceptions now have an even stronger negative impact, suggesting evolving attitudes toward product gendering. The control for nationality reveals that the relationship between Untraditional Role Models (URM) and NPGC is not significant once cultural context is accounted for, and that the tendency to gender products varies significantly across the countries studied.

**Research limitations/implications**

The study's sample is limited to three European countries, which may restrict generalizability. Future research should include more diverse cultural contexts and explore other individual variables influencing product gender perceptions.

**Practical implications**

Marketers should consider reducing reliance on gender-based segmentation and instead focus on values-based segmentation.

**Social implications**

This research highlights the need for marketers to be mindful of their role in shaping societal norms and consider how gendered marketing may perpetuate stereotypes, even in societies perceived as egalitarian.

**Originality/value**

This study revisits and expands a seminal model of product gender perception, offering updated insights into the interaction between gender identity, cultural context, and consumer behavior, and contributing a new cultural dimension to materialist feminist theory.

**Keywords:** gender, products, culture, gender identity, stereotypes
# Rethinking Gendered Product Perceptions: Evidence from France, Italy, and Sweden

## Introduction

Fifteen years after the seminal work of Fugate and Phillips (2010) on product gender perceptions, the dynamics of consumer behavior in relation to gender-marketed products have continued to evolve, prompting a critical reevaluation. Recent societal shifts, such as the #MeToo movement and the fourth wave of feminism, have significantly challenged traditional gender norms and called into question the appropriateness of conventional marketing strategies (Peñaloza et al., 2023). The relevance of studying gender as a product marketing strategy is more significant than ever, given the persistent use of gender segmentation in marketing practices and its implications for consumer behavior and societal norms.

Using gender as a segmentation strategy remains widespread for three primary reasons highlighted by Darley and Smith (1995): it is easily identifiable, the segments are large and profitable, and they are accessible. While these reasons have stood the test of time, this approach is increasingly criticized for perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes, which can adversely impact consumer well-being and reinforce societal perceptions of restrictive gender roles (Eisend, 2010, 2019; Putrevu, 2001). While gender-based segmentation strategies may enhance short-term profitability, they contribute to long-term societal harm by reinforcing traditional gender norms and limiting the expression of non-binary identities in consumer choices (Adalı et al., 2024).
Despite the criticism, consumers often continue to prefer products that align with their personal identities and values, in which gender plays a pivotal role. This consumer preference reflects deeper societal values and norms, making it crucial for marketers to approach these practices with caution—especially for those who aim to avoid reinforcing stereotypes (Avery, 2012; Borau and Bonnefon, 2020).

The marketing based on gender stereotypes not only mirrors but potentially exacerbates social biases, leading to gender discrimination and reinforcing traditional gender roles. This phenomenon, recognized by various scholars, raises concerns about the role of marketing in perpetuating social inequalities (Eisend, 2019). Consequently, it is imperative to examine how gendered perceptions of products act as both reflections and drivers of societal stereotypes (Fine and Rush, 2018). Understanding these dynamics is essential for developing more inclusive marketing strategies that challenge rather than reinforce harmful gender norms (Robertson, 2018).

Building on the work of Fugate and Phillips (2010), this study aims to investigate whether gendered perceptions of products have evolved over the past decade and a half. To achieve this, we examine consumer perceptions in three Western European countries, adding a cross-cultural dimension that was not present in the original study. By including nations with varying levels of gender equity, we address a critical gap in the literature on how cultural context influences gendered product perceptions. This research also seeks to measure the determinants of consumers' propensity to gender products, providing a nuanced understanding of the intersection between cultural factors and individual consumer behavior.

The paper begins by outlining our conceptual framework and research hypotheses, followed by a detailed methodology section and the presentation of our results. The discussion will contextualize our findings within the broader societal discourse on gender equality, highlighting
the implications for both marketing practices and public policy aimed at promoting more
equitable representations of gender in society.

**Conceptual Framework**

***Gender Stereotypes***

Gender stereotypes are societal beliefs about the characteristics and roles deemed suitable for men and women. These stereotypes have evolved over time, as shown by a meta-analysis by Eagly et al. (2020) of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018, which highlights the evolution of gender stereotypes, particularly concerning women's roles. Women's relative advantage in communion traits (e.g., affectionate, emotional) has increased, while men's advantage in agency traits (e.g., ambitious, courageous) has remained consistent. Additionally, belief in gender competence equality has grown, with increasing acknowledgment of female superiority among those who perceive a competence difference between the sexes (Eagly et al., 2020). A second meta-analysis confirms that the gender differences in communion and agency traits persist, though they tend to slightly diminish over time, with men generally being more agentic and women more communal (Hsu et al., 2021).

Higher levels of gender occupational segregation tend to exacerbate these differences, as communal traits—typically associated with femininity, such as empathy and nurturing—become more pronounced in environments where job roles are distinctly divided along gender lines (Hsu et al., 2021). This suggests that the occupational structure of a country also plays a crucial role in shaping and perpetuating gender-specific behaviors and expectations. Gender stereotypes are influential due to the salience of gender as a noticeable and memorable aspect of an individual (Hentschel et al., 2019). These stereotypes can lead to disparities in life
outcomes, limit opportunities for both boys and girls, and influence career choices, such as in
computer science and engineering (Galinsky et al., 2013; Master et al., 2021; Mulvey and
Killen, 2014).

Gender stereotypes not only affect career aspirations but also play a significant role in shaping political behavior and consumer preferences. Brough et al. (2016) demonstrated how the green-feminine stereotype impacts sustainable consumption, showing that gender-related cues can influence consumers' likelihood to engage in sustainable behavior. Similarly, Wenting et al. (2022) highlighted the role of gender stereotypes in shaping product preferences, illustrating that consumers are more likely to associate specific product attributes with masculine or feminine traits, which in turn affects their purchase decisions.

***Gendered Product Perception***

Consumers may describe brands, product categories, and products in masculine and/or feminine
terms, based on gender stereotypes. Thus, streams of research have developed focusing on the
antecedents and consequences of gendered perceptions of brands, product categories, and
individual products. The gender of a brand or product describes the masculine and feminine
personality traits that consumers associate with it (Grohmann, 2009). It is made up of two
dimensions: masculinity and femininity. According to this two-dimensional conceptualization,
brands and products can be described as masculine (high masculinity/low femininity), feminine
(high femininity/low masculinity), undifferentiated (low masculinity/low femininity), and
androgynous (high masculinity/high femininity) (Fugate and Phillips, 2010).

Research following Bem's gender schema theory (1981) has consistently found that most
products have a perceived gender, even services (Fugate and Phillips, 2010), and that they
possess gendered identities as male or female, with relatively little ambiguity. This perceptual
constant, based on Bem's (1981) theory, enables consumers to encode and organize information about products using masculinity and femininity as one of their main organizing dimensions. Consequently, marketing strategies often exploit these associations by aligning products with gendered identities, creating segmented markets that reinforce traditional gender roles (McRobbie, 2009; Neale et al., 2016).

## The Tendency to Gender Products and its Consequences

The tendency to gender products not only influences consumer purchasing decisions but also shapes how consumers perceive and interact with these products. This differentiation reinforces traditional gender roles by associating specific attributes—such as strength or delicacy—with certain goods, which in turn affects how consumers relate to them on an emotional and symbolic level (Ng et al., 2020). For instance, household products are often marketed in a way that aligns with the feminine ideal of care and cleanliness, while automotive products are linked to masculinity and strength (Gill, 2008). This alignment between product categories and gender stereotypes can further perpetuate the notion of gender-specific domains and influence the perceived appropriateness of certain products for men or women (Tak et al., 2019).

The alignment between gender identity and product perceptions can also be linked to the broader concept of cultural congruence, wherein individual behaviors and perceptions are shaped by their cultural context and align with dominant social norms (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). In contexts where gender norms are deeply entrenched, as in Italy (Hofstede, 2001; Mac Giolla and Kajonius, 2019), individuals could more likely to perceive products through a gendered lens, particularly in a masculine manner, because these perceptions are congruent with their socialization and cultural expectations(Bem, 1981; Eagly et al., 2012).
This congruence between expectations and cultural practices could reduce the need for product gender congruity as there is no dissonance between gendered expectations and societal norms.

## Maintaining Gender Identity

Research has shown that both men and women tend to prefer products that align with their own gender identity, yet men appear to place a higher value on maintaining this congruence (Brough et al., 2016). This heightened concern can be explained through Social Identity Theory, which posits that individuals strive to maintain a positive social identity and may react defensively when this identity is threatened (Tajfel et al., 1979). Consequently, when faced with threats to their traditional gender roles, men often respond by emphasizing stereotypically masculine traits such as aggression, dominance, and emotional suppression (Vandello and Bosson, 2013). This phenomenon is further supported by the concept of precarious masculinity, which suggests that masculinity is a social status that must be continuously demonstrated and is more easily lost than femininity (Vandello and Bosson, 2013). In the context of product consumption, men are more likely than women to avoid products associated with femininity, even if it limits their choices or satisfaction (Fugate and Phillips, 2010). Such asymmetry is evident in product categories like automotive or grooming, where men are less likely to buy products associated with a female target market, even when the product features are similar (Avery, 2012). In this sense, consumer goods act as extensions of the self (Belk, 1988), allowing men to continuously negotiate and affirm their masculinity through their consumption choices.

## Theoretical model
The following model aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the determinants that drive consumers to perceive and evaluate products through a gendered lens, and to identify the variables that can potentially mitigate or exacerbate these perceptions. While this study replicates the model proposed by Fugate and Philips (2010), doing so is necessary to reflect on whether the patterns observed a decade ago still hold true today. This approach also addresses the evolving societal context by incorporating recent developments in gender norms and consumer behavior. Moreover, by including samples from two countries with distinct levels of gender equity, we control for this variable to ensure that the observed effects are not merely driven by differences in societal gender norms, adding robustness to the model's applicability.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Theoretical model</figcaption></figure>

Thus, the theoretical model in this study examines the relationships between sex, self-congruency, untraditional role models, and modern sex role perceptions, and how these factors influence the Need for Product Gender Congruity (NPGC) and ultimately the Propensity to Gender Products. The model posits that gendered perceptions of products are not only a
reflection of cultural norms and personal identities but are also shaped by individual beliefs and attitudes toward gender roles.

Sex. Biological sex plays a fundamental role in how individuals perceive product gender congruity. Previous studies have shown that men are more likely to perceive products as gendered and seek congruency between their own gender and the gender of the products they purchase (Brough et al., 2016). Women, on the other hand, may demonstrate greater flexibility in their product preferences. This difference suggests that sex will have a direct influence on the need for product gender congruity and the propensity to gender products.

*H1: Men will exhibit a stronger Need for Product Gender Congruity compared to women.*

Self-Congruency. Self-congruency refers to the alignment between an individual's self-concept and the attributes of the products they purchase (Sirgy, 1985). When there is a high degree of congruency, consumers are more likely to select products that reflect their identity. Thus, consumers who perceive a strong alignment between their gender identity and product attributes are expected to express a higher need for gender congruity in products.

*H2: Higher levels of Self-Congruency will be positively associated with an increased Need for Product Gender Congruity.*

Untraditional Role Models. Exposure to untraditional role models (e.g., men involved in caregiving roles or women in leadership positions) can alter perceptions of gender-appropriate behaviors and reduce the rigidity of gender norms (Eagly et al., 2012). Individuals who accept or identify with untraditional role models are likely to exhibit a lower need for gender congruity in products, as they may perceive gender roles more fluidly.

*H3: Higher acceptance of Untraditional Role Models will be negatively associated with the*
*Need for Product Gender Congruity.*

Modern Sex Role Perceptions. Modern sex role perceptions reflect the belief that gender roles should be flexible and not bound by traditional expectations (Fugate and Phillips, 2010). Individuals with modern perceptions are less likely to ascribe gender attributes to products and may be more open to using products irrespective of their gendered marketing. Consequently, they will show a lower propensity to gender products.

*H4: Stronger Modern Sex Role Perceptions will be negatively associated with the Need for Product Gender Congruity.*

Mediating Role of Need for Product Gender Congruity (NPGC)

The Need for Product Gender Congruity acts as a mediating variable that links the aforementioned antecedents (sex, self-congruency, untraditional role models, and modern sex role perceptions) to the propensity to gender products. When consumers perceive a high need for gender congruity, they are more likely to ascribe gendered attributes to products, reinforcing gender stereotypes and norms.

*H5: The Need for Product Gender Congruity will mediate the relationship between sex and the Propensity to Gender Products.*

*H6: The Need for Product Gender Congruity will mediate the relationship between self-congruency and the Propensity to Gender Products.*

*H7: The Need for Product Gender Congruity will mediate the relationship between untraditional role models and the Propensity to Gender Products.*

*H8: The Need for Product Gender Congruity will mediate the relationship between modern sex role perceptions and the Propensity to Gender Products.*
By testing these hypotheses, the model aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the determinants that drive consumers to perceive and evaluate products through a gendered lens, and to identify the variables that can potentially mitigate or exacerbate these perceptions.

Methodology

The methodology of this research is structured around two complementary studies, each designed to provide a robust and reliable evaluation of the gendered perceptions of products. Study 1 focuses on assessing the gendered perceptions of 43 products among French consumers. This approach categorizes products based on masculinity and femininity ratings, exploring potential gender biases and variations in perceptions according to product type and consumer gender. By starting with a single-country sample, this initial study establishes a foundational understanding of how products are perceived through a gendered lens (see section “Choice of countries”).

Study 2 builds on these findings by extending the analysis to two additional countries, Italy and Sweden, which differ significantly in terms of gender equality (see section “Choice of the countries”). The inclusion of these diverse samples provides a more comprehensive validation of the initial results while testing the proposed conceptual model. This methodological choice ensures that the model’s applicability is not limited to a single cultural context and that potential confounding factors, such as variations in societal gender norms, are controlled for. Testing the model across distinct cultural settings strengthens the reliability and the robustness of the theoretical framework and of the conclusions. By combining these two studies, the research design expands the scope of the analysis to incorporate cultural influences.
To ensure uniformity of economic development, in line with research showing that this factor strongly explains gender differences (Inglehart & Norris, 2003), we selected three Western European countries: one for the first study and two for the second studies. We looked for countries with differences based on the Gender Equality Index of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), which reports to the European Commission. This index has the advantage of compiling several sub-indices (on work, money, education, time, power, and health) with a rigorous statistical methodology (European Institute for Gender Equality., 2023). For the first study, we selected a country with a medium level of gender equality: France. For the second study, we selected two countries: one with a high level of equality and one with a low level, to control the effect of gender equality across countries. The European Union's average gender equality score is 70.2. We selected Italy (low score: 68.2, 13th in the ranking), France (average score: 75.7, 6th in the ranking), and Sweden (high score: 82.2, 1st in the ranking).

Although Hofstede's cultural dimension of masculinity/femininity has been contested (Minkov and Kaasa, 2022), it is interesting to note that Italy exhibits a high level of masculinity, Sweden has a low level (the lowest in the world), and France falls at an intermediate level. Thus, these three countries offer a good diversity in terms of gender equality and cultural gender norms.

## Study 1

The objective of this study is to evaluate the gendered perceptions of 43 different products by comparing masculinity and femininity ratings among French consumers. By categorizing products based on these scores and identifying potential gender biases, the study aims to explore whether products are perceived in a gendered manner and how these perceptions vary according to product type and consumer gender.
Measurement and sample

Respondents assigned femininity and masculinity scores to 43 products, based on research conducted by Fulgate and Philips (2010). We have supplemented this list with two contemporary products: smartphone and vegetarian steak.

The sample comprises 158 respondents from France (47% women, M<sub>age</sub> =29). They were recruited on Prolific in return for a small monetary compensation. Table 1 presents their characteristics (FR).

<table><caption>Table 1. Respondent Sample Characteristics for study 1 and study 2</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>FR</th><th>IT</th><th>SV</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Gender Distribution</th><td>Women : 46.25%<br>Men : 51.25%<br>Other : 2.50%</td><td>Women : 45.75%<br>Men : 51.64%<br>Other : 2.61%</td><td>Women : 47.95%<br>Men : 50.68%<br>Other : 1.37%</td></tr><tr><th>Occupation Distribution</th><td>Student: 38.75%,<br>Worker: 0.63%,<br>Intermediate profession/Employee: 27.50%,<br>Inactive: 3.13%,<br>Business owner/Executive/Intellectual profession: 28.13%,<br>Retired: 0.63%,<br>Farmer: 0%,<br>Prefer not to answer: 1.25%</td><td>Student: 33.99%,<br>Worker: 33.33%,<br>Intermediate profession/Employee: 13.73%,<br>Inactive: 9.15%,<br>Business owner/Executive/Intellectual profession: 6.54%,<br>Retired: 1.96%,<br>Farmer: 0.65%,<br>Prefer not to answer: 0.65%</td><td>Worker: 32.88%,<br>Student: 25.34%,<br>Intermediate profession/Employee: 16.44%,<br>Business owner/Executive/Intellectual profession: 10.96%,<br>Inactive: 8.9%,<br>Retired: 3.42%,<br>Prefer not to answer: 2.05%</td></tr><tr><th>Age Mean</th><td>29.46</td><td>33.47</td><td>32.88</td></tr><tr><th>Age Range (Min-Max)</th><td>19 - 65</td><td>21 - 65</td><td>17 - 69</td></tr><tr><th>Age Std</th><td>9.44</td><td>10.92</td><td>10.80</td></tr></tbody></table>

Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses using paired-sample t-tests were carried out to compare the mean masculinity and femininity scores for each product. A product was considered masculine if the average masculinity score was significantly higher than the average femininity score. Conversely, a product was considered feminine if the average femininity score was significantly higher than the average masculinity score. In situations where no significant difference was observed between the mean masculinity and femininity scores, a threshold method similar to that of Fugate and Phillips (2010) was applied for categorization. If the means for both dimensions were below 3, the median value of the rating scales which ranged from 0 to 6, then the product was classified as 'Undifferentiated', suggesting a weak association with gender attributes. Conversely, averages above 3 on both dimensions led to the categorization of the product as 'Androgynous', indicating a strong association with both gender attributes. Finally, when the averages were on either side of the value 3 (one above and the other below), the categorization of the product was 'Neutral'. This last case did not appear in the Fugate and Phillips (2010) categorization. The rating scale ranged from 0 to 6, with a mid-point set at 3.

## Results

The results are presented in four analytical stages. First, t-tests were conducted to determine whether each of the 43 products was perceived as gendered (masculine or feminine) or non-gendered (androgynous, neutral, or undifferentiated) based on significant differences in mean masculinity and femininity scores between respondents. The categorization of products was established based on the threshold method similar to that used by Fugate and Phillips (2010). Second, each product was categorized into one of the five gender categories (masculine, feminine, androgynous, neutral, undifferentiated) based on the mean scores and significance levels. Table 2 presents these categorizations and indicates that 22 products were perceived as
masculine (e.g., beer, car, credit card), 14 as feminine (e.g., bath soap, dryer, food processor), and 7 as undifferentiated (e.g., camera, refrigerator, toothpaste). No products were classified as androgynous or neutral (see Table 3), suggesting a strong tendency to attribute distinct gender identities to products.

<table><caption>Table 2. T-test results and product categorization.</caption><thead><tr><th>Product</th><th>FR_ mean (F)</th><th>FR_ mean (M)</th><th>FR_ t_stat</th><th>FR_ p_val</th><th>Category</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Beer</td><td>2,21</td><td>3,69</td><td>-10,34</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Bath soap</td><td>3,22</td><td>2,64</td><td>5,11</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Banking services</td><td>2,59</td><td>2,91</td><td>-3,67</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Car</td><td>2,62</td><td>3,36</td><td>-6,55</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Central air conditioning</td><td>2,4</td><td>2,79</td><td>-3,78</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Dryer</td><td>2,95</td><td>2,44</td><td>4,86</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Food processor</td><td>3,26</td><td>2,34</td><td>7,08</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Cigarettes</td><td>2,45</td><td>3,26</td><td>-6,49</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Camera</td><td>2,78</td><td>2,87</td><td>-1,02</td><td>0,31</td><td>Undifferentiated</td></tr><tr><td>Day care (cream)</td><td>4,14</td><td>2,13</td><td>12,76</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Frozen vegetables</td><td>2,72</td><td>2,78</td><td>-0,65</td><td>0,52</td><td>Undifferentiated</td></tr><tr><td>Fruit juices</td><td>2,89</td><td>2,62</td><td>3,44</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Dishwashing liquid</td><td>2,94</td><td>2,44</td><td>4,95</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Microwaves</td><td>2,65</td><td>2,8</td><td>-1,96</td><td>0,05</td><td>Undifferentiated</td></tr><tr><td>Credit card</td><td>2,73</td><td>2,9</td><td>-2,07</td><td>0,04</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Hotel</td><td>2,73</td><td>2,84</td><td>-1,35</td><td>0,18</td><td>Undifferentiated</td></tr><tr><td>Iron</td><td>3,18</td><td>2,33</td><td>6,69</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>French fries</td><td>2,5</td><td>2,98</td><td>-5,2</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Haircuts</td><td>3,43</td><td>2,94</td><td>4,23</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Lawn mower</td><td>1,95</td><td>3,59</td><td>-11,19</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Vegetarian steak</td><td>3,15</td><td>2,38</td><td>7,15</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Paper handkerchiefs</td><td>2,86</td><td>2,63</td><td>2,78</td><td>0,01</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Refrigerator</td><td>2,71</td><td>2,7</td><td>0,12</td><td>0,9</td><td>Undifferentiated</td></tr><tr><td>Legal Services</td><td>2,61</td><td>2,82</td><td>-2,93</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Connected speaker</td><td>2,65</td><td>2,97</td><td>-3,87</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Hair spray</td><td>3,78</td><td>2,25</td><td>8,94</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Soup</td><td>2,93</td><td>2,57</td><td>4,45</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Smartphone</td><td>2,74</td><td>2,93</td><td>-3,26</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Television</td><td>2,66</td><td>2,93</td><td>-3,6</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Shampoo</td><td>3,26</td><td>2,59</td><td>7,21</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Toaster</td><td>2,68</td><td>2,86</td><td>-2,27</td><td>0,02</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Golf</td><td>2,1</td><td>3,49</td><td>-10,5</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Paint (for walls)</td><td>2,48</td><td>3,13</td><td>-6,12</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Washing machine</td><td>3,08</td><td>2,46</td><td>6,15</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Restaurant</td><td>2,91</td><td>2,89</td><td>0,29</td><td>0,77</td><td>Undifferentiated</td></tr><tr><td>Wrenches</td><td>1,82</td><td>3,68</td><td>-11,09</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 3. Contingency table of product categories</caption><tr><td>Scotch/ Whiskey</td><td>1,86</td><td>3,89</td><td>-12,78</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Sneakers</td><td>2,74</td><td>3,17</td><td>-5,2</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Tennis racket</td><td>2,64</td><td>2,99</td><td>-4,02</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Toothpaste</td><td>2,72</td><td>2,74</td><td>-0,52</td><td>0,61</td><td>Undifferentiated</td></tr><tr><td>Wine</td><td>2,81</td><td>3,06</td><td>-2,33</td><td>0,02</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Computer</td><td>2,61</td><td>3,07</td><td>-5,31</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Café</td><td>2,7</td><td>3,01</td><td>-3,81</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Categories</th><th>France</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>male</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>female</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>androgynous</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>neutral</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>undifferentiated</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Gendered<br>(masculine+feminine)</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Ungendered<br>(androgynous+neutral+undifferentiated)</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table>

Third, the categorizations were analyzed according to the gender of respondents to determine whether male and female participants had differing perceptions of product gender. As presented in Table 4, male and female respondents displayed similar patterns, with males perceiving slightly more products as masculine (22) compared to females (19), and females identifying more products as undifferentiated (11 vs. 8). This minor variation suggests that, while overall gender perceptions are aligned, women may demonstrate a broader acceptance of products as being ungendered.

<table><caption>Table 4. Categorization of respondents by gender.</caption><thead><tr><th>Categories</th><th>FR<br>Women</th><th>FR<br>Men</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>male</td><td>19</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>female</td><td>13</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>androgynous</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>neutral</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>undifferentiated</td><td>11</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Gendered</td><td>32</td><td>35</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>(masculine+feminine)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ungendered</td><td>11</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>(androgynous+neutral+undifferentiated)</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

Fourth, a chi-square test was performed on the contingency table (Table 5 – column “France”) to examine whether the distribution of gendered product perceptions significantly differed between male and female respondents. The results indicate no significant association between respondent gender and product categorization ($\chi^2 = 0.69, df = 2, p = 0.71$). This finding suggests that the overall patterns of product gendering do not significantly vary based on the gender of the respondents, reinforcing that gendered product perceptions are relatively consistent across male and female consumers.

<table><caption>Table 5. Adjusted residuals on Chi-square test of gender categories by gender of respondents</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Women</th><th>Men</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Male</th><td>-0.65</td><td>0.65</td></tr><tr><th>Female</th><td>0.00</td><td>-0.00</td></tr><tr><th>Undifferentiated</th><td>0.78</td><td>-0.78</td></tr></tbody></table>

Discussion

The results of this study align with the broader literature on gendered product perceptions, confirming the persistence of gender-based categorizations in consumer behavior (Fugate & Philips, 2010). The fact that most products were perceived as either masculine or feminine, with few items categorized as undifferentiated and none as androgynous or neutral, supports prior findings that consumers tend to apply clear gender identities to products, reflecting traditional gender norms (Bem, 1981; Grohmann, 2009). This reinforces the notion that products are not merely consumed for their functional value but also as extensions of the self, serving as markers of gender identity (Belk, 1988).

Additionally, the lack of significant differences between male and female respondents in the chi-square analysis suggests that gendered product perceptions are shared across genders,
echoing the work of Brough et al. (2016), who found that men and women often rely on similar gender schemas when evaluating products. However, the slightly higher number of products perceived as undifferentiated by female respondents could indicate a broader acceptance of non-binary attributes, a finding that resonates with contemporary shifts in gender norms and the gradual erosion of strict gender boundaries (Peñaloza et al., 2023).

These results highlight that while societal attitudes towards gender have evolved significantly, the tendency to ascribe binary gender identities to products suggests that material conditions and cultural norms continue to shape and constrain consumer behavior in ways that uphold traditional gender distinctions (Hennessy, 2017; McRobbie, 2009).

## Study 2

The objectives of Study 2 are twofold. Firstly, it aims to replicate and validate the findings of Study 1 by analyzing the gendered perception of products across two countries with distinct levels of gender equality and masculinity (Italy and Sweden). Secondly, the study seeks to test the proposed conceptual model (Figure 1) to understand how factors such as sex, self-congruency, perceptions of untraditional role models, and modern sex role perceptions influence the need for product gender congruity, and ultimately, the propensity to assign gendered attributes to products.

### Sample.

The sample comprises 299 respondents, including 153 from Italy (46% women, M<sub>age</sub> =33) and 146 from Sweden (48% women, M<sub>age</sub> =33). They were recruited in return for a small monetary compensation on the platform Prolific.
Measurements.

As in study 1, respondents assigned femininity and masculinity scores to 43 products.

Then, they answer to the scales from Fulgate and Philips (2010) to test the hypothesized model.

These scales are Untraditional Role Model (URM), Modern Sex Role Perceptions (MSRP), selfcong (Self-Congruence), and NPGC (Need for Product Congruence Gender).

Statistical analyses.

We employed the same methodological approach as in Study 1, using paired-sample t-tests to compare mean masculinity and femininity scores for each product.

Then, the indicator Average_Diff_M_F was constructed to quantify each individual's tendency to ascribe gender to products based on their perceived masculinity and femininity. This was achieved by first calculating the absolute difference between the masculinity and femininity scores for each of the 43 products evaluated by respondents. These differences were then averaged for each participant, yielding a single metric representing the general propensity to gender products.

We conducted a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis using the lavaan package in R to assess the factor structure of our psychological constructs and their relationships to the non-latent variable, Average_Diff_M_F. The SEM framework included four latent variables: URM (Untraditional Role Model), MSRP (Modern Sex Role Perceptions), selfcong (Self-Congruence), and NPGC (Need for Product Congruence Gender). URM was indicated by URM1 and URM2, MSRP by MSRP1 and MSRP2, selfcong by selfcong1, selfcong2, and selfcong3, and NPGC by NPGC1, NPGC2, and NPGC3_R. The relationships among these latent variables and their influence on Average_Diff_M_F were modeled, along with the direct
impact of the binary variable Gender. We also included nationality (Italy or Sweden) as a control variable, given that one of the primary objectives of this study is to account for cultural differences, particularly in terms of gender equity. This approach ensures that the observed effects are not confounded by cross-country variations, allowing for a more precise assessment of the relationships between the constructs under investigation. We utilized the MLR estimator for robust parameter estimation suitable for mixed data types (continuous and categorical).

## Results

Table 6 presents the t-test results and country categorizations.

<table><caption>Table 6. T-test results and product categorization by country.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Product</th><th>FR_</th><th>FR_</th><th>FR_</th><th>FR_</th><th>Category</th><th>IT_</th><th>IT_</th><th>IT_</th><th>IT_</th><th>Category</th><th>SV_</th><th>SV_</th><th>SV_t</th><th>SV_p</th><th>Category</th></tr><tr><th>mean</th><th>mean</th><th>t_stat</th><th>p_val</th><th></th><th>mean</th><th>mean</th><th>t_stat</th><th>p_val</th><th></th><th>mean</th><th>mean</th><th>stat</th><th>_val</th><th></th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(F)</th><th>(M)</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>(F)</th><th>(M)</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>(F)</th><th>(M)</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Beer</td><td>2,21</td><td>3,69</td><td>-10,34</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,25</td><td>3,97</td><td>-10,09</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,45</td><td>3,78</td><td>-12,95</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Bath soap</td><td>3,22</td><td>2,64</td><td>5,11</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,35</td><td>2,88</td><td>4,13</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,26</td><td>2,23</td><td>6,82</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Banking services</td><td>2,59</td><td>2,91</td><td>-3,67</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,51</td><td>3,41</td><td>-7,08</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,2</td><td>2,67</td><td>-3,98</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Car</td><td>2,62</td><td>3,36</td><td>-6,55</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,69</td><td>3,82</td><td>-7,76</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,83</td><td>3,72</td><td>-11,64</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Central air conditioning</td><td>2,4</td><td>2,79</td><td>-3,78</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,56</td><td>2,97</td><td>-4,32</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,89</td><td>2,58</td><td>-5,42</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Dryer</td><td>2,95</td><td>2,44</td><td>4,86</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,52</td><td>2,51</td><td>6,75</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>2,56</td><td>2,27</td><td>2,47</td><td>0,01</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Food processor</td><td>3,26</td><td>2,34</td><td>7,08</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,56</td><td>2,47</td><td>7,16</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>2,91</td><td>2,2</td><td>5,02</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Cigarettes</td><td>2,45</td><td>3,26</td><td>-6,49</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,26</td><td>3,69</td><td>-9,3</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,93</td><td>2,87</td><td>-6,07</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Camera</td><td>2,78</td><td>2,87</td><td>-1,02</td><td>0,31</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td><td>2,99</td><td>3,03</td><td>-0,4</td><td>0,69</td><td>Neutral</td><td>2,37</td><td>2,37</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td></tr><tr><td>Day care (cream)</td><td>4,14</td><td>2,13</td><td>12,76</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,92</td><td>2,27</td><td>10,28</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>2,95</td><td>1,97</td><td>7,21</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Frozen vegetables</td><td>2,72</td><td>2,78</td><td>-0,65</td><td>0,52</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td><td>3,15</td><td>2,96</td><td>1,65</td><td>0,1</td><td>Neutral</td><td>2,32</td><td>2,29</td><td>0,3</td><td>0,77</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td></tr><tr><td>Fruit juices</td><td>2,89</td><td>2,62</td><td>3,44</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,03</td><td>2,81</td><td>2,49</td><td>0,01</td><td>Female</td><td>2,77</td><td>2,05</td><td>5,35</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Dishwashing liquid</td><td>2,94</td><td>2,44</td><td>4,95</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,35</td><td>2,55</td><td>6,07</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>2,58</td><td>2,2</td><td>3,11</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Microwaves</td><td>2,65</td><td>2,8</td><td>-1,96</td><td>0,05</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td><td>3,08</td><td>2,99</td><td>0,82</td><td>0,41</td><td>Neutral</td><td>2,21</td><td>2,43</td><td>-2,32</td><td>0,02</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Credit card</td><td>2,73</td><td>2,9</td><td>-2,07</td><td>0,04</td><td>Male</td><td>2,85</td><td>3,26</td><td>-3,67</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,24</td><td>2,66</td><td>-3,82</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Hotel</td><td>2,73</td><td>2,84</td><td>-1,35</td><td>0,18</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td><td>2,85</td><td>3,11</td><td>-3,1</td><td>0</td><td>Neutral</td><td>2,47</td><td>2,4</td><td>0,65</td><td>0,52</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td></tr><tr><td>Iron</td><td>3,18</td><td>2,33</td><td>6,69</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>2,71</td><td>3,25</td><td>-3,04</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,99</td><td>2,86</td><td>-4,6</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>French fries</td><td>2,5</td><td>2,98</td><td>-5,2</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,83</td><td>3,18</td><td>-3,17</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,13</td><td>2,76</td><td>-5,92</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Haircuts</td><td>3,43</td><td>2,94</td><td>4,23</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,78</td><td>2,78</td><td>7,91</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,38</td><td>2,23</td><td>7,16</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Lawn mower</td><td>1,95</td><td>3,59</td><td>-11,19</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,96</td><td>3,94</td><td>-11,86</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,42</td><td>3,39</td><td>-11,77</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Vegetarian steak</td><td>3,15</td><td>2,38</td><td>7,15</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,46</td><td>2,48</td><td>7,26</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>2,99</td><td>1,97</td><td>6,33</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Paper handkerchiefs</td><td>2,86</td><td>2,63</td><td>2,78</td><td>0,01</td><td>Female</td><td>3,54</td><td>2,38</td><td>8,45</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>2,81</td><td>2,04</td><td>5,74</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Refrigerator</td><td>2,71</td><td>2,7</td><td>0,12</td><td>0,9</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td><td>2,96</td><td>3,01</td><td>-0,56</td><td>0,58</td><td>Neutral</td><td>2,21</td><td>2,39</td><td>-1,78</td><td>0,08</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td></tr><tr><td>Legal Services</td><td>2,61</td><td>2,82</td><td>-2,93</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,73</td><td>3,34</td><td>-5,42</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,1</td><td>2,72</td><td>-5,45</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Connected speaker</td><td>2,65</td><td>2,97</td><td>-3,87</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,57</td><td>3,34</td><td>-6,56</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2</td><td>2,75</td><td>-6,3</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Hair spray</td><td>3,78</td><td>2,25</td><td>8,94</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>4,05</td><td>2,27</td><td>9,44</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,94</td><td>1,75</td><td>11,41</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Soup</td><td>2,93</td><td>2,57</td><td>4,45</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,12</td><td>2,63</td><td>4,93</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>2,53</td><td>2,17</td><td>3,25</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Smartphone</td><td>2,74</td><td>2,93</td><td>-3,26</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,97</td><td>3,19</td><td>-2,7</td><td>0,01</td><td>Male</td><td>2,37</td><td>2,6</td><td>-2,37</td><td>0,02</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Television</td><td>2,66</td><td>2,93</td><td>-3,6</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,88</td><td>3,29</td><td>-4,06</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,2</td><td>2,75</td><td>-4,81</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Shampoo</td><td>3,26</td><td>2,59</td><td>7,21</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,47</td><td>2,77</td><td>5,46</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,21</td><td>2,16</td><td>7,31</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Toaster</td><td>2,68</td><td>2,86</td><td>-2,27</td><td>0,02</td><td>Male</td><td>3,02</td><td>2,96</td><td>0,55</td><td>0,58</td><td>Male</td><td>2,16</td><td>2,47</td><td>-3,21</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Golf</td><td>2,1</td><td>3,49</td><td>-10,5</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,05</td><td>3,89</td><td>-11,98</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,58</td><td>3,51</td><td>-11,69</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Paint (for walls)</td><td>2,48</td><td>3,13</td><td>-6,12</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,33</td><td>3,64</td><td>-8,67</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,41</td><td>2,53</td><td>-0,77</td><td>0,44</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td></tr><tr><td>Washing machine</td><td>3,08</td><td>2,46</td><td>6,15</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>3,08</td><td>2,67</td><td>3,69</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td><td>2,66</td><td>2,2</td><td>3,66</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Restaurant</td><td>2,91</td><td>2,89</td><td>0,29</td><td>0,77</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td><td>2,98</td><td>3,14</td><td>-1,79</td><td>0,08</td><td>Neutral</td><td>2,53</td><td>2,53</td><td>0,08</td><td>0,93</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td></tr><tr><td>Wrenches</td><td>1,82</td><td>3,68</td><td>-11,09</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,81</td><td>4,28</td><td>-13,52</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,01</td><td>2,76</td><td>-4,9</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Scotch/ Whiskey</td><td>1,86</td><td>3,89</td><td>-12,78</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,91</td><td>4,18</td><td>-13,26</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>1,34</td><td>4,01</td><td>-14,63</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Sneakers</td><td>2,74</td><td>3,17</td><td>-5,2</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,99</td><td>3,37</td><td>-3,36</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,3</td><td>2,88</td><td>-4,76</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Tennis racket</td><td>2,64</td><td>2,99</td><td>-4,02</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,75</td><td>3,23</td><td>-4,38</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,28</td><td>2,76</td><td>-3,49</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Toothpaste</td><td>2,72</td><td>2,74</td><td>-0,52</td><td>0,61</td><td>Undiffere<br>ntiated</td><td>2,93</td><td>3,02</td><td>-1,26</td><td>0,21</td><td>Neutral</td><td>2,15</td><td>2,4</td><td>-3,17</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Wine</td><td>2,81</td><td>3,06</td><td>-2,33</td><td>0,02</td><td>Male</td><td>2,86</td><td>3,46</td><td>-4,78</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>3,22</td><td>2,13</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Computer</td><td>2,61</td><td>3,07</td><td>-5,31</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,69</td><td>3,57</td><td>-6,6</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,02</td><td>3,16</td><td>-7,86</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Café</td><td>2,7</td><td>3,01</td><td>-3,81</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,89</td><td>3,31</td><td>-3,85</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td><td>2,47</td><td>2,86</td><td>-3,25</td><td>0</td><td>Male</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 7 presents the resulting contingency table.

<table><caption>Table 7. Contingency table of product categories by country</caption><thead><tr><th>Categories</th><th>France</th><th>Italy</th><th>Sweden</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>male</td><td>22</td><td>23</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>female</td><td>14</td><td>13</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>androgynous</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>neutral</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>undifferentiated</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Gendered<br>(masculine+feminine)</td><td>36</td><td>36</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Ungendered<br>(androgynous+neutral+undifferentiated)</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>6</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 8 presents the contingency table for categorization by country and gender of respondents.

<table><caption>Table 8. Categorization of respondents by country and gender of respondents.</caption><thead><tr><th>Categories</th><th>FR<br>Woman</th><th>FR<br>Men</th><th>IT<br>Woman</th><th>IT<br>Men</th><th>SV<br>Woman</th><th>SV<br>Men</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>male</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>14</td><td>24</td><td>19</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>female</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>12</td><td>11</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>androgynous</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>12</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>neutral</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>undifferentiated</td><td>11</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>13</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Gendered<br>(masculine+feminine)</td><td>32</td><td>35</td><td>27</td><td>36</td><td>30</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Ungendered<br>(androgynous+neutral+undifferentiated)</td><td>11</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>7</td><td>13</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>

We then performed chi-square tests on these contingency tables (with Yates correction when they contained values of 0), and using the adjusted residuals, we observed which groups contributed most to the significant differences. Table 9 presents these adjusted residuals.

<table><caption>Table 9. Adjusted residuals on Chi-square test of gender categories by country</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>France</th><th>Italy</th><th>Sweden</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Male</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>0.04</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Neutral</td><td>-1.25</td><td>2.52</td><td>-1.25</td></tr><tr><td>undifferentiated</td><td>0.79</td><td>-1.29</td><td>0.50</td></tr></tbody></table>
France was included in these analysis because the same measurement scales and evaluation
criteria for masculinity and femininity were applied, ensuring that the data collected across all
countries is directly comparable.

The results are presented in four stages: (1) analysis of significant t-test results by country (significant vs. non-significant or gendered vs. non-gendered product), (2) analysis of results by gender category (feminine, masculine, androgynous, neutral, undifferentiated) by country, (3) analysis of significant t-test results by country by sex of respondent, (4) analysis of results by gender category by country and sex of respondent.

There was no significant difference between countries in terms of whether or not products were
gendered ($\chi^2$ = 0.12; p-value=0.94). On the other hand, results by category (masculine,
feminine, neutral, androgynous, undifferentiated) show significant results ($\chi^2$ = 20.69; p-
value=0.002)<fnref n="1" />. Adjusted residuals are shown in Table 4. The main difference appears in the
"neutral" category, which appears significantly more in the Italian sample. To a lesser extent,
the "undifferentiated" category appears less in the Italian sample.

There is no significant gender difference in the gendering of products in France ($\chi^2$ = 0.61; p-value=0.43) and Sweden ($\chi^2$ = 1.58; p-value=0.21). On the other hand, there was a significant difference in Italy ($\chi^2$ = 4.81; p-value=0.03). Results by category are not significant for France ($\chi^2$ = 0.69; p-value=0.71) and Sweden ($\chi^2$ = 1.58; p-value=0.45). In contrast, the results are significant for Italy ($\chi^2$ = 18.81; p-value <0.001). The main difference is that Italian men perceive more products as masculine, while Italian women perceive more products as androgynous. These two observations partially coincide, as 7 of the 12 products perceived as

<footnote n="1">¹ The "Androgyne" line was not taken into account, as it had no responses and prevented analysis of the results, even with the Yates correction.</footnote>
androgynous by Italian women are perceived as masculine by Italian men (credit cards, French fries, smartphones, sneakers, tennis rackets, wine and coffee).

Then, we tested our hypothetical model. Table 10 presents the descriptive statistics for each variable and each country.

<table><caption>Table 10. Descriptive statistics by country and by sex</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="4">Italy</th><th colspan="4">Sweden</th><th rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>Women</th><th>Men</th><th>Other</th><th>Total</th><th>Women</th><th>Men</th><th>Other</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>URM</td><td>2,74</td><td>2,39</td><td>3,25</td><td><strong>2,57</strong></td><td>3,25</td><td>3,02</td><td>2,75</td><td><strong>3,13</strong></td><td>2,84</td></tr><tr><td>MSRP</td><td>6,29</td><td>5,48</td><td>6,25</td><td><strong>5,87</strong></td><td>5,96</td><td>5,61</td><td>4,75</td><td><strong>5,77</strong></td><td>5,82</td></tr><tr><td>self-cong</td><td>3,59</td><td>3,48</td><td>4,33</td><td><strong>3,55</strong></td><td>3,15</td><td>3,01</td><td>2,17</td><td><strong>3,07</strong></td><td>3,31</td></tr><tr><td>NPCG</td><td>1,81</td><td>2,75</td><td>1,25</td><td><strong>2,28</strong></td><td>2,60</td><td>3,06</td><td>1,50</td><td><strong>2,82</strong></td><td>2,54</td></tr><tr><td>Average_Diff_M_F</td><td>0,88</td><td>1,31</td><td>0,24</td><td><strong>1,09</strong></td><td>1,07</td><td>1,24</td><td>0,59</td><td><strong>1,15</strong></td><td>1,12</td></tr></tbody></table>

The structural equation modeling provided a good fit to the data, evidenced by a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.920, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.890, and a Robust Comparative Fit Index of 0.923. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.069 with a 90% confidence interval ranging from 0.053 to 0.085, suggesting an acceptable fit. The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was 0.069, further confirming the model's adequacy (see Table 11).

<table><caption>Table 11. Measurement model index</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Standard</th><th>Scaled</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Test Statistic</td><td>116.609</td><td>108.871</td></tr><tr><td>Degrees of freedom</td><td>48</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>P-value (Chi-square)</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Scaling correction factor Yuan-Bentler correction (Mplus variant)</td><td></td><td>1.071</td></tr><tr><td>Comparative Fit Index (CFI)</td><td>0.920</td><td>0.917</td></tr><tr><td>Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)</td><td>0.890</td><td>0.885</td></tr><tr><td>RMSEA</td><td>0.069</td><td>0.065</td></tr><tr><td>90 Percent confidence interval - lower</td><td>0.053</td><td>0.049</td></tr><tr><td>90 Percent confidence interval - upper</td><td>0.085</td><td>0.081</td></tr><tr><td>SRMR</td><td>0.069</td><td>0.069</td></tr></tbody></table>
Parameter estimates revealed significant loadings of all indicators on their respective latent factors, confirming the hypothesized structure of the constructs within the SEM framework (see Table 12).

<table><caption>Table 12. Latent variables</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Estimate</th><th>Std.Err</th><th>z-value</th><th>P(&gt;|z|)</th><th>Std.lv</th><th>Std.all</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>URM =~</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>URM1</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.843</td><td>0.487</td></tr><tr><td>URM2</td><td>1.345</td><td>0.522</td><td>2.578</td><td>0.010</td><td>1.134</td><td>0.639</td></tr><tr><td>MSRP =~</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MSRP1</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.552</td><td>0.854</td></tr><tr><td>MSRP2</td><td>0.808</td><td>0.075</td><td>10.839</td><td>0.000</td><td>1.253</td><td>0.859</td></tr><tr><td>selfcong =~</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>selfcong1</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.613</td><td>0.808</td></tr><tr><td>selfcong2</td><td>1.016</td><td>0.082</td><td>12.394</td><td>0.000</td><td>1.640</td><td>0.847</td></tr><tr><td>selfcong3</td><td>0.480</td><td>0.069</td><td>6.913</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.775</td><td>0.462</td></tr><tr><td>NPGC =~</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NPGC1</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.111</td><td>0.616</td></tr><tr><td>NPGC2</td><td>0.863</td><td>0.115</td><td>7.494</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.960</td><td>0.516</td></tr><tr><td>NPGC3_R</td><td>0.748</td><td>0.142</td><td>5.269</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.831</td><td>0.469</td></tr></tbody></table>

The regression analysis showed that the Need for Product Gender Congruity (NPGC) was significantly influenced by multiple factors. Modern Sex Role Perceptions (MSRP) had a strong negative effect on NPGC (standardized coefficient = -0.728, p < 0.001), indicating that holding more modern views on gender roles reduces the need for products to be gender-congruent. Self-congruency (selfcong) displayed a significant positive effect (standardized coefficient = 0.401, p < 0.001), as did gender (standardized coefficient = 0.174, p = 0.012), with male respondents (coded as 1) showing a higher need for product gender congruity compared to female respondents (coded as 0). Additionally, nationality exhibited a significant positive impact on NPGC (standardized coefficient = 0.250, p < 0.001), with Swedish respondents (coded as 1) displaying a higher need for product gender congruity compared to Italian respondents (coded as 0). Finally, the direct effect of NPGC on Average_Diff_M_F was both significant and
positive (standardized coefficient = 0.489, p < 0.001), signifying that a stronger need for gender congruence in products increases the tendency to assign gendered attributes to products. Full results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 13.

<table><caption>Table 13. Regression results</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Estimate</th><th>Std.Err</th><th>z-value</th><th>P(&gt;|z|)</th><th>Std.lv</th><th>Std.all</th><th>Hyp</th><th>Validation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>NPGC ~</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>URM</td><td>0.224</td><td>0.124</td><td>1.814</td><td>0.070</td><td>0.179</td><td>0.179</td><td>H3</td><td>Partially</td></tr><tr><td>MSRP</td><td>-0.525</td><td>0.068</td><td>-7.723</td><td>0.000</td><td>-0.728</td><td>-0.728</td><td>H4</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>selfcong</td><td>0.270</td><td>0.064</td><td>4.241</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.401</td><td>0.401</td><td>H2</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>0.357</td><td>0.141</td><td>2.526</td><td>0.012</td><td>0.325</td><td>0.174</td><td>H1</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Nationality</td><td>0.550</td><td>0.125</td><td>4.403</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.500</td><td>0.250</td><td>control</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Average_Diff_M_F ~</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NPGC</td><td>0.412</td><td>0.057</td><td>7.170</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.452</td><td>0.489</td><td>H5,6,7</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

Interestingly, the comparison of the results with or without the nationality control variable show differences. The results of the regression analysis without controlling for nationality reveal that the Untraditional Role Model (URM) variable significantly influences the Need for Product Gender Congruity (NPGC) ($\beta$ = 0.253, $p$ = 0.020), a finding that diverges from the results obtained when including nationality as a control variable. This indicates that the effect of URM on NPGC diminishes when considering cultural context, highlighting the importance of accounting for cross-cultural variations when examining the relationship between individual-level variables and product gender perceptions.

In contrast, Modern Sex Role Perceptions (MSRP) continues to have a strong negative impact on NPGC in both models, reinforcing the notion that individuals with more progressive views on gender roles exhibit a lower need for product gender congruity ($\beta$ = -0.772, $p$ < 0.001). Similarly, the effect of self-congruency remains significant, suggesting that a sense of personal alignment with one's own gender identity strongly predicts the desire for gender congruence in products ($\beta$ = 0.359, $p$ < 0.001).
Gender, when examined independently of nationality, also shows a significant positive effect on NPGC ($\beta$ = 0.304, *p* = 0.022), indicating that men express a stronger need for gender-congruent products compared to women. This finding is consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and precarious masculinity (Vandello & Bosson, 2013), which posit that men may experience greater motivation to assert and maintain their gender identity through consumption.

Finally, the direct effect of NPGC on the tendency to gender products (measured by Average_Diff_M_F) is significant and positive in both models ($\beta$ = 0.508, *p* < 0.001). This suggests that a higher need for product gender congruity leads to a stronger propensity to perceive and evaluate products in gendered terms, regardless of whether or not nationality is controlled.

## Discussion

The findings of Study 2 confirm and extend the results of Study 1, demonstrating that gendered perceptions of products are deeply entrenched and influenced by both individual and cultural factors. Although no significant differences in product gendering were observed between France and Sweden, the Italian sample displayed unique gendered perceptions, particularly among male respondents, who ascribed more products as masculine. This can be explained by the concept of cultural congruence (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989), according to which individuals' behaviors and perceptions are shaped by their cultural context and align with prevailing social norms. In contexts where gender norms are strongly embedded, such as in Italy (Hofstede, 2001; Mac Giolla & Kajonius, 2019), individuals' gendered expectations are more consistent with dominant social practices and representations. This congruence influences how consumers perceive products and associate them with masculine or feminine attributes
(Fugate & Phillips, 2010; Grohmann, 2009). Thus, in such contexts, individuals are more likely to perceive products through a gendered lens, especially as masculine, as this corresponds to their social expectations and cultural socialization (Bem, 1981; Eagly & Wood, 2012). The positive relationship between the Need for Product Gender Congruity (NPGC) and the propensity to gender products (Average_Diff_M_F) further reinforces the influence of gender identity on product evaluation, highlighting the importance of considering both individual-level variables (e.g., self-congruency) and contextual factors (e.g., nationality). The findings also suggest that in societies where gender norms are more rigid, the alignment between individuals' gendered expectations and societal norms may reduce the perceived need to assert one's gender identity through product choices.

# Discussion

## *Theoretical Contributions.*

This study advances the theoretical understanding of gendered product perception by making several key contributions. Firstly, it challenges the assumption, derived from the work of Fugate and Phillips (2010) and Bem's Gender Schema Theory (1974), that more egalitarian societies would inherently foster less gendered perceptions of products (H1). Our findings indicate that, contrary to this hypothesis, gendered product perceptions persist even in highly egalitarian contexts. In less egalitarian societies, such as Italy, men perceive significantly more products as masculine compared to women, who tend to perceive more products as androgynous. This pattern supports hypothesis H2 and aligns with Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and Brough et al. (2016), suggesting that gender schema activation and identity assertion are more pronounced in contexts where traditional gender norms are still prevalent.
Secondly, by incorporating a cross-cultural dimension into the analysis, this research extends the literature on gendered product perceptions by highlighting the role of cultural context in shaping these perceptions. Previous studies have largely overlooked the influence of cultural variables such as gender equity and national identity, which our findings show are critical in understanding the persistence and nature of gendered product perceptions (Mac Giolla & Kajonius, 2019).

Thirdly, the inclusion of the Need for Product Gender Congruity (NPGC) as a mediator in our conceptual model revisits and extends the initial model proposed by Fugate and Phillips (2010). Fifteen years after their seminal work, and in light of significant societal changes brought about by the fourth wave of feminism and movements like #MeToo, we examined whether the determinants of product gender perceptions have evolved. Fugate and Phillips (2010) originally found that product gender perceptions were stable and that individuals who sought congruence between their self-concept and product gender showed a higher sensitivity to gender cues in marketing, while those with modern sex role perceptions exhibited a lower need for product gender congruity. Our study confirms that these relationships still hold: individuals with more modern views on gender roles are less likely to require product gender congruity, while those with strong self-congruency still feel a heightened need for gendered products.

However, our findings also reveal that the effect of Modern Sex Role Perceptions (MSRP) on NPGC has intensified compared to Fugate and Phillips's initial results. This suggests that in the current socio-cultural context, those with progressive gender role views feel an even stronger disassociation from products that are explicitly gendered, potentially reflecting broader shifts in societal norms and the ongoing redefinition of gender boundaries in consumption.

Furthermore, we found that when controlling for nationality, the influence of Untraditional Role Models (URM) on NPGC becomes non-significant, indicating that cross-cultural factors play a crucial role in moderating how URM shapes product gender perceptions. This underscores the
importance of accounting for cultural context when analyzing gender-related consumption behaviors and contributes to ongoing debates on the role of evolving gender identities in shaping consumer preferences (Borau & Bonnefon, 2020; Robertson, 2018).

## Managerial and societal contributions

From a managerial perspective, our findings reveal a paradox: in more gender-equal societies, individuals still exhibit a heightened need for product congruence with their gender identity. This insight poses a dilemma for marketers. On one hand, it is essential for brands to resonate with consumer preferences to remain relevant and profitable. On the other hand, these marketing strategies should not contribute to the reinforcement of rigid gender norms, especially in societies striving for greater gender equality. As our results demonstrate, even in progressive contexts, traditional gender congruence in product perception persists, suggesting that the societal shift towards equality has not yet been fully internalized at the level of individual consumption behaviors.

One way to address this paradox is for marketers to shift their focus from gender-based congruence to other identity dimensions, such as personality traits, values, or lifestyle preferences. By doing so, brands can satisfy the consumer's need for self-congruency without relying on gendered stereotypes. For instance, instead of categorizing products as "for men" or "for women," marketers could segment products according to values like sustainability, innovation, or adventure, which may appeal across genders. This approach has already been implemented in certain sectors, such as the toy industry, where companies and retailers have begun to move away from gendered marketing strategies. Some toy catalogues and stores, for example, have shifted to categorizing products based on themes such as creativity or physical activity, rather than by gender (Auster and Mansbach, 2012; Kropeniscki and Perurena, 2017).
Such strategies provide an opportunity to create product lines that cater to diverse interests without reinforcing binary gender categories.

Furthermore, these insights suggest that brands can play an active role in de-emphasizing the importance of gender in product positioning. By shifting towards more inclusive and non-gendered marketing strategies, companies not only help reshape consumer perceptions but also foster a market environment that supports greater fluidity and flexibility in gender identities. This would align with a more ethical and socially responsible approach, reducing the risk of perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

For policy makers and public institutions, our study underscores the need to support initiatives that promote a more comprehensive understanding of identity beyond gender categories. Educational programs and campaigns that challenge the traditional importance of gender in defining self-identity could pave the way for a reduction in the need for gender congruence in products. For example, legislative changes in several countries have already banned gender-specific advertising for children's toys, which helps to reduce the association of certain products with masculinity or femininity and encourages children to explore a wider range of interests without feeling constrained by gender norms (Brownell, 2016; Fine and Rush, 2018). By decreasing the emphasis on gender as a defining feature of personal identity, societies could move towards a more inclusive environment where identity is constructed through multiple, diverse dimensions, enabling individuals to engage with products based on preferences that transcend gender.

## Limitations and Future Research.

While this study provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. Firstly, the research was conducted using samples from only three European countries, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research could expand the geographical scope to include
non-Western contexts or emerging markets, where gender norms and product perceptions may
differ significantly. Secondly, the reliance on quantitative methods, while robust for testing the
proposed model, may not capture the full complexity of gendered product perceptions. Future
studies could incorporate qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews or ethnographic
research, to gain a richer understanding of the underlying reasons for gendered perceptions.

Another potential avenue for future research is to examine how changes in societal gender
norms, such as increased acceptance of non-binary identities or shifts in the portrayal of gender
in media, influence product gendering over time. Longitudinal studies could provide insights
into how these changing norms alter consumer perceptions and behaviors, and whether they
contribute to a decline in the gendering of products.

Lastly, future studies could explore how specific policy interventions or corporate initiatives
aimed at reducing gender stereotypes—such as the implementation of gender-neutral product
lines or campaigns—affect consumer perceptions and market performance. This would not only
contribute to the academic literature but also offer practical guidance for brands and
policymakers seeking to foster more inclusive and equitable markets.
Conclusion.

This research highlights the complexity of gendered product perceptions, demonstrating that they are not only influenced by individual factors but also deeply rooted in cultural contexts and social norms. Our findings suggest that efforts to reduce gender biases in product perceptions must consider the broader cultural framework within which these perceptions are formed. By offering a more comprehensive view of the determinants of gendered product perceptions, this study provides a solid foundation for future research and practical recommendations for fostering more equitable consumption practices. Brands and policymakers alike are called upon to critically evaluate the impact of their practices on the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and to explore new, more inclusive pathways that contribute to a fairer, more diverse consumer society.
References

Adalı G, Yardibi F, Aydın Ş, et al. (2024) Gender and Advertising: A 50-Year Bibliometric Analysis. *Journal of Advertising*: 1–21.

Auster CJ and Mansbach CS (2012) The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website. *Sex Roles* 67(7): 375–388.

Avery J (2012) Defending the markers of masculinity: Consumer resistance to brand gender-bending. *International Journal of Research in Marketing* 29(4): 322–336.

Belk RW (1988) Possessions and the Extended Self. *Journal of Consumer Research* 15(2): 139.

Bem SL (1981) Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. *Psychological Review* 88(4). US: American Psychological Association: 354–364.

Borau S and Bonnefon J-F (2020) Gendered products act as the extended phenotype of human sexual dimorphism: They increase physical attractiveness and desirability. *Journal of Business Research* 120: 498–508.

Brough AR, Wilkie JEB, Ma J, et al. (2016) The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. *Journal of Consumer Research* 43(4): 567–582.

Brownell TW (2016) Pink and Blue Advertising: Legal Remedies for Gendered Toy Aisles. *Women's Rights Law Reporter* 38: 136.

Darley WK and Smith RE (1995) Gender Differences in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response. *Journal of Advertising* 24(1): 41–56.
Eagly AH, Eaton A, Rose SM, et al. (2012) Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. *American Psychologist* 67(3): 211–230.

Eagly AH, Nater C, Miller DI, et al. (2020) Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. *American Psychologist* 75(3). US: American Psychological Association: 301–315.

Eisend M (2010) A Meta-Analysis of Gender Roles in Advertising. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 38(4): 418–440.

Eisend M (2019) Gender Roles. *Journal of Advertising* 48(1). Routledge: 72–80.

European Institute for Gender Equality. (2023) *Gender Equality Index 2023: towards a green transition in transport and energy*. LU: Publications Office. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2839/64810 (accessed 4 December 2023).

Fine C and Rush E (2018) “Why Does All the Girls Have to Buy Pink Stuff?” The Ethics and Science of the Gendered Toy Marketing Debate. *Journal of Business Ethics* 149(4): 769–784.

Fugate DL and Phillips J (2010) Product gender perceptions and antecedents of product gender congruence. *Journal of Consumer Marketing* 27(3): 251–261.

Galinsky AD, Hall EV and Cuddy AJC (2013) Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. *Psychological Science* 24(4): 498–506.

Gill R (2008) *Gender and the Media*. Polity Press. Cambridge.
Grohmann B (2009) *Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality*. *Journal of Marketing Research*
46(1): 105–119.

Hennessy R (2017) *Profit and Pleasure: Sexual Identities in Late Capitalism*. Routledge.
Available at:
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315270142/profit-pleasure-rosemary-hennessy (accessed 2 October 2024).

Hentschel T, Heilman ME and Peus CV (2019) *The Multiple Dimensions of Gender Stereotypes: A Current Look at Men's and Women's Characterizations of Others and Themselves*. *Frontiers in Psychology* 10: 11.

Hofstede G (2001) *Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations* (ed. 2nd). SAGE Publications.

Hsu N, Badura KL, Newman DA, et al. (2021) Gender, “masculinity,” and “femininity”: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in agency and communion. *Psychological Bulletin* 147(10): 987–1011.

Kropeniscki FB and Perurena FCV (2017) *Gender relations in toys catalogs: (counter)indications to play*. *Educação & Sociedade* 38. Centro de Estudos Educação e Sociedade - Cedes: 965–981.

Mac Giolla E and Kajonius PJ (2019) *Gender equality predicts national sex differences in personality: A ten-nation study*. *Psychological Science* 30(6): 963–973.

Markus HR and Kitayama S (1991) *Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation*. *Psychological Review* 98(2): 224–253.
Master A, Cheryan S and Meltzoff AN (2021) Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls' interest and sense of belonging in computer science. *Journal of Educational Psychology* 113(4): 861–876.

McRobbie A (2009) *The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change*. SAGE Publications. London.

Minkov M and Kaasa A (2022) Do dimensions of culture exist objectively? A validation of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture with World Values Survey items and scores for 102 countries. *Journal of International Management* 28(4): 100971.

Mulvey KL and Killen M (2014) Challenging gender stereotypes: Resistance and exclusion. *Child Development* 85(6): 1798–1816.

Neale L, Robbie R and Martin B (2016) Gender identity and brand incongruence: when in doubt, pursue masculinity. *Journal of Strategic Marketing* 24(5). Routledge: 347–359.

Ng S, Bharti M and Faust NT (2020) The Impact of Gender and Culture in Consumer Behavior. In: Halpern DF and Cheung FM (eds) *The Cambridge Handbook of the International Psychology of Women*. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 244–257. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-the-international-psychology-of-women/impact-of-gender-and-culture-in-consumer-behavior/CD2E91FC3CF739FB5D7EBBF1E8A6DEEA (accessed 3 October 2024).

Peñaloza L, Prothero A, McDonagh P, et al. (2023) The Past and Future of Gender Research in Marketing: Paradigms, Stances, and Value-Based Commitments. *Journal of Marketing* 87(6): 847–868.
Putrevu S (2001) Exploring the Origins and Information Processing Differences Between Men and Women: Implications for Advertisers. *Academy of Marketing Science Review* (10). Epub ahead of print 2001.

Robertson JL (2018) Branding in the Age of Social Media: Constructing a Gendered Identity Through Cultural Narratives. *Journal of Business Research* 88: 193–202.

Sirgy MJ (1985) Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation. *Journal of Business Research* 13(3): 195–206.

Tajfel H, Turner JC, Austin WG, et al. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. *Organizational identity: A reader* 56(65). Oxford University Press: 9780203505984–16.

Tak E, Correll SJ and Soule SA (2019) Gender Inequality in Product Markets: When and How Status Beliefs Transfer to Products. *Social Forces* 98(2): 548–577.

Triandis HC (1989) The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. *Psychological Review* 96(3): 506–520.

Vandello JA and Bosson JK (2013) Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. *Psychology of men & masculinity* 14(2). Educational Publishing Foundation: 101.

Wenting F, Shuyun X, Ying Y, et al. (2022) The influence of androgynous streamers on consumers’ product preferences. *Frontiers in Psychology* 13: 1029503.