# Theorizing and Studying Reactions to Gender Norm Violations

Ethan Meimoun, Cristina Aelenei, Virginie Bonnot

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

## To cite this version:

Ethan Meimoun, Cristina Aelenei, Virginie Bonnot. Theorizing and Studying Reactions to Gender Norm Violations. Collabra: Psychology, 2024, 10 (1), 10.1525/collabra.125682. http://hal-04885565

HAL Id: hal-04885565

https://hal.science/hal-04885565v1

Submitted on 31 Mar 2025

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_2.png" /></figure>
Reactions to gender norm violations include social evaluations and behavioral responses to individuals who deviate from the gender norms associated with their perceived gender. Research has for a long time studied negative reactions, in many subdisciplines (Li & Wei, 2022; Lobel et al., 2004; Rudman, 1998), from different theoretical frameworks (Iacoviello et al., 2021; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, et al., 2012), and using various methods (Kleiser & Mayeux, 2023; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2017). The literature on this phenomenon seems to be split between *youth research* (i.e., children or adolescents as targets of reactions) and *adult research* (i.e., adults as targets of reactions) as the two have very rarely overlapped. In this paper, we argue that the lack of overlap and acknowledgment of other research working on the same core phenomenon has led to a literature of conflicting theoretical perspectives that are apparent in both the mechanisms supposedly at play and the predictions that can be drawn from theories. Furthermore, we argue that this lack of integration of the literature has inhibited researchers from incorporating contrasting findings, meaning findings of different kinds of reactions (i.e., more positive reactions, Meijs et al., 2015; Meimoun et al., 2023), into their work and thus into theoretical conceptualizations. We end this article by providing a list of recommendations for future research, as well as important research questions that could be addressed by researchers in order to more fully understand the reactions that people have to those who violate gender norms.

## 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 effect<fnref n="1" /> (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.

<footnote>a Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ethan Meimoun, Université Paris Cité, Laboratoire de psychologie sociale, F-92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France. E-mail: ethan.meimoun@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ In this article, reference to the “backlash effect” is a reference to *gender backlash* because a large majority of research on this subject is aimed at gender stereotypes.</footnote>
It is, however, paramount for research to consider the
full body of literature on the phenomenon and for the-
oretical divergences to be settled, as reactions to gender
norm violations can lead to several negative consequences.
Indeed, individuals' reactions can have proximal conse-
quences on the recipients of reactions such as bullying and
exclusion and their associated consequences on academic
achievement and mental health in childhood and adoles-
cence (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 hire-
ability, lower salary allocations and overall worsened pro-
fessional and personal outcomes (Amanatullah & Tinsley,
2013; Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Rudman, Moss-Racusin,
Phelan, et al., 2012) explaining for example the lower rep-
resentation of women in leadership positions (Manzi et al.,
2024). Furthermore, in a more distal way, individuals' re-
actions to violations of gender norms can serve to enforce
gender stereotypes and overall contribute to the mainte-
nance of gender inequalities (Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Ew-
ing-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.

Negative Reactions to Gender Norm Violations

Perhaps one of the main reasons for the parallel de-
velopment of research lines working on the phenomenon
of reactions to gender norm violations is the theoretical
frameworks employed by researchers. Indeed, while back-
lash research has predominantly utilized *system justification
theory* (Jost & Banaji, 1994) to explain individuals’ moti-
vation to sanction counter-stereotypicality, some research
has instead used *social identity theory* (Iacoviello et al.,
2021; Tajfel, 2010). Concurrent with these theoretical dis-
tinctions are also distinctions in the characteristics of tar-
gets 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 vio-
lations, 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 dif-
ferent 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.

Adult Research

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 rea-
sons, postulated by Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick and col-
laborators (2012) is that in order to be viewed as com-
petent enough to reach these positions, women have to
display masculine/agentic traits and behaviors, which are
counter-stereotypical for them. This counter-stereotypical-
ity, 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 indi-
viduals are motivated to defend the systems that they ex-
ist in (Jost & Banaji, 1994). This theoretical view was ap-
plied 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 adopt-
ing characteristics whose status is incongruent with the
status associated with one’s gender. Thus, by violating gen-
der 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-stereo-
typical men, by behaving in a feminine manner, might be
perceived as losing their privileged place in the gender hi-
erarchy (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 experi-
ment, 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, partic-
ipants 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 sim-
ilarly. Similarly, men who fail to display prescriptive traits
(such as assertiveness), or who do display proscriptive mas-
culine 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).

## Youth Research

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 peergroups 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 the-
oretical explanation. In fact, to our knowledge, only two
studies have explicitly grounded their research in this theo-
retical framework. In these studies, authors referred to the
theoretical framework of the backlash effect and used ex-
perimental designs common for this body of research, to
study how adult participants reacted to gender norm-vio-
lating pre-school children (Sullivan et al., 2018) and how
adolescents reacted to counter-stereotypical target peers
(Meimoun et al., 2023). As already mentioned, “youth re-
search” has mostly made use of the social identity perspec-
tive 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-stereo-
typical 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 partic-
ularly 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 mascu-
line and outstandingly competent, feminine and outstand-
ingly 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 repre-
sentative (Lobel et al., 2004). Consistent with a social iden-
tity perspective, the sanctions against the feminine target
were especially strong among highly masculine partici-
pants, meaning those who adhered most strongly to mas-
culinity group norms. Other studies have found similar re-
sults, especially regarding boys' reactions to gender norm
violations within their own gender group (McGuire et al.,
2020).

Theoretical Divergences

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 unan-
imous as we discuss further on). However, the underlying
motivational mechanism that leads to the sanctioning of
gender norm violating individuals is much less well estab-
lished. Indeed, the two main theoretical frameworks (i.e.,
the system justification perspective and the social identity
perspective) used to study this phenomenon underlie im-
portant theoretical divergences.

Different Mechanisms

Although both the system-justification and social iden-
tity 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 perspec-
tive 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 pit-
ted these two explanatory mechanisms against each other.
Both the system-justification and social identity perspec-
tives 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-justifi-
cation 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 per-
spective, studies have shown that those who are more in-
clined to justify the gender hierarchy are more likely to re-
act negatively and that being exposed to a general (i.e., not
gender-related) system threat leads to more severe sanc-
tioning 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 viola-
tions 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 iden-
tity theory as an explanation for sanctioning of gender
norm violations, Iacoviello and collaborators' study men-
tioned 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 re-
ported studies. Thus, whether it is the perceived system-
threat or the perceived group-threat that motivates indi-
viduals 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 individ-
ual-level explanations of negative reactions, such as *uncer-
tainty 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).

## Different Predictions

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; Owua-

malam 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 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 in-group (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 infringe-
ment 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 atti-
tudes (Rubin et al., 2023), that though they may be less mo-
tivated to react negatively women may still exhibit nega-
tive 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 com-
plementary dimension (i.e., communion over agency). Re-
garding 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. In-
deed, 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 neg-
ative 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 re-
search could pit these two competing motivational expla-
nations against each other. Researchers could in an orthog-
onal 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 be-
low, we summarize the main predictions of both motiva-
tional models of reactions to gender norm violations – so-
cial identity and system justification theory – highlighting
similarities and divergences.

Implications for Future Research

In this first part of the paper, we have argued that the in-
dependent development of research on a similar phenome-
non – the reactions that people have to gender norm vio-
lations – 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 im-
plications for future research as well as propose ways to im-
prove this research field, both at a methodological and the-
oretical level.

There are Still Sanctions but...

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 stereo-
types. However, in recent years, more and more published
and unpublished experimental research has reported re-
sults that either are in direct opposition to negative reac-
tions or that establish boundary conditions of these neg-
ative 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 advan-
tage over others who act in line with their gender roles” –
influenced how participants reacted to this counter-stereo-
typicality (Meijs et al., 2015). In these studies, participants
had to evaluate targets who behaved counter-stereotypi-
cally 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 nev-
ertheless 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 consequences<fnref n="2" />. In-
deed, 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 suc-
cessful in triggering some of the previously mentioned
mechanisms that lead to the sanctioning of gender norm
violations. Therefore, future research could test whether

<footnote n="2">2 By this we mean the fictional consequences of experimental situations which we mention in the next sentence.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 1. Summary of Theoretical Divergences for the Two Motivational Models of Reactions to Gender Norm Violations</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Prediction regarding Reactions</th><th>Prediction regarding Mechanism</th><th>Prediction regarding Perceiver's Gender</th><th>Predictions regarding Target's Gender</th><th>Interaction of Target and Perceiver's Gender</th><th>Content of Gender Norm Violations</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Social Identity Theory</td><td>Negative reactions</td><td>Social Identity threat</td><td>Men/boys should react more negatively than women/ girls</td><td>Depends on perceiver's gender</td><td>Ingroup reactions should be more negative than outgroup reactions</td><td>The status of gender norm violations should not influence reactions</td></tr><tr><td>System Justification Theory</td><td>Negative reactions</td><td>System threat</td><td>No effect of perceiver's gender</td><td>Men/boys should receive more negative reactions than women/ girls</td><td>No predictions</td><td>Only (or mostly) gender norm violations associated with status should lead to negative reactions</td></tr></tbody></table>

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 re-
<table><caption>Table 2. Summary of Methodological (Quantitative) Approaches to the Study of Reactions to Gender Norm Violations</caption><thead><tr><th>Methodology</th><th>Example</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Stimuli used to Manipulate Gender Norm Violations</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Vignettes</td><td>Manipulation of a target's gender norm violations through a textual description such as "competitive" versus "empathetic" (Meimoun et al., 2023) or "tries not to show his emotions" vs "overwhelmed by his emotions" (Iacoviello et al., 2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Résumés sent out to employers</td><td>Manipulation of target's gender norm violations through their higher education field and achievement (Quadlin, 2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Photographs</td><td>Manipulation of a target's gender norm violation through their appearance in a photography such as through haircut, frame or posture (Kleiser & Mayeux, 2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Videotapes</td><td>Manipulation of a candidate's gender norm violation in a prerecorded video interview, such as "actors reacting angrily to a question versus not" (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008)</td></tr><tr><td>Confederates</td><td>Manipulation of a confederate interviewee's gender norm violations such as "Participants' evaluation of a self-promoting or self-effacing confederate as a potential partner for a fast-paced, competitive game" (Rudman, 1998)</td></tr><tr><td>Personality assessment</td><td>Manipulation of gender norm violations through the degree to which targets score on certain traits in a personality test such as "desire for status and/or desire for power" (Mishra & Kray, 2022)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Source of Gender Norm Violations Measurement</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Classmate-assessment</td><td>Classmates' perception of their peers' gender norm violations such as "Please circle the number that shows how typical of a boy or girl each kid is" (Jewell & Brown, 2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Coworker-assessment</td><td>Coworkers' perceptions of their colleagues' gender norm violations such as "It would please (coworker) to have a position of prestige and social standing" (Choi & Anderson, 2024)</td></tr><tr><td>Parental-assessment</td><td>Parents' perception of their children's gender norm violations such as "playing with gender-specific toys" (Spivey et al., 2018) or "acting like a boy [girl]" (Schroeder & Liben, 2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Self-assessment</td><td>Items from the Multidimensional Gender Identity Inventory (Egan & Perry, 2001) such as "I feel I am a good example of being a boy [girl]"</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Operationalization of Gender Norm Violations Content</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Objective</td><td>Behaviors such as "playing with dolls" or a "wooden" sword (Streck & Kessels, 2024); Personality traits such as "sensitive" or "strong" (Sullivan et al., 2018); Appearance such as "wears fingernail polish" or "never wears make-up" (Horn, 2007)</td></tr><tr><td>Relative</td><td>Self or other perceived degree of similarity with gender groups such as "I feel like I am just like all the other girls/boys my age" (Kleiser & Mayeux, 2023)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Granularity of Gender Norm Violations</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Binary</td><td>Counter-stereotypical vs stereotypical targets (Meimoun et al., 2023)</td></tr><tr><td>Continuous</td><td>A nine-point continuum based on effect sizes of stereotypical traits and behaviors (Wen et al., 2020); A four-point measure of perceived similarity to own or other gender groups (i.e., Jackson et al., 2021)</td></tr></tbody></table>

spond 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.

## Improving the Research Field

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.

## Operationalizing Gender Norm Violations

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.

## Gender Expression and/or Gender Identity

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 (Brousard & 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.

## Using Ecological Methods

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 mech-
anisms 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).

## Taking the Context into Account

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 nor-

mative 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.

## Conclusion

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.

## Contributions

- **Ethan Meimoun:** Conceptualization, Original Draft Preparation, Writing;

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

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

## Competing Interests

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Funding

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).

Submitted: February 08, 2024 PST, Accepted: October 18, 2024

PST

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license's legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.
References

Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1995). Statistics notes: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. *BMJ*, **311**(7003), 485-485. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7003.485

Amanatullah, E. T., & Tinsley, C. H. (2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much...or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120*(1), 110-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.006

Atkinson, C., Sandstrom, G., & Croft, A. (2023). People overestimate backlash against helpers who violate gender stereotypes: experimental examination of a prosociality paradox. *Sex Roles, 88*(5-6), 268-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01354-0

Banan, A. R., Santavirta, T., & Sarzosa, M. (2023). "What's the tea" with gender nonconformity? [Preprint]. https://tsantavirta.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GNC_September_5.pdf

Blakemore, J. E. O. (2003). Children's beliefs about violating gender norms: Boys shouldn't look like girls, and girls shouldn't act like boys. *Sex Roles, 48*(9-10). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023574427720

Blakemore, S.-J., & Mills, K. L. (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? *Annual Review of Psychology, 65*(1), 187-207. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202

Born, N., & Erle, T. (2020). *Are we there yet? Shifting towards a more positive perception of men and women countering gender stereotypes in the workplace* [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/wpx7m

Bosak, J., Kulich, C., Rudman, L., & Kinahan, M. (2016). Be an advocate for others, unless you are a man: Backlash against gender-atypical male job candidates. *Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19*(1), 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000085

Bragg, S., Renold, E., Ringrose, J., & Jackson, C. (2018). "More than boy, girl, male, female": Exploring young people's views on gender diversity within and beyond school contexts. *Sex Education, 18*(4), 420-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1439373

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), *Social identity: Context, commitment, content* (pp. 35-58). Blackwell Science.

Brescoll, V. L., Okimoto, T. G., & Vial, A. C. (2018). You've come a long way...maybe: How moral emotions trigger backlash against women leaders. *Journal of Social Issues, 74*(1), 144-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12261

Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. *Psychological Science, 19*(3), 268-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x

Broussard, K. A., & Warner, R. H. (2019). Gender nonconformity is perceived differently for cisgender and transgender targets. *Sex Roles, 80*(7-8), 409-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0947-z

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. *Psychological Review, 106*(4), 676-713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676

Carter, D. B., & McCloskey, L. A. (1984). Peers and the maintenance of sex-typed behavior: The development of children's conceptions of cross-gender behavior in their peers. *Social Cognition, 2*(4), 294-314. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1984.2.4.294

Choi, A. L., & Anderson, C. (2024). Be careful what you wish for: Individuals perceived to desire status are afforded less status. *PLOS ONE, 19*(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304727

Chrisler, J. C. (2013). Womanhood is not as easy as it seems: Femininity requires both achievement and restraint. *Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14*(2), 117-120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031005

Conry-Murray, C., Kim, J. M., & Turiel, E. (2015). Judgments of gender norm violations in children from the United States and Korea. *Cognitive Development, 35*, 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.04.002

Cover, R. (2019). *Emergent identities: New sexualities, genders and relationships in a digital era*. Routledge.

Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. *Psychological Bulletin, 129*(3), 414-446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414

Dubin, R. (1969). *Theory building*. Free Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. *Psychological Review, 109*(3), 573-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for Psychosocial Adjustment. *Developmental Psychology, 37*(4), 451-463. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.37.4.451

Erfanian, F., Latifnejad Roudsari, R., Heydari, A., & Noghani Dokht Bahmani, M. (2020). A narrative on using vignettes: Its advantages and drawbacks. *Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, 8*(2). https://doi.org/10.22038/jmrh.2020.41650.1472

Eronen, M. I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: How to move forward. *Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16*(4), 779-788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586

Ewing-Lee, E. A., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2011). Peer socialization of masculinity and femininity: Differential effects of overt and relational forms of peer victimization. *British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29*(2), 197-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2010.02022.x
Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Berent, J., & Anderson, J. (2019). Perceived men's feminization and attitudes toward homosexuality: Heterosexual men's reactions to the decline of the anti-femininity norm of masculinity. *Sex Roles, 81*(3-4), 208-222.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0985-6

Fine, R. D., Olson, K. R., Gülgöz, S., Horton, R., & Gelman, S. A. (2023). Gender Essentialism predicts prejudice against gender nonconformity in two cultural contexts. *Social Development, 33*(1).
https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12720

Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. *Science, 345*(6203), 1502-1505.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484

Galambos, N. L., Almeida, D. M., & Petersen, A. C. (1990). Masculinity, femininity, and sex role attitudes in early adolescence: Exploring gender intensification. *Child Development, 61*(6), 1905.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1130846

Gordon, A. R., Conron, K. J., Calzo, J. P., White, M. T., Reisner, S. L., & Austin, S. B. (2018). Gender expression, violence, and bullying victimization: Findings from probability samples of high school students in 4 US school districts. *Journal of School Health, 88*(4), 306-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12606

Gravillon, I. (2022). Pourquoi la question du genre agite-t-elle les adolescents? [Why questions around gender moves adolescents so much?]. *L'école Des Parents, N° hors-série*(3), 8-13. https://doi.org/10.3917/epar.hs2.0008

Hill, J. P., & Lynch, M. E. (1983). The intensification of gender-related role expectations during early adolescence. In *Girls at Puberty*. Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0354-9_10

Hitti, A., Mulvey, K. L., & Killen, M. (2017). Minority and majority children's evaluations of social exclusion in intergroup contexts. In N. J. Cabrera & B. Leyendecker (Eds.), *Handbook on Positive Development of Minority Children and Youth* (pp. 281-293). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43645-6_17

Holmes, M. A. (2021). *Gender non-conformity in the appearance of political candidates and its effect on voters* (Senior Honors Theses & Projects No. 709).
https://commons.emich.edu/honors/709

Horn, S. S. (2007). Adolescents' Acceptance of same-sex peers based on sexual orientation and gender expression. *Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36*(3), 373-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9176-4

Iacoviello, V., Valsecchi, G., Berent, J., Borinca, I., & Falomir-Pichastor, J. M. (2021). The impact of masculinity beliefs and political ideologies on men's backlash against non-traditional men: The moderating role of perceived men's feminization. *International Review of Social Psychology, 34*(1).
https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.588

Jackson, E. F., Bussey, K., & Myers, E. (2021). Encouraging gender conformity or sanctioning nonconformity? Felt pressure from parents, peers, and the self. *Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50*(4), 613-627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01387-8

Jackson, E. F., Bussey, K., & Trompeter, N. (2020). Over and above gender differences in cyberbullying: relationship of gender typicality to cyber victimization and perpetration in adolescents. *Journal of School Violence, 19*(4), 623-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2020.1808790

Jewell, J. A., & Brown, C. S. (2014). Relations among gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence. *Social Development, 23*(1), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12042

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 33*(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88*(3), 498-509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498

Kaestner, R., & Malamud, O. (2023). Headstrong girls and dependent boys: Gender differences in the labor market returns to child behavior. *ILR Review, 76*(1), 112-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939221086929

Klaczynski, P. A., Felmban, W. S., & Kole, J. (2020). Gender intensification and gender generalization biases in pre-adolescents, adolescents, and emerging Adults. *British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 38*(3), 415-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12326

Kleiser, M., & Mayeux, L. (2021). Popularity and gender prototypicality: An experimental approach. *Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50*(1), 144-158.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01344-5

Kleiser, M., & Mayeux, L. (2023). Associations between peer-perceived and self-perceived gender typicality and peer status in early adolescence. *The Journal of Early Adolescence, 43*(3), 320-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316221105604

Kwan, K. M. W., Shi, S. Y., Nabbijohn, A. N., MacMullin, L. N., VanderLaan, D. P., & Wong, W. I. (2020). Children's appraisals of gender nonconformity: developmental pattern and Intervention. *Child Development, 91*(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13316

Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M., & Isager, P. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: a tutorial. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1*(2), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963

Li, Y., & Wei, X. (2022). Examining the effects of male candidates' gender nonconformity on employment decisions. *Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 62*(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12363
Lobel, T. E., Nov-Krispin, N., Schiller, D., Lobel, O., & Feldman, A. (2004). Gender discriminatory behavior during adolescence and young adulthood: a developmental analysis. *Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33*(6), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000048067.83738.e6

Manzi, F., Caleo, S., & Heilman, M. E. (2024). Unfit or disliked: How descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes lead to discrimination against women. *Current Opinion in Psychology, 60*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101928

Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. (1988). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. *European Journal of Social Psychology, 18*(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102

Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. *Psychological Bulletin, 128*(6), 903–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903

Matsick, J. L., Kruk, M., Oswald, F., & Palmer, L. (2021). Bridging feminist psychology and open science: Feminist tools and shared values inform best practices for science Reform. *Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45*(4), 412–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211026564

McGuire, L., Jefferys, E., & Rutland, A. (2020). Children's evaluations of deviant peers in the context of science and technology: the role of gender group norms and status. *Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 195*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104845

McGuire, L., Palmer, S. B., & Rutland, A. (2022). Children's and adolescents' evaluations of peers who challenge their group: the role of gender norms and identity. *Social Development, 31*(2), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12546

Meeussen, L., & Koudenburg, N. (2022). A compliment's cost: How positive responses to non-traditional choices may paradoxically reinforce traditional gender norms. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 61*(4), 1183–1201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12532

Meijs, M. H. J., Lammers, J., & Ratliff, K. A. (2015). Gender stereotype-inconsistent acts are seen as more acceptable than stereotype-consistent acts, if they are clever. *Social Psychology, 46*(5), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000244

Meimoun, E., Bonnot, V., Berenguer, J., & Aelenei, C. (2023). How are gender counter-stereotypical adolescents evaluated by their peers? Investigating the backlash effect in French schools. *Social Psychology of Education*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09807-w

Mishra, S., & Kray, L. J. (2022). The mitigating effect of desiring status on social backlash against ambitious women. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102*, 104355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104355

Mitchell, R. L., Matusik, J. G., & Johnson, R. E. (2023). Backlashes or boosts? The role of warmth and gender in relational uncertainty reductions. *Human Resource Management, 62*(6), 851–865. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22166

Moisuc, A., & Brauer, M. (2019). Social norms are enforced by friends: The effect of relationship closeness on bystanders' tendency to confront perpetrators of uncivil, immoral, and discriminatory behaviors. *European Journal of Social Psychology, 49*(4), 824–830. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2525

Morgan, E. M., & Davis-Delano, L. R. (2016). How public displays of heterosexual identity reflect and reinforce gender stereotypes, gender differences, and gender inequality. *Sex Roles, 75*(5–6), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0613-2

Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2014). Male backlash: Penalties for men who violate gender stereotypes. In *Gender in Organizations*. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781955703.00021

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. *Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11*(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018093

Mulvey, K. L., & Killen, M. (2015). Challenging gender stereotypes: Resistance and exclusion. *Child Development, 86*(3), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12317

Nabbijohn, A. N., MacMullin, L. N., Kwan, K. M. W., Santarossa, A., Peragine, D. E., Wong, W. I., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2020). Children's bias in appraisals of gender-variant peers. *Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 196*, 104865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104865

Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36*(7), 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210371949

Owuamalam, C. K., Rubin, M., & Spears, R. (2019). Revisiting 25 years of system motivation explanation for system justification from the perspective of social identity model of system attitudes. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 58*(2), 362–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12285

Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). Reactions to ethnic deviance: The role of backlash in racial stereotype maintenance. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99*(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018304

Quadlin, N. (2018). The mark of a woman's record: Gender and academic performance in hiring. *American Sociological Review, 83*(2), 331–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418762291

Raymondie, R. A., & Steiner, D. D. (2021). Backlash against counter-stereotypical leader emotions and the role of follower affect in leader evaluations. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52*(8), 676–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12778

Rivera-Rodriguez, A., Larsen, G., & Dasgupta, N. (2022). Changing public opinion about gender activates group threat and opposition to feminist social movements among men. *Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25*(3), 811–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211048885
Rubin, M., Owuamalam, C. K., Spears, R., & Caricati, L. (2023). Social identity explanations of system justification: Misconceptions, criticisms, and clarifications. *European Review of Social Psychology, 34*(2), 268–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2184578

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74*(3), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629

Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. (2012). Reactions to Vanguards. In *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology* (Vol. 45, pp. 167–227). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00004-4

Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48*(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008

Sanborn-Overby, U. A., & Powlishta, K. K. (2020). Differential reactions to male and female gender-role violations: Testing the sexual orientation hypothesis. *Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49*(7), 2531–2546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01803-x

Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D. (2021). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. *Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16*(4), 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966795

Schroeder, K. M., & Liben, L. S. (2021). Felt pressure to conform to cultural gender roles: Correlates and consequences. *Sex Roles, 84*(3–4), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01155-9

Sirin, S., McCreary, D., & Mahalik, J. (2004). Differential reactions to men and women's gender role transgressions: Perceptions of social status, sexual orientation, and value dissimilarity. *The Journal of Men's Studies, 12*(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1202.119

Skewes, L., Fine, C., & Haslam, N. (2018). Beyond Mars and Venus: the role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. *PLOS ONE, 13*(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200921

Smith, T. E., & Leaper, C. (2006). Self-perceived gender typicality and the peer context during adolescence. *Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16*(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00123.x

Spivey, L. A., Huebner, D. M., & Diamond, L. M. (2018). Parent responses to childhood gender nonconformity: Effects of parent and child characteristics. *Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5*(3), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000279

Streck, H., & Kessels, U. (2024). Linda's cars versus Dominik's dolls: How do pedagogical educators in training react to children's violations of gender stereotypes? *Archives of Sexual Behavior*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02958-7

Sullivan, J., Moss-Racusin, C., Lopez, M., & Williams, K. (2018). Backlash against gender stereotype-violating preschool children. *PLOS ONE, 13*(4), e0195503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195503

Tajfel, H. (2010). *Social identity and intergroup relations*. Cambridge University Press.

van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113*(23), 6454–6459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113

van Der Werf, C. (2014). The effects of bullying on academic achievement. *Revista Desarrollo y Sociedad, 74*, 275–308. https://doi.org/10.13043/dys.74.6

Vial, A. C., & Cimpian, A. (2020). Evaluative feedback expresses and reinforces cultural stereotypes. In E. Brummelman (Ed.), *Psychological Perspectives on Praise* (1st ed., pp. 119–128). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429327667-18

Wen, F., Zuo, B., Wang, Y., Wu, Y., Fang, Z., & Ma, S. (2020). The (continuous) nature of perceived gender counter-stereotype: a threshold model of gender stereotype maintenance. *Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49*(7), 2511–2530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01763-2

Xiao, S. X., Hoffer, A., Martin, C. L., & Jenkins, D. L. (2022). Early adolescents' gender typicality and depressive symptoms: the moderating role of parental acceptance. *The Journal of Early Adolescence, 0272431622107888*. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316221078832

Xiao, V. L., Lowery, B. S., & Stillwell, A. (2023). Gender backlash and the moderating role of shared racial group membership. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49*(4), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221074543

Yu, C., Zuo, X., Blum, R. W., Tolman, D. L., Kågesten, A., Mmari, K., ... Lou, C. (2017). Marching to a different drummer: a cross-cultural comparison of young adolescents who challenge gender norms. *Journal of Adolescent Health, 61*(4), S48–S54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.07.005

Zucker, K. J., Wilson-Smith, D. N., Kurita, J. A., & Stern, A. (1995). Children's appraisals of sex-typed behavior in their peers. *Sex Roles, 33*(11–12), 703–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544775
Supplementary Materials

Peer Review Communication

Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/125682-theorizing-and-studying-reactions-to-gender-norm-violations/attachment/252621.docx?auth_token=h1grcKddvBWmCtk7H-yg

Response Letter

Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/125682-theorizing-and-studying-reactions-to-gender-norm-violations/attachment/252622.docx?auth_token=h1grcKddvBWmCtk7H-yg