research on gender stereotypes of emotions shows that

•  Sign into My Research
•  Create My Research Account
• Company Website
• Our Products
• About Dissertations
• Español (España)
• Support Center

Select language

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Português (Brasil)
• Português (Portugal)

Welcome to My Research!

You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.

Translate this article into 20 different languages!

If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.

Get access to 20+ different citations styles

Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.

Looking for a PDF of this document?

You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.

Want to save this document?

You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.

• More like this
• Preview Available
• Scholarly Journal

Gender stereotypes of emotional reactions: How we judge an emotion as valid

No items selected.

Please select one or more items.

You might have access to the full article...

Try and log in through your institution to see if they have access to the full text.

Content area

In this paper we report a partial replication of the finding that women face a double-bind with respect to emotional expression (Kelly & Hutson-Comeaux, 2000) and explore the hypothesis that gender-inconsistent emotional reactions are perceived to be more valid indicators of one's underlying emotional experience than gender-consistent emotional reactions. Men and women evaluated the appropriateness and sincerity of women's and men's overreactions to happy and angry events in both interpersonal and achievement contexts. Women's overreactions to happy events were judged as less appropriate and their emotional reactions were perceived as less sincere than were men's, particularly in an interpersonal context. In addition, men's overreactions to angry events in the interpersonal context were judged as less appropriate and less sincere than were women's. Implications of the findings for other types of social judgments are discussed.

KEY WORDS: gender differences; emotion, double-bind.

Women and men hold similar gender stereotypes about emotionality. Emotionality is typically associated with women; that is, people believe that women are more emotional than men (e.g., Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979; Brody & Hall, 2000; Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972; Fabes & Martin, 1991; Johnson & Shulman, 1988; Widiger & Settle, 1987). A growing body of research, however, has consistently demonstrated that not all emotions are invariably associated with the feminine gender-role stereotype; instead, stereotypes about individual emotions (e.g., anger, sadness) are gender-- specific (see Fischer, 2000). In particular, the emotions of happiness, sadness, and fear are believed to be more characteristic of women, whereas anger is believed to be more characteristic of men (e.g., Birnbaum, Nosanchuk, & Croll, 1980; Briton & Hall, 1995; Fabes & Martin, 1991; Grossman & Wood, 1993; Kelly & Hutson-Comeaux, 1999). These gender-- specific stereotypes about individual emotions have been found for children, as well as adults, and as early as preschool age (Birnbaum, 1983; Birnbaum, Nosanchuk, & Croll, 1980).

Stereotypes about gender and emotional expression are also dependent on the contextual nature of the emotional event (e.g., Johnson & Shulman, 1988; Kelly & Hutson-Comeaux, 1999; Robinson & Johnson, 1997; Stoppard & Gunn Gruchy, 1993). For example, Johnson and Shulman (1988) found that women were expected to display more positive emotions than were men in an other-oriented context, but men were expected to display more...

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

Suggested sources

• About ProQuest
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

A cooling towel, odorless mosquito repellent and more summer essentials — starting at $5

• Share this —

• Watch Full Episodes
• Read With Jenna
• Inspirational
• Relationships
• TODAY Table
• Newsletters
• Start TODAY
• Shop TODAY Awards
• Citi Concert Series
• Listen All Day

Follow today

More Brands

• On The Show
• TODAY Plaza

Men are just as emotional as women: New research debunks gender stereotypes

A new study published last week in the journal Nature dispels the widely held gender stereotype that women are more emotional than men.

Researchers from the University of Michigan and Purdue University followed 142 men and women over 75 days and tracked their daily positive and negative emotions. Each night during the study period, participants would complete a 20-minute online survey that assessed their feelings. They found that men and women's emotional stability and fluctuations are "clearly, consistently and unmistakably more similar than they are different," said Adriene Beltz, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Michigan and the study's lead author.

Beltz and her fellow researchers also intentionally included women with "natural menstrual cycles" and women who were using different types of oral contraceptives in the study "to explicitly address the notion that women are more emotionally variable — or liable — due to varying hormone levels across their cycles," she explained. Similar to their findings between men and women, the researchers found "no meaningful differences" among the women in these different groups.

'No biological basis' for emotional stereotypes

Dr. Robert Blum, a professor of public health and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said the findings of this study show there is no biological basis for females to be more emotional than males, but that there's still "a strong and global finding that males are socialized to hide their emotions while it is far more legitimate for females to share them."

Blum cited many examples from a recent Unicef study that he was a part of where several adolescent boys admitted to being told they should not cry, express themselves or show their emotions. He said some males have been conditioned to believe that showing emotion is a "sign of weakness," and that "most societies around the world are patriarchal and as a consequence, everyone reinforces the hegemonic myth that boys and men are strong, and that girls and women are vulnerable."

Beyond males being asked to suppress emotions even though they feel them as often as females, the Nature study shows that men's emotions also fluctuate for different reasons than those of women beyond the proportion of hormones that are unique to both genders. "Men's emotions fluctuate for different reasons than those of women because in our society men and women have very different opportunities and pressures," said Barbara Risman, a professor of sociology at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

Risman cited numerous examples of the different pressures and experiences that men and women have throughout their days including men not having as many outlets for their emotions and feeling added pressure to provide for their families: "If a woman can't find work outside the home, no one thinks she's a bad mother. But if a father doesn't work for pay, many people will question why he isn't a capable breadwinner," she said. She added that workplace discrepancies more commonly affect women ("when men are very directive with their subordinates, they're considered good leaders. When women do the same, they're considered b------...") and that women experience unique pressures at home, too. "If a child shows up to school with mismatched socks, the mother is the one that will be talked badly about, not the father." She explained that "you can always trace back how people feel and respond emotionally to the different experiences they are going through in their lives."

Risman said there are numerous reasons for the discrepancies and stereotypes that have been perpetuated over the decades, but noted that much of it comes down to "how the American economy was built." She explained that during the industrial age, families were paid a "family wage" and that typically only one member of the household was able to work. She said that the men were usually the ones expected to do the hard labor common to that period while the women were the ones taking care of domestic needs, expected to show and nurture emotion at home.

"Stereotypes don't just appear out of thin air," she said. "Once upon a time, these roles were real and reflected how society actually was." As times changed, however, those past realities became stereotypes that hindered progress and stigmatized attempts to adapt economically and emotionally.

She said that progress can continue to be made through representation of more females working in more places, through female "and especially male" role models that are willing to be vulnerable and demonstrate their emotions, and when gender stereotypes are proven to be false — the latter something the Nature study accomplishes.

Health & Wellness 'Bikini physical' is one of reasons why women receive different care

Why it's important to normalize emotions for all genders.

"Our research does not directly speak to the origins or persistence of gender stereotypes, but we do hope that our findings will help to dismantle them," Beltz said. "Normalizing daily ups and downs in both positive and negative emotions for both men and women will hopefully help prevent women’s experiences from being dismissed as well as help free men to be more expressive."

Indeed, these findings have implications beyond normative life. For instance, women have historically been excluded from research participation in part due to the assumption that ovarian hormone fluctuations lead to variation — especially in emotion — that can't be experimentally controlled. As a result of such exclusion, "we've ended up with a medical and social scientific literature that overwhelmingly describes the biology and psychology of men," Beltz lamented.

Parents Mom who popularized gender reveals regrets it now

Alexander Weigard, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan and another of the study's authors, explained that the notion that men are easier to study because they are less variable, "has led to disparities in biomedical research that have serious real-world consequences for health." He provided examples such as breast and ovarian cancer research as being historically understudied and said he hopes their work will "aid initiatives that push for inclusion and equity in research." Beltz added: "Our findings directly challenge the notion that women’s emotional fluctuations are disproportionately driven by their cycles."

This study also has the power to lay to rest the idea that even when men are taught to suppress emotions, no gender is more emotional than another. "People’s emotions fluctuate from day-to-day. That is an important part of being human," Beltz said. "But it is misguided to claim that those fluctuations are unique to women. We all are riding a similar emotional roller coaster."

Daryl Austin is a health journalist based in Utah. He's a science contributor for National Geographic, and his work has also appeared in The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Kaiser Health News and Parents magazine.

How did Shelley Duvall die? What to know about 'The Shining' star's cause of death

New LB.1 COVID variant is spreading in the US. These are its most common symptoms

Coronavirus.

Nelly Furtado says her ADHD was her 'superpower' when making new album

3 nutrition tips to build strength and fuel your workout, according to a dietitian

Diet & fitness.

Woman’s knee pain was so bad she could barely walk. Now, she logs 5 miles a day thanks to pool workouts

Healthy 7-day summer meal plan: Chicken fajita stuffed peppers, fish tacos, and more

COVID-19 FLiRT variants are dominant in the US. These are their top symptoms

The 5 healthiest greens to use in salads, according to dietitians

11 common bug bites and photos to help you identify them

Skin & beauty.

Joy Bauer shares 3 zesty coleslaw recipes to liven up your summer spread

Eat better today.

• Departments and Units
• Majors and Minors
• LSA Course Guide
• LSA Gateway

Search: {{$root.lsaSearchQuery.q}}, Page {{$root.page}}

• Program Areas
• Undergraduates
• Alumni & Friends
• Prospective Students

• Accelerated Master's Degree Program
• Career/Internship Exploration
• Major in Psychology or BCN
• Registration and Grades
• STAR Scholars Program
• Study Abroad
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Photos & Videos
• Student Organizations
• Subject Pool
• Honors Program
• Preparing for Graduate School
• Service Learning Opportunities
• Student Resources
• Transfer Credit
• Alumni Directory
• Stay Connected
• UM Resources
• Giving Opportunities
• Alumni Profile - Send Us Your News
• Donor Impact
• Department Newsletters
• Undergraduate
• Transfer (Undergraduate)
• News and Events
• Faculty News

Men are just as emotional as women: New research debunks gender stereotypes

• Alumni News
• Graduate News
• Undergraduate News
• Search News
• Archived News

A new study published last week in the journal Nature dispels the widely held gender stereotype that women are more emotional than men.

Researchers from the University of Michigan and Purdue University followed 142 men and women over 75 days and tracked their daily positive and negative emotions. Each night during the study period, participants would complete a 20-minute online survey that assessed their feelings. They found that men and women's emotional stability and fluctuations are "clearly, consistently and unmistakably more similar than they are different," said Adriene Beltz, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Michigan and the study's lead author.

Read the full article at TODAY.

• Information For
• Current Students
• Faculty and Staff
• Alumni and Friends
• More about LSA
• How Do I Apply?
• LSA Magazine
• Academic Advising
• Global Studies
• LSA Opportunity Hub
• Social Media
• Update Contact Info
• Privacy Statement
• Report Feedback

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.7(4); 2021 Apr

Gendered stereotypes and norms: A systematic review of interventions designed to shift attitudes and behaviour

Rebecca stewart.

a BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Breanna Wright

Steven roberts.

b School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Natalie Russell

c Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Associated Data

Data included in article.

In the face of ongoing attempts to achieve gender equality, there is increasing focus on the need to address outdated and detrimental gendered stereotypes and norms, to support societal and cultural change through individual attitudinal and behaviour change. This article systematically reviews interventions aiming to address gendered stereotypes and norms across several outcomes of gender inequality such as violence against women and sexual and reproductive health, to draw out common theory and practice and identify success factors. Three databases were searched; ProQuest Central, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Articles were included if they used established public health interventions types (direct participation programs, community mobilisation or strengthening, organisational or workforce development, communications, social marketing and social media, advocacy, legislative or policy reform) to shift attitudes and/or behaviour in relation to rigid gender stereotypes and norms. A total of 71 studies were included addressing norms and/or stereotypes across a range of intervention types and gender inequality outcomes, 55 of which reported statistically significant or mixed outcomes. The implicit theory of change in most studies was to change participants' attitudes by increasing their knowledge/awareness of gendered stereotypes or norms. Five additional strategies were identified that appear to strengthen intervention impact; peer engagement, addressing multiple levels of the ecological framework, developing agents of change, modelling/role models and co-design of interventions with participants or target populations. Consideration of cohort sex, length of intervention (multi-session vs single-session) and need for follow up data collection were all identified as factors influencing success. When it comes to engaging men and boys in particular, interventions with greater success include interactive learning, co-design and peer leadership. Several recommendations are made for program design, including that practitioners need to be cognisant of breaking down stereotypes amongst men (not just between genders) and the avoidance of reinforcing outdated stereotypes and norms inadvertently.

Gender; Stereotypes; Social norms; Attitude change; Behaviour change; Men and masculinities

1. Introduction

Gender is a widely accepted social determinant of health [ 1 , 2 ], as evidenced by the inclusion of Gender Equality as a standalone goal in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [ 3 ]. In light of this, momentum is building around the need to invest in gender-transformative programs and initiatives designed to challenge harmful power and gender imbalances, in line with increasing acknowledgement that ‘restrictive gender norms harm health and limit life choices for all’ ([ 2 ] pe225, see also [ 1 , 4 ]).

Gender-transformative programs and interventions seek to critically examine gender related norms and expectations and increase gender equitable attitudes and behaviours, often with a focus on masculinity [ 5 , 6 ]. They are one of five approaches identified by Gupta [ 6 ] as part of a continuum that targets social change via efforts to address gender (in particular gender-based power imbalances), violence prevention and sexual and reproductive health rights. The approaches in ascending progressive order are; reinforcing damaging gender (and sexuality) stereotypes, gender neutral, gender sensitive, gender-transformative , and gender empowering. The emerging evidence pertaining to the effectiveness of gender-transformative interventions points to the importance of programs challenging the gender binary and related norms, as opposed to focusing only on specific behaviours or attitudes [ 1 , 7 , 8 ]. This understanding is in part derived from a growing appreciation of the need to address outdated and detrimental gendered stereotypes and norms in order to support societal and cultural change in relation to this issue [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. In addition to this focus on gender-transformative interventions is an increasing call for the engagement of men and boys not only as allies but as participants, partners and agents of change in gender equality efforts [ 12 , 13 ].

When examining the issue of gender inequality, it is necessary to consider the underlying drivers that allow for the maintenance and ongoing repetition of sex-based disparities in access to resources, power and opportunities [ 14 ]. The drivers can largely be categorised as either, ‘structural and systemic’, or ‘social norms and gendered stereotypes’ [ 15 ]. Extensive research and work has, and continues to be, undertaken in relation to structural and systemic drivers. From this perspective, efforts to address inequalities have focused on areas societal institutions exert influence over women's rights and access. One example (of many) is the paid workforce and attempts to address unequal gender representation through policies and practices around recruitment [ 16 , 17 ], retention via tactics such as flexible working arrangements [ 18 , 19 , 20 ] and promotion [ 16 ].

The focus of this review, however, is stereotypes and norms, incorporating the attitudes, behavioural intentions and enacted behaviours that are produced and reinforced as a result of structures and systems that support inequalities. Both categories of drivers (structural and systemic and social norms and gendered stereotypes) are influenced by and exert influence upon each other. Heise and colleagues [ 12 ] suggest that gendered norms uphold the gender system and are embedded in institutions (i.e. structurally), thus determining who occupies positions of leadership, whose voices are heard and listened to, and whose needs are prioritised [ 10 ]. As noted by Kågesten and Chandra-Mouli [ 1 ], addressing both categories of drivers is crucial to the broader strategy needed to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Stereotypes are widely held, generalised assumptions regarding common traits (including strengths and weaknesses), based on group categorisation [ 21 , 22 ]. Traditional gendered stereotypes see the attribution of agentic traits such as ambition, power and competitiveness as inherent in men, and communal traits such as nurturing, empathy and concern for others as characteristics of women [ 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. In addition to these descriptive stereotypes (i.e. beliefs about specific characteristics a person possesses based on their gender) are prescriptive stereotypes, which are beliefs about specific characteristics that a person should possess based on their gender [ 21 , 25 ]. Gender-based stereotypes are informed by social norms relating to ideals and practices of masculinity and femininity (e.g. physical attributes, temperament, occupation/role suitability, etc.), which are subject to the influence of culture and time [ 15 , 21 , 26 ].

Social norms are informal (often unspoken) rules governing the behaviour of a group, emerging out of interactions with others and sanctioned by social networks [ 27 ]. Whilst stereotypes inform our assumptions about someone based on their gender [ 21 ], social norms govern the expected and accepted behaviour of women and men, often perpetuating gendered stereotypes (i.e. men as agentic, women as communal) [ 12 ]. Cialdini and Trost [ 27 ] delineate norms by suggesting that, in addition to these general societal behavioural expectations (see also [ 28 , 29 ]), there are personal norms (what we expect of ourselves) [ 30 ], and subjective norms (what we think others expect of us) [ 31 ]. Within subjective norms, there are injunctive norms (behaviours perceived as being approved by others) and descriptive norms (our observations and expectations of what most others are doing). Despite being malleable and subjective to cultural and socio-historical influences, portrayals and perpetuation of these stereotypes and social norms restrict aspirations, expectations and participation of both women and men, with demonstrations of counter-stereotypical behaviours often met with resistance and backlash ([ 12 , 24 , 32 ], see also [ 27 , 33 ]). These limitations are evident both between and among women and men, demonstrative of the power hierarchies that gender inequality and its drivers produce and sustain [ 12 ].

There is an extensive literature that explores interventions targeting gendered stereotypes and norms, each focusing on specific outcomes of gender inequality, such as violence against women [ 13 ], gender-based violence and sexual and reproductive health (including HIV prevention, treatment, care and support) [ 5 , 8 ], parental involvement [ 34 ], sexual and reproductive health rights [ 23 , 35 ], and health and wellbeing [ 2 ]. Comparisons of learnings across these focus areas remains difficult however due to the current lack of a synthesis of interventions across outcomes.

Despite this gap, one of the key findings to arise out of the literature relates to the common, and often implicit, theory of change around shifting participants' attitudes by increasing their knowledge/awareness of gendered stereotypes or norms, and the assumption that this will then lead to behaviour change. This was identified by Jewkes and colleagues [ 13 ] in their review of 67 intervention evaluations in relation to the prevention of violence against women, a finding they noted was in contradiction of research across disciplines which has consistently found this relationship to be complex and bidirectional [ 36 , 37 ]. Similarly, The International Centre for Research on Women indicate the ‘problematic assumption[s] regarding pathways to change’ ([ 7 ] p26) as one of the challenges to engaging men and boys in gender equality work, noting also the focus of evaluation, when undertaken, being on changes in attitude rather than behaviour. Ruane-McAteer and colleagues [ 35 ] made the same observation when looking at interventions aimed at gender equality in sexual and reproductive health, highlighting the need for greater interrogation into the intended outcomes of interventions including what the underlying theory of change is. These findings lend further support to the utilisation of the gender-transformative approach identified by Gupta [ 6 ] if fundamental and sustained shifts in understanding, attitudes and behaviour relating to gender inequality is the desired outcome.

In sum, much is known about gender stereotypes and norms and the contribution they make to perpetuating and sustaining gender inequality through the various outcomes discussed above. Less is known however about how to support and sustain more equitable attitudes and behaviours when it comes to addressing gender equality more broadly. This systematic review aims to address the question which intervention characteristics support change in attitudes and behaviour in relation to rigid gender stereotypes and norms. It will do this by consolidating the literature to determine what has been done and what works. This includes querying which intervention types work for whom in terms of participant age and sex, as well as delivery style and duration. Additionally, it will consider the theories of change being used to address attitudes and behaviours and how these shifts are being measured, including for impact longevity. Finally, it will allow for insight into interventions specifically targeting men and boys in relation to rigid gender stereotypes and norms, seeking out particular characteristics that are supportive of work engaging this particular cohort. These questions are intentionally broad and based on the framing of the above question it is expected that the review will capture primarily interventions that address underlying societal factors that support a culture in which harmful power and gender imbalances exist by addressing gender inequitable attitudes and behaviours. In asking these questions, this review consolidates the knowledge generated to date, to strengthen the design, development and implementation of future interventions, a synthesis that appears to be both absent and needed.

2.1. Data sources and search strategy

This review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 38 ]. A protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (Title: Gendered norms: A systematic review of how to achieve change in rigid gender stereotypes, accessible at https://osf.io/gyk25/ ). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method studies were identified through three electronic databases searched in February 2019 (ProQuest Central, PsycINFO and Web of Science). Four search strategies were developed in consultation with a subject librarian and tested across all three databases. The final strategy was confirmed by the lead author and a second reviewer (see Table 1 ).

Table 1

Search terms used.

There were no date or language exclusions, Title, Abstract & Keyword filters were applied where possible, and truncation was used in line with database specifications. The following intervention categories were included due to their standing in public health literature as being effective to create population level impact and having proven effective in addressing other significant health and social issues [ 39 ]; direct participation programs (referred to also as education based interventions throughout this review), community mobilisation or strengthening, organisational or workforce development, communications, social marketing and social media, advocacy, legislative or policy reform. Table 2 provides descriptions of each of these intervention categories that have been obtained from the actions outlined in the World Health Organisation's Ottawa Charter [ 40 ] and Jakarta Declaration [ 41 ] and are a comprehensive set of strategies grounded in prevention theory [ 42 ]. For the purposes of this review, legislative and policy reform within community, educational, organisational and workforce settings were included. Government legislation and policy reform were excluded.

Table 2

Public health intervention categories.

2.2. Screening

Initial search results were merged and duplicates removed using EndNote before transferring data management to Covidence for screening. Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts excluding studies based on the criteria stipulated in Table 3 .

Table 3

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The University Library document request service was used to obtain articles otherwise inaccessible or in languages other than English. In cases where full-text or English versions were unable to be obtained, the study was excluded. Full-text screening was undertaken by the same two researchers independently and the final selection resulted in 71 included studies (see Figure 1 ).

PRISMA diagram of screening and study selection.

2.3. Data extraction

Data extraction was undertaken by the first author and checked for accuracy by the second author. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus with the remaining three authors. The extracted data included: citation, year and location of study, participant demographics (gender, age), study design, setting, theoretical underpinnings, motivation for study, measurement tools/instruments, primary outcomes and results. A formal meta-analysis was not conducted given heterogeneity of outcome variables and measures, due in part to the broad nature of the review question.

2.4. Quality appraisal

Three established quality appraisal tools were used to account for the different study designs included, the McMasters Critical Review Form – Qualitative Studies 2.0 [ 43 ], the McMasters Critical Review Form – Quantitative Studies [ 44 ], Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018 [ 45 ]. The first author completed quality appraisal for all studies, with the second author undertaking an accuracy check on ten percent of studies. The appraisal score represents the proportion of ‘yes’ responses out of the total number of criteria. ‘Not reported’ was treated as a ‘no’ response. A discussion of the outcomes is located under Results.

2.5. Data synthesis

Included studies were explored using a modified narrative synthesis approach comprising three elements; developing a theory of how interventions worked, why and with whom, developing a preliminary synthesis of findings of included studies, and exploring relationships in studies reporting statistically significant outcomes [ 46 ]. Preliminary analysis was conducted using groupings of studies based on intervention type and thematic analysis based on gender inequality outcomes driving the study and features of the studies including participant sex and age and intervention delivery style and duration [ 46 ]. A conceptual model was developed (see Theory of Change section under Results) as the method of relationship exploration amongst studies reporting significant results, using qualitative case descriptions [ 47 ]. The narrative synthesis was undertaken under the premise that the ‘evidence being synthesised in a systematic review does not necessarily offer a series of discrete answers to a specific question’, so much as ‘each piece of evidence offers are partial picture of the phenomenon of interest’ ([ 46 ] p21).

3.1. Literature search

The literature search returned 4,050 references after the removal of duplicates (see Figure 1 ), from which 210 potentially relevant abstracts were identified. Full-text review resulted in a final list of 71 articles evaluating 69 distinct interventions aligned with the public health methodologies outlined in Table 2 . Table 4 provides a list of the included studies, categorised by intervention type. Studies fell into eight categories of interventions in total, with several combining two methodology types described in Table 2 .

Table 4

Included articles categorised by intervention type.

3.2. Quality assessment

Overall, the results of the quality appraisal indicated a moderate level of confidence in the results. The appraisal scores for the 71 studies ranged from poor (.24) to excellent (.96). The median appraisal score was .71 for all included studies (n = 71) and .76 for studies reporting statistically significant positive results (n = 32). The majority of studies were rated moderate quality (n = 57, 80%), with moderate quality regarded as .50 - .79 [ 119 ]. Ten studies were regarded as high quality (14%, >.80), and four were rated as poor (6%, <.50) [ 119 ]. Of the studies with significant outcomes, one rated high quality (.82) and the remaining 31 were moderate quality, with 18 of these (58% of 31) rating >.70. For the 15 randomised control trials (including n = 13 x cluster), all articles provided clear study purposes and design, intervention details, reported statistical significance of results, reported appropriate analysis methods and drew appropriate conclusions. However, only four studies appropriately justified sampling process and selection. For the qualitative studies (n = 5), the lowest scoring criteria were in relation to describing the process of purposeful selection (n = 1, 20%) and sampling done until redundancy in data was reached (n = 2, 40%). For the quantitative studies (n = 47) the lowest scoring criteria were in relation to sample size justification (n = 8, 17%) and avoiding contamination (n = 1, 2%) and co-intervention (n = 0, none of the studies provided information on this) in regards to intervention participants. For the Mixed Method studies (n = 19) the lowest scoring criteria in relation to the qualitative component of the research was in relation to the findings being adequately derived from the data (n = 9, 47%), and for the mixed methods criteria it was in relation to adequately addressing the divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results (n = 6, 32%).

3.3. Measures

Measures of stereotypes and norms varied across quantitative and mixed method studies with 31 (47%) of the 66 articles reporting the use of 25 different psychometric evaluation tools. The remaining 35 (53%) of quantitative and mixed methods studies reported developing measurement tools specific to the study with inconsistencies in description and provision of psychometric properties. Of the studies that used psychometric evaluation tools, the most frequently used were the Gender Equitable Men Scale (GEMS, n = 6, plus n = 2 used questions from the GEMS), followed by the Gender Role Conflict Scale I (GRCS-I, n = 5, plus n = 1 used a Short Form version) and the Gender-Stereotyped Attitude Scale for Children (GASC, n = 5). Whilst most studies used explicit measures as listed here, implicit measures were also used across several studies, including the Gender-Career Implicit Attitudes Test (n = 1). The twenty-four studies that undertook qualitative data collection used interviews (participant n = 15, key informant n = 3) as well as focus groups (n = 8), ethnographic observations (n = 5) and document analysis (n = 2). Twenty (28%) of the 71 studies measured behaviour and/or behavioural intentions, of which 9 (45%) used self-report measures only, four (20%) used self-report and observational data, and two (10%) used observation only. Follow-up data was collected for four of the studies using self-report measures, and two using observation measures, and one using both methods.

3.4. Study and intervention characteristics

Table 5 provides a summary of study and intervention characteristics. All included studies were published between 1990 and 2019; n = 8 (11%) between 1990 and 1999, n = 15 (21%) between 2000 and 2009, and the majority n = 48 (68%) from 2010 to 2019. Interventions were delivered in 23 countries (one study did not specify a location), with the majority conducted in the U.S. (n = 33, 46%), followed by India (n = 10, 14%). A further 15 studies (21%) were undertaken in Africa across East Africa (n = 7, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda), South Africa (n = 6), and West Africa (n = 2, Nigeria, Senegal). The remaining fifteen studies were conducted in Central and South America (n = 4, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Argentina), Europe (n = 3, Ireland, Spain and Turkey), Nepal (n = 2), and one study each in Australia, China, Oman, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom. Forty-seven (66%) studies employed quantitative methods, 19 (27%) reported both quantitative and qualitative (mixed) methods, and the remaining five studies (7%) reported qualitative methods. Forty-two of the quantitative and mixed-method approaches were non-randomised control trials, 13 were cluster randomised control trials, two were randomised control trials, and eight were quantitative descriptive studies.

Table 5

Summarised study and intervention characteristics (n = 71).

Based on total study sample sizes, data was reported on 46,673 participants. Sample sizes ranged from 15 to 122 for qualitative, 7 to 2887 for mixed methods, and 21 to 6073 for quantitative studies. Of the 71 studies, 23 (32%) reported on children (<18 years old), 13 (18%) on adolescents/young adults (<30 years old), 29 (41%) on adults (>18 years old), and six (8%) studies did not provided details on participant age. Thirty-seven (52%) studies recruited participants from educational settings (i.e. kindergarten, primary, middle and secondary/high school, tertiary including college residential settings, and summer camps/schools), 32 (45%) from general community settings (including home and sports), three from therapy-based programs for offenders (i.e. substance abuse and partner abuse prevention), and one sourced participants from both educational (vocational) and a workplace (factory).

As per Table 5 , the greatest proportion of all studies engaged mixed sex cohorts (n = 39, 55%), looked at norms (n = 34, 48%), were undertaken in community settings (n = 32, 45%), were education/direct participant interventions (n = 47, 66%) and undertook pre and post intervention evaluation (n = 49, 69%). Twenty-four studies reported on follow up data collection, with 10 reporting maintenance of outcomes.

Intervention lengths were varied, from individual sessions (90 min) to ongoing programs (up to 6 years) and were dependent on intervention type. Table 6 provides the duration range by intervention type.

Table 6

Intervention type and duration.

Of the 71 studies examined in this review, 10 (14%) stated a gender approach in relation to the continuum outlined at the start of this paper, utilising two of the five categories; gender-transformative and gender-sensitive [ 6 ]. Eight studies stated that they were gender-transformative, the definition of this strategy being to critically examine gender related norms and expectations and increase gender equitable attitudes and behaviours, often with a focus on masculinity [ 9 , 10 ]. An additional two stated they were gender-sensitive, the definition of which is to take into account and seek to address existing gender inequalities [ 10 ]. The remaining 61 (86%) studies did not specifically state engagement with a specific gender approach. Interpretation of the gender approach was not undertaken in relation to these 61 studies due to insufficient available data and to avoid potential risk of error, mislabelling or misidentification.

3.5. Characteristics supporting success

Due to the broad inclusion criteria for this review, there is considerable variation in study designs and the measurement of attitudes and behaviours. With the exception of the five studies using qualitative methods, all included studies reported on p-values, and 13 reported on effect sizes [ 51 , 60 , 66 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 83 , 92 , 99 , 110 ]. In addition to this, the centrality of gender norms and/or stereotypes within studies meeting inclusion criteria varied from a primary outcome to a secondary one, and in some studies was a peripheral consideration only, with minimal data reported. This heterogeneity prevents comparisons based purely on whether the outcomes of the studies were statistically significant, and as such consideration was also given to the inclusion of effect sizes, author interpretation, qualitative insights and whether outcomes reported as statistically non-significant reported encouraging results, which allowed for the inclusion of those using qualitative methods only [ 53 , 73 , 81 , 82 , 98 ].

As outlined in Table 5 , the studies were grouped into three categories based on reporting of statistical significance using p-values. Two categories include studies reporting statistically significant outcomes (n = 25) and those reporting mixed outcomes including some statistically significant results (n = 30), specifically in relation to the measurement of gender norms and/or stereotypes. Disparate outcomes included negligible behavioural changes, a shift in some but not all norms (i.e. shifts in descriptive but not personal norms, or masculine but not feminine stereotypes), and effects seen in some but not all participants (i.e. shifts in female participant scores but not male). It is worth noting that out of the 71 studies reviewed, all but one reported positive or negligible intervention impacts on attitudes and/or behaviours relating to gender norms and/or stereotypes. The other category include those reporting non-significant results (n = 2) as well as those that reported non-significant but positive results in relation to attitude and/or behaviour change towards gender norms and/or stereotypes (n = 14). These studies include those which had qualitative designs, several who reported on descriptive statistics only, and several which did not meet statistical significance but who demonstrated improvement in participant scores between base and end line and/or between intervention and control groups. The insights from the qualitative studies (n = 5) have been taken into consideration in the narrative synthesis of this review.

Studies reporting statistically significant outcomes were represented across seven of the eight intervention types. The only intervention category not represented was advocacy and education [ 48 ] which reported non-significant but positive results. The remainder of this section will consider the study characteristics of the statistically significant and mixed results categories, as well as identifying similar trends observed in the qualitative studies which reported positive but non-significant intervention outcomes. When considering intervention type, direct participant education was the most common, with 49 of the 55 studies reporting statistically significant or mixed outcomes containing a direct participant education component, and all but one of the five qualitative studies.

The majority of interventions reporting achievement of intended outcomes involved delivery of multiple sessions ranging from five x 20 min sessions across one week to multiple sessions across six years. This included 48 of the 55 studies reporting statistically significant or mixed outcomes, and all five qualitative studies. Only one of the seven that utilised single/one-off sessions reported significant outcomes. The remaining six studies had varying results, including finding shifts in descriptive but not personal norms amongst a male-only cohort, shifts in acceptance of both genders performing masculine behaviours but no shift in acceptance of males performing feminine behaviours, and significant outcomes for participants already demonstrating more egalitarian attitudes at baseline but not those holding more traditional ones – arguably the target audience.

When considering participant sex, the majority of studies reporting statistically significant or mixed results engaged mixed sex cohorts (n = 33 out of 55), with the remaining studies engaging male only (n = 13) and female only (n = 9) cohorts. Of the qualitative studies, three engaged mixed sex participant cohorts. Interestingly however, several studies reported disparate results, including significant outcomes for male but non-significant outcomes for female participants primarily in studies incorporating a community mobilisation element, and the reverse pattern in some studies that were education based. Additional discrepancies were found between several studies looking at individual and community level outcomes.

Finally, a quarter of studies worked with male only cohorts (n = 18). Of these, four reported significant results, nine reported mixed results, and the remaining five studies reported non-significant but positive outcomes, one of which was a qualitative study. Within these studies, two demonstrated shifts in more generalised descriptive norms and/or stereotypes relating to men, but not in relation to personal norms. Additionally, several studies demonstrated that shifts in male participant attitudes were not generalised, with discrepancies found in relation to attitudes shifting towards women but not men and in relation to some norms or stereotypes (for example men acting in ‘feminine’ ways) but not others that appeared to be more culturally entrenched. These studies are explored further in the Discussion.

In summary, interventions that used direct participant education, across multiple sessions, with mixed sex participant cohorts were associated with greater success in changing attitudes and in a small number of studies behaviour. Further to these characteristics, several strategies were identified that appear to enhance intervention impact which are discussed further in the next section.

3.6. Theory of change

One aim of this review was to draw out common theory and practice in order to strengthen future intervention development and delivery. Across all included studies, the implicit theory of change was raising knowledge/awareness for the purposes of shifting attitudes relating to gender norms and/or stereotypes. Direct participant education-based interventions was the predominant method of delivery. In addition to this, 23 (32%) studies attempted to take this a step further to address behaviour and/or behavioural intentions, of which 10 looked at gender equality outcomes (including bystander action and behavioural intentions), whilst the remaining studies focused on gender-based violence (n = 9), sexual and reproductive health (n = 2) and two studies which did not focus on behaviours related to the focus of this review.

As highlighted in Figure 2 , this common theory of change was the same across all identified intervention categories, irrespective of the overarching focus of the study (gender equality, prevention of violence, sexual and reproductive health, mental health and wellbeing). Those examining gender equality more broadly did so in relation to female empowerment in relationships, communities and political participation, identifying and addressing stereotypes and normative attitudes with kindergarten and school aged children. Those considering prevention of violence did so specifically in relation to violence against women, including intimate partner violence, rape awareness and myths, and a number of studies looking at teen dating violence. Sexual and reproductive health studies primarily assessed prevention of HIV, but also men and women's involvement in family planning, with several exploring the interconnected issues of violence and sexual and reproductive health. Finally, those studies looking at mental health and wellbeing did so in relation to mental and physical health outcomes and associated help-seeking behaviours, including reducing stigma around mental health (particularly amongst men in terms of acceptance and help seeking) and emotional expression (in relationships).

Breakdown of study characteristics and strategies associated with achieving intended outcomes.

In addition to the implicit theory of change, the review process identified five additional strategies that appear to have strengthened interventions (regardless of intervention type). In addition to implicit theory of change across all studies, one or more of these strategies were utilised by 31 of the 55 studies that reported statistically significant results:

• • Addressing more than one level of the ecological framework (n = 17): which refers to different levels of personal and environmental factors, all of which influence and are influenced by each other to differing degrees [ 120 ]. The levels are categorised as individual, relational, community/organisational and societal, with the individual level being the most commonly addressed across studies in this review;
• • Peer engagement (n = 14): Using participant peers (for example people from the same geographical location, gender, life experience, etc.) to support or lead an intervention, including the use of older students to mentor younger students, or using peer interactions as part of the intervention to enhance learning. This included students putting on performances for the broader school community, facilitation of peer discussions via online platforms or face-to-face via direct participant education and group activities or assignments;
• • Use of role models and modelling of desired attitudes and/or behaviours by facilitators or persons of influence in participants' lives (n = 11);
• • Developing agents of change (n = 7): developing knowledge and skills for the specific purpose of participants using these to engage with their spheres of influence and further promote, educate and support the people and environments in which they interact; and
• • Co-design (n = 6): Use of formative research or participant feedback to develop the intervention or to allow flexibility in its evolution as it progresses.

Additionally, four of the five studies using qualitative methods utilised one or more of these strategies; ecological framework (n = 3), peer engagement (n = 1), role models (n = 2), agents of change (n = 2) and co-design (n = 1). Whilst only a small number of studies reported engaging the last two strategies, developing agents of change and co-design, they have been highlighted due to their prominence in working with the sub-set of men and boys, as well as the use of role models/modelling.

The remaining 24 studies that reported significant outcomes did not utilise any of these five strategies. Eight used a research/experimental design, the remaining 16 were all direct participant education interventions, and either did not provide enough detail about the intervention structure or delivery to determine if they engaged in any of these strategies (n = 13), were focused on testing a specific theory (n = 2) or in the case of one study used financial incentives.

Figure 2 provides a conceptual model exploring the relationship amongst studies reporting statistically significant outcomes. Utilising the common theory of change as well as the additional identified strategies, interventions were able to address factors that act as gender inequality enforcers including knowledge, attitudes, environmental factors and behaviour and behavioural intentions (see Table 7 ), to achieve statistically significant shifts in attitudes, and in a small number of cases behaviour (see Table 8 ).

Table 7

Factors supportive of gender inequality in studies reporting significant positive outcomes (n = 55).

Table 8

Changes observed in attitudes and behaviours in studies reporting significant positive outcomes (n = 55).

4. Discussion

This systematic review synthesises evidence on ‘which intervention characteristics support change in attitudes and behaviours in relation to rigid gender stereotypes and norms’, based on the seventy-one studies that met the review inclusion criteria. Eight intervention types were identified, seven of which achieved statistically significant outcomes. Patterns of effectiveness were found based on delivery style and duration, as well as participant sex, and several strategies (peer engagement, addressing multiple levels of the ecological framework, skilling participants as agents of change, use of role models and modelling of desired attitudes and behaviours, and intervention co-design with participants) were identified that enhanced shifts in attitudes and in a small number of studies, behaviour. Additionally, a common theory of change was identified (increasing knowledge and raising awareness to achieve shifts in attitudes) across all studies reporting statistically significant results.

The articles included in this review covered a range of intervention types, duration and focus, demonstrating relative heterogeneity across these elements. This is not an unexpected outcome given the aim of this review was to allow for comparisons to be drawn across interventions, regardless of the overarching focus of the study (gender equality, prevention of violence, sexual and reproductive health, mental health and wellbeing). As a result, one of the key findings of this review is that design, delivery and engagement strategies that feature in studies reporting successful outcomes, are successful regardless of the intervention focus thus widening the evidence base from which those researching and implementing interventions can draw. That said, the heterogeneity of studies limits the ability for definitive conclusions to be drawn based on the studies considered in this review. Instead this section provides a discussion of the characteristics and strategies observed based on the narrative synthesis undertaken.

4.1. Intervention characteristics that support success

4.1.1. intervention type and participant demographics.

The 71 included studies were categorised into eight intervention types (see Table 4 ); advocacy and education, advocacy and community mobilisation, community mobilisation, community mobilisation and education, education (direct participant), research and education, research, and two studies that utilised four or more intervention types (advocacy via campaigns and social media, community mobilisation, education and legislation, and, advocacy, education, community mobilisation, policy and social marketing). With the exception of the individual study that utilised advocacy and education, all intervention types were captured in studies reporting statistically significant or mixed results.

Direct participant education was the most common intervention type across all studies (n = 47 out of 71, 66%). When considering those studies that included a component of direct participant education in their intervention (e.g. those studies which engaged education and community mobilisation) this figure rose to 63 of the 69 individual interventions looked at in this review, 54 of which reported outcomes that were either statistically significant (n = 23), mixed (n = 26) or were non-significant due to the qualitative research design, but reported positive outcomes (n = 5). These findings indicate that direct participant education is both a popular and an effective strategy for engaging participants in attitudinal (and in a small number of cases behaviour) change.

Similarly, mixed sex participant cohorts were involved in over half of all studies (n = 39 out of 71, 55%), of which 33 reported statistically significant or mixed results, and a further three did not meet statistical significance due to the qualitative research design but reported positive outcomes. Across several studies however, conflicting results were observed between male and female participants, with female's showing greater improvement in interventions using education [ 85 , 89 , 114 ] and males showing greater improvement when community mobilisation was incorporated [ 51 , 60 ]. That is not to say that male participants do not respond well to education-based interventions with 13 of the 18 studies engaging male only cohorts reporting intended outcomes using direct participant education. However, of these studies, nine also utilised one or more of the additional strategies identified such as co-design or peer engagement which whilst different to community engagement, employ similar principles around participant engagement [ 77 , 79 , 87 , 91 , 92 , 96 , 97 , 99 , 105 , 107 , 111 , 115 ]. These findings suggest that participant sex may impact on how well participants engage with an intervention type and thus how successful it is.

There was a relatively even spread of studies reporting significant outcomes across all age groups, in line with the notion that the impact of rigid gender norms and stereotypes are not age discriminant [ 10 ]. Whilst the broad nature of this review curtailed the possibility of determining the impact of aged based on the studies synthesised, the profile of studies reporting statistically significant outcomes indicates that no patterns were found in relation to impact and participants age.

The relatively small number of studies that observed the above differences in intervention design and delivery means definitive conclusions cannot be drawn based on the studies examined in this review. That said, all of these characteristics support an increase in personal buy-in. Interventions that incorporate community mobilisation engage with more than just the individual, often addressing community norms and creating environments supportive of change [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 117 , 118 ]. Similarly, education based programs that incorporate co-design and peer support do more than just knowledge and awareness raising with an individual participant, providing space for them to develop their competence and social networks [ 70 , 75 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 86 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 97 , 103 , 107 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 113 , 115 , 116 ]. When it comes to designing these interventions, it would appear that success may be influenced by which method is most engaging to the participants and that this is in turn influenced by the participants' sex. This finding is reinforced further when taking into consideration the quality of studies with those reporting on a mixed-sex cohort, which were generally lower in quality than those working with single sex groups. Whilst it appears mixed sex cohorts are both common and effective at obtaining significant results, these findings suggest that when addressing gendered stereotypes and norms, there is a need to consider and accommodate differences in how participants learn and respond when designing interventions to ensure the greatest chance of success in terms of impacting on all participants, regardless of sex, and ensuring quality of study design.

4.1.2. Intervention delivery

The findings from this review suggests that multi-session interventions are both more common and more likely to deliver significant outcomes than single-session or one-off interventions. This is evidenced by the fact that only one [ 67 ] out seven studies engaging the use of one-off sessions reported significant outcomes with the remaining six reporting mixed results [ 63 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 78 , 90 ]. Additionally, all but two of the studies [ 78 , 90 ] used a research/experimental study design, indicating a current gap in the literature in terms of real-world application and effectiveness of single session interventions. This review highlights the lack of reported evidence of single session effectiveness, particularly in terms of maintaining attitudinal changes in the few instances in which follow-up data was collected. Additionally this review only captured single-sessions that ran to a maximum of 2.5 h, further investigation is needed into the impact of one-off intensive sessions, such as those run over the course of a weekend. While more evidence is needed to reach definitive conclusions, the review indicates that single-session or one-off interventions are sub-optimal, aligning with the same finding by Barker and colleagues [ 5 ] in their review of interventions engaging men and boys in changing gender-based inequity in health. This is further reflected in the health promotion literature that points to the lack of demonstrated effectiveness of single-session direct participant interventions when it comes to addressing social determinants of health [ 121 , 122 , 123 ]. Studies that delivered multiple sessions demonstrate the ability to build rapport with and amongst the cohort (peer engagement, modelling, co-design) as well as the allowance of greater depth of learning and retention achievable through repeated touch points and revision. These are elements that can only happen through recurring and consistent exposure. Given these findings, practitioners should consider avoiding one-off or single-session delivery, in favour of multi-session or multi-touch point interventions allowing for greater engagement and impact.

4.1.3. Evaluation

Very few included studies collected follow-up data, with only one third of studies evaluating beyond immediate post-intervention data collection (n = 24). Of those that did, ten reported maintenance of their findings [ 55 , 56 , 64 , 70 , 79 , 93 , 95 , 103 , 113 , 116 ], eleven did not provide sufficient detail to determine [ 50 , 52 , 57 , 65 , 66 , 82 , 91 , 92 , 94 , 102 , 105 ] and two reported findings were not maintained [ 61 , 90 ]. The last study, a 90 min single session experiment with an education component, reported significant positive outcomes between base and end line scores, but saw a significant negative rebound in scores to worse than base line when they collected follow up data six weeks later [ 63 ]. This study supports the above argument for needing more than a single session in order to support change long term and highlights the importance of capturing follow up data not only to ensure longevity of significant outcomes, but also to capture reversion effects. The lack of standardised measures to capture shifts in norms is acknowledged empirically [ 11 , 13 ]. However, the outcomes of this review, including the lack of follow up data collection reported, are supportive of the need for increased investment in longitudinal follow-up, particularly in relation to measuring behaviour change and ensuring maintenance of observed changes to attitudes and behaviour over time (see also [ 124 ]).

4.1.4. Behaviour change

When it comes to behaviour change, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn due to the paucity of studies. The studies that did look at behaviour focused on the reduction of relational violence including the perpetration and experience of physical, psychological and sexual violence [ 50 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 60 , 105 , 115 ], as well as more equitable division of domestic labour [ 82 , 86 , 98 ] and responsibility for sexual and reproductive health [ 58 , 116 ], intention to take bystander action [ 65 , 102 , 117 ] and female political participation [ 81 ]. Lack of follow up data and use of measurement tools other than self-report, however, make it difficult to determine the permanency of the behaviour change and whether behavioural intentions transition to action. Models would suggest that interventions aimed at changing attitudes/norms would flow on to behaviour change but need to address multiple levels of the ecological framework not just the individual to support this change, and engage peer leadership and involvement in order to do so. This supports findings from the literature discussed at the start of this paper, alerting practitioners to the danger of making incorrect assumptions about ‘pathways to change’ [ 7 ] and the need to be mindful of the intention-behaviour gap which has been shown to disrupt this flow from attitude and intention to actual behaviour change [ 6 , 13 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].

If studies are to evaluate the impact of an intervention on behaviour, this objective must be made clear in the intervention design and evaluation strategy, and there must be an avoidance of relying on self-report data only, which is subject to numerous types of bias such as social desirability. Use of participant observation as well as key informant feedback would strengthen evaluation. The quality of studies that measured behaviour change was varied, ranging from poor (n = 1 at <.5 looking at behavioural intentions) to high (n = 3 at >.85 looking at bystander action and gender equality). The majority of studies however, were moderate in quality measuring either lower (n = 4 at .57, looking at gender-based violence, domestic labour division and bystander intention, and n = 2 at .64 looking at gender-based violence) to higher (n = 11 at .71-.79, looking at gender-based violence, gender equality, sexual and reproductive health and behavioural intentions), further supporting the finding that consideration in study design and evaluation is crucial. It is worth noting that measuring behaviour change is difficult, it requires greater resources should more than just self-report measurements be used, as well as longitudinal follow up to account for sustained change and to capture deterioration of behaviour post intervention should it occur.

4.2. Theory of change

Across all included studies, the implicit theory of change was knowledge/awareness raising for the purposes of shifting attitudes towards gender norms and/or stereotypes. This did not vary substantially across intervention type or study focus, whether it was norms, stereotypes or both being addressed, and for all participant cohorts. The conceptual framework developed (see Figure 2 ) shows that by increasing knowledge and raising awareness, the studies that reported statistically significant outcomes were able to address factors enforcing gender inequality in the form of knowledge, attitudes, environmental factors, and in a small number of cases behaviour.

Further to this common theory of change, several strategies were identified which appear to have enhanced the delivery and impact of these interventions. These included the use of participant peers to lead, support and heighten learning [ 49 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 86 , 90 , 92 , 93 , 103 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 113 , 115 , 116 , 117 ], involvement of multiple levels of the ecological framework (not just addressing the individual) [ 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 70 , 72 , 74 , 81 , 86 , 91 , 97 , 98 , 102 , 117 , 118 ], developing participants into agents of change [ 49 , 52 , 58 , 60 , 72 , 81 , 98 , 117 , 118 ], using modelling and role models [ 49 , 51 , 52 , 58 , 60 , 65 , 82 , 98 , 110 , 117 , 118 ], and the involvement of participants in co-designing the intervention [ 51 , 70 , 81 , 90 , 91 , 97 , 111 ]. As mentioned earlier, these strategies all contain principles designed to increase participant buy-in, creating a more personal and/or relatable experience.

One theory that can be used to consider this pattern is Petty and Cacioppo's [ 125 ] Elaboration Likelihood Model. The authors posit that attitudes changed through a central (deliberative processing) route, are more likely to show longevity, are greater predictors of behaviour change and are more resistant to a return to pre-intervention attitudes, than those that are the result of peripheral, or short cut, mental processing. Whether information is processed deliberately is dependent on a person's motivation and ability, both of which need to be present and both of which are influenced by external factors including context, message delivery and individual differences. In other words, the more accessible the message is and the more engaged a person is with the messaging they are exposed to, the stronger the attitude that is formed.

In the context of the studies in this review, the strategies found to enhance intervention impact all focus on creating a relationship and environment for the participant to engage in greater depth with the content of the intervention. This included not only the use of the five strategies discussed here, but also the use of multi-session delivery as well as use of delivery types aligned with participant responsiveness (community mobilisation and co-design elements when engaging men and boys, and education-focused interventions for engaging women and girls). With just under two thirds of studies reporting positive outcomes employing one or more of these strategies, practitioners should consider incorporating these into intervention design and delivery for existing interventions or initiatives as well as new ones.

4.3. Engaging men and boys

Represented by only a quarter of studies overall (n = 18 out of 71) this review further highlights the current dearth of research and formal evaluation of interventions working specifically with men and boys [ 124 ].

Across the 18 studies, four reported significant outcomes [ 59 , 79 , 97 , 111 ], nine reported mixed results with some but not all significant outcomes [ 49 , 63 , 68 , 77 , 91 , 92 , 99 , 105 , 115 ] and the remaining five reported non-significant but positive results [ 75 , 87 , 96 , 107 ], including one qualitative study [ 53 ]. Quality was reasonably high (n = 12 rated .71 - .86), and there were some interesting observations to be made about specific elements for this population.

The majority of the studies reporting positive significant or mixed results utilised one or more of the five additional strategies identified through this review (n = 10 out of 14) including the one qualitative study. Three studies used co-design principles to develop their intervention, which included formative research and evolution through group discussions across the duration of the intervention [ 91 , 97 , 111 ]. Four studies targeted more than just the individual participants including focusing on relational and community aspects [ 53 , 59 , 91 , 97 ]. Another six leveraged peer interaction in terms of group discussions and support, and leadership which included self-nominated peer leaders delivering sessions [ 49 , 77 , 79 , 92 , 111 , 115 ]. Finally, two studies incorporated role models [ 79 ] or role models and agents of change [ 49 ]. Similar to the overall profile of studies in this review, the majority in this group utilised direct participant education (n = 12 out of 14) either solely [ 77 , 79 , 91 , 92 , 97 , 99 , 105 , 111 , 115 ], or in conjunction with community mobilisation [ 53 , 59 ] or a research/experimental focus [ 63 ].

The use of the additional strategies in conjunction with direct participant education aligning with the earlier observation about male participants responding better in studies that incorporated a community or interpersonal element. A sentiment that was similarly observed by Burke and colleagues [ 79 ] in their study of men in relation to mental health and wellbeing, in which they surmised that a ‘peer-based group format’ appears to better support the psychosocial needs of men to allow them the space to ‘develop alternatives to traditional male gender role expectations and norms’ (p195).

When taken together, these findings suggest that feeling part of the process, being equipped with the information and skills, and having peer engagement, support and leadership/modelling, are all components that support the engagement of men and boys not only as allies but as participants, partners and agents of change when it comes to addressing gender inequality and the associated negative outcomes. This is reflective of the theory of change discussion outlining design principles that encourage and increase participant buy-in and the strength in creating a more personal and/or relatable learning experience.

Working with male only cohorts is another strategy used to create an environment that fosters participant buy-in [ 126 ]. Debate exists however around the efficacy of this approach, highlighted by the International Centre for Research on Women as an unsubstantiated assumption that the ‘best people to work with men are other men’ ([ 7 ] p26), which they identify as one of the key challenges to engaging men and boys in gender equality work [ 7 , 13 ]. Although acknowledging the success that has been observed in male-only education and preference across cultures for male educators, they caution of the potential for this assumption to extend to one that men cannot change by working with women [ 7 , 13 ]. The findings from this review support the need for further exploration and evaluation into the efficacy of male only participant interventions given the relatively small number of studies examined in this review and the variance in outcomes observed.

4.3.1. One size does not fit all

In addition to intervention and engagement strategies, the outcomes of several studies indicate a need to consider the specifics of content when it comes to engaging men and boys in discussions of gendered stereotypes and norms. This was evident in Pulerwitz and colleagues [ 59 ] study looking at male participants, which found an increase in egalitarian attitudes towards gendered stereotypes in relation to women, but a lack of corresponding acceptance and change when consideration was turned towards themselves and/or other males. Additionally, Brooks-Harris and colleagues [ 68 ] found significant shifts in male role attitudes broadly, but not in relation to personal gender roles or gender role conflict. Their findings suggest that targeted attention needs to be paid to addressing different types of stereotypes and norms, with attitudes towards one's own gender roles, and in the case of this study one's ‘fear of femininity’ being more resistant to change than attitudes towards more generalised stereotypes and norms. This is an important consideration for those working to engage men and boys, particularly around discussions of masculinity and what it means to be a man. Rigid gendered stereotypes and norms can cause harmful and restrictive outcomes for everyone [ 2 ] and it is crucial that interventions aimed at addressing them dismantle and avoid supporting these stereotypes; not just between sexes, but amongst them also [ 127 ]. Given the scarcity of evidence at present, further insight is required into how supportive spaces for exploration and growth are balanced with the avoidance of inadvertently reinforcing the very stereotypes and norms being addressed in relation to masculinity, particularly in the case of male only participant groups.

There is currently a gap in the research in relation to these findings, particularly outside of the U.S. and countries in Africa. Further research into how programs engaging men and boys in this space utilise these elements of intervention design and engagement strategies, content and the efficacy of single sex compared to mixed sex participant cohorts is needed.

4.4. Limitations and future directions

The broad approach taken in this review resulted in a large number of included studies (n = 71) and a resulting heterogeneity of study characteristics that restricted analysis options and assessment of publication bias. That said, the possibility of publication bias appears less apparent given that less than half of the 71 included studies reported statistically significant effects, with the remainder reporting mixed or non-significant outcomes. This may be in part due to the significant variance in evaluation approaches and selection of measurement tools used.

Heterogeneity of studies and intervention types limited the ability to draw statistical comparisons for specific outcomes, settings, and designs. Equally, minimal exclusion criteria in the study selection strategy also meant there was noteworthy variance in quality of studies observed across the entire sample of 71 papers. The authors acknowledge the limitations of using p-values as the primary measurement of significance and success. The lack of studies reporting on effect sizes (n = 13) in addition to the variance in study quality is a limitation of the review. However, the approach taken in this review, to include those studies with mixed outcomes and those reporting intended outcomes regardless of the p-value obtained, has allowed for an all-encompassing snapshot of the work happening and the extrapolation of strategies that have previously not been identified across such a broad spectrum of studies targeting gender norms and stereotypes.

An additional constraint was the inclusion of studies reported in English only. Despite being outside the scope of this review it is acknowledged that inclusion of non-English articles is necessary to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the literature.

The broad aim of the review and search strategy will have also inevitably resulted in some studies being missed. It was noted at the beginning of the paper that the framing of the research question was expected to impact the types of interventions captured. This was the case when considering the final list of included studies, in particular the relative absence of tertiary prevention interventions featured, such as those looking at men's behaviour change programs. This could in part account for the scarcity of interventions focused on behaviour change as opposed to the pre-cursors of attitudes and norms.

This review found that interventions using direct participant education interventions were the most common approach to raising awareness, dismantling harmful gender stereotypes and norms and shifting attitudes and beliefs towards more equitable gender norms. However due to the lack of follow-up data collected and reported, these changes can only be attributable to the short-term, with a need for further research into the longevity of these outcomes. Future research in this area needs to ensure the use of sound and consistent measurement tools, including avoiding a reliance solely on self-report measures for behaviour change (e.g. use of observations, key informant interviews, etc.), and more longitudinal data collection and follow-up.

When it comes to content design, as noted at the start of the paper, there is growing focus on the use and evaluation of gender-transformative interventions when engaging in gender equality efforts [ 1 , 2 , 6 , 128 ]. This review however found a distinct lack of engagement with this targeted approach, providing an opportunity for practitioners to explore this to strengthen engagement and impact of interventions (see 1 for a review of gender-transformative interventions working with young people). The scope of this review did not allow for further investigation to be undertaken to explore the gender approaches taken in the 61 studies which did not state their gender approach. There is scope for future investigation of this nature however in consultation with study authors.

An all-encompassing review, such as this one, allows for comparisons across intervention types and focus, such as those targeted at reducing violence or improving sexual and reproductive health behaviours. This broad approach allowed for the key finding that design, delivery and engagement strategies that feature in studies reporting successful outcomes, are successful regardless of the intervention focus thus widening the evidence based from which those researching and implementing interventions can draw. However, the establishment of this broad overview of interventions aimed at gendered stereotypes and norms highlights the current gap and opportunity for more targeted reviews in relation to these concepts.

5. Conclusion

Several characteristics supporting intervention success have been found based on the evidence examined in this review. The findings suggest that when planning, designing and developing interventions aimed at addressing rigid gender stereotypes and norms participant sex should help inform the intervention type chosen. Multi-session interventions are more effective than single or one-off sessions, and the use of additional strengthening strategies such as peer engagement and leadership, addressing multiple levels of the ecological framework, skilling up agents of change, modelling/role models, co-design with participants can support the achievement of intended outcomes. Longitudinal data collection is currently lacking but needed, and when seeking to extend the impact of an intervention to include behaviour change there is currently too much reliance on self-report data, which is subject to bias (e.g. social desirability).

When it comes to engaging men and boys, this review indicates that interventions have a greater chance of success when using peer-based learning in education programs, involving participants in the design and development, and the use of peer delivery and leadership. Ensuring clear learning objectives and outcomes in relation to specific types of norms, stereotypes and behaviours being addressed is crucial in making sure evaluation accurately captures these things. Practitioners need to be cognisant of breaking down stereotypes amongst men (not just between genders), as well as the need for extra attention to be paid in shifting some of the more deeply and culturally entrenched stereotypes and norms. More research is needed into the efficacy of working with male only cohorts, and care taken that rigid stereotypes and norms are not inadvertently reinforced when doing so.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

Rebecca Stewart: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Breanna Wright: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Liam Smith, Steven Roberts, Natalie Russell: Conceived and designed the experiments.

Funding statement

This work was supported by Australian Government Research Training Program and the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth).

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Acknowledgements

This research was completed as part of a PhD undertaken at Monash University.

Advertisement

Ethnicity and Gender Stereotypes of Emotion

• Original Paper
• Published: 27 October 2006
• Volume 54 , pages 429–445, ( 2006 )

Cite this article

• Amanda M. Durik 1 , 2 ,
• Janet Shibley Hyde 1 ,
• Amanda C. Marks 1 ,
• Amanda L. Roy 1 ,
• Debra Anaya 1 &
• Gretchen Schultz 1  

5675 Accesses

67 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In three studies we investigated gender stereotypes of emotions among four ethnic groups in the U.S., using persons from these groups as informants about their own groups. European Americans’ reports of stereotypes were compared to those of African Americans (Study 1), Hispanic Americans (Study 2), and Asian Americans (Study 3). The examination of group differences was interpreted based on variations across ethnicities in norms concerning emotional expression and gender roles. Overall, gender stereotypes of emotion were evident among all ethnic groups studied, but European Americans’ gender stereotypes were the most gender differentiated. For example, European American stereotypes held that men express more pride than women do, but African Americans’ stereotypes of pride for men and women did not differ. Similarly, whereas among European Americans, women were stereotyped to express much more love than men do, the gender difference was smaller among Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. These different norms may pose challenges for inter-cultural interactions, and they point to the importance of considering both gender and ethnicity simultaneously in the study of emotions.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Gendered Emotions and Affective Genders: A Response

New Perspectives on Gender and Emotion

Introduction: Authority, Gender, and Emotions in Late Medieval and Early Modern England

We recognize the difficulties surrounding the terms “ethnicity” and “race” and the rarity with which either occurs in a pure form. We use the term ethnicity because our focus is on the experiences of individuals who identify themselves with particular ethnic classifications.

Systematic differences between data collection sites emerged on ethnicity, gender, mother education, and age. These details are available from the authors.

In the planning of this study it was presumed that a European American female experimenter would collect data from both European and African American informants. However, the European American experimenter encountered a much higher refusal rate from African Americans than from European Americans. An African American female experimenter was added; she encountered a much lower refusal rate from African Americans than did the European American experimenter, and subsequently she collected all data from African American participants.

Although we asked participants their beliefs about emotional experience as well as expression, here we only report the results for emotional expression. Analyses of beliefs about experience are generally similar to those for expression, and are available from the authors.

Full analyses of participant gender effects are available from the authors.

Systematic differences between data collection sites emerged on ethnicity. These details are available from the authors.

There is considerable heterogeneity within all U.S. ethnic groups (including European Americans) in terms of country of origin, immigration, and acculturation; however, with our aim to collect data from community samples, we wanted to make the questionnaire as brief as possible. With this in mind, and with a concern that we would not have sufficient sample size to analyze specific variations within ethnicity, we excluded many details concerning ethnic background. That said, participants’ countries-of-origin were included in this study because it was of particular interest to one of the co-authors.

Systematic differences between data collection sites emerged on ethnicity, mother education, father education, and age. These details are available from the authors.

Interactions between age and gender of target emerged in analyses on ratings of fear, pride, sadness, and sympathy. Details regarding these effects are available from the authors.

Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 1–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Google Scholar  

Bander, R., & Betz, N. (1981). The relationship of sex and sex role to trait and situationally specific anxiety types. Journal of Research in Personality , 15, 312–322.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bem, S., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 34, 1016–1023.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bennett, J. L., & Powell, G. E. (1980). The Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SMQ): An investigation into the self-reporting of “real life” memory skills. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 19, 177–188.

Birnbaum, D. W., Nosanchuk, T. A., & Crull, W. L. (1980). Children’s stereotypes about sex differences in emotionality. Sex Roles , 29 , 435–443.

Block, J. H. (1973). Conceptions of sex role: Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. American Psychologist , 28, 512–526.

Brody, L. R. (1999). Social motives, power and roles. In L. R. Brody (Ed.), Gender, emotion, and the family (pp. 201–226). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (1993). Gender and emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 447–460). New York: Guilford.

Brody, L., Hay, D. H., & Vandewater, E. (1990). Gender, gender-role identity and children’s reported feelings toward the same and opposite sex. Sex Roles , 23, 363–387.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, (n.d.). Table 3. Employment status by race, age, sex and Hispanic origin, 2002 annual averages. Retrieved October 6, 2004, from http://www.bls.gov.

Carlson, R. (1971). Sex differences in ego functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 37, 267–277.

Dien, D. S. (1999). Chinese authority-directed orientation and Japanese peer-group orientation: Questioning the notion of collectivism. Review of General Psychology , 3, 372–385.

Dillon, K., Wolf, E., & Katz, H. (1985). Sex roles, gender, and fear. Journal of Psychology , 119, 355–359.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 46, 735–754.

Espin, O. M. (1986). Cultural and historical influences on sexuality in Hispanic/Latin women. In J. Cole (Ed.), All American women: Lines that divide, ties that bind (pp. 272–284). New York: Free Press.

Fabes, R. A., & Martin, C. L. (1991). Gender and age stereotypes of emotionality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 17, 532–540.

Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). The relation between gender and emotions in different cultures. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 71–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation from category-based to individuating processes: Influence of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Flannagan, D., & Perese, S. (1998). Emotional references in mother-daughter and mother-son dyads’ conversations about school. Sex Roles , 39, 353–367.

Frymier, A. B., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1990). Japanese and Americans compared on the affect orientation construct. Psychological Reports , 66 , 985–986.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70, 491–512.

Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Sex differences in intensity of emotional experience: A social role interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65 , 1010–1022.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and affective communication. American Behavioral Scientist , 31, 384–400.

Higginbotham, E., & Weber, L. (1992). Moving up with kin and community: Upward social mobility for Black and White women. Gender & Society , 6, 417–440.

Johnson, J. T., & Shulman, G. A. (1988). More alike than meets the eye: Perceived gender differences in subjective experience and its display. Sex Roles , 19, 67–79.

Kim, B. S., Yang, P. H., Atkinson, D. R., Wolfe, M. M., & Hong, S. (2001). Cultural value similarities and differences among Asian American ethnic groups. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , 7, 343–361.

Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (1994). Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kopper, B., & Epperson, D. (1991). Women and anger: Sex and sex role comparisons in the expression of anger. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 15, 7–14.

LaFrance, M., & Carmen, B. (1980). The nonverbal display of psychology androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 38, 36–49.

LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1978). Cultural aspects of nonverbal communication: A review essay. International Journal of Inter cultural Relations , 2, 71–89.

LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior . New York: Wiley.

Liem, R., Lim, B. A., & Liem, J. H. (2000). Acculturation and emotion among Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , 6, 13–31.

Lutwak, N., Razzino, B. E., & Ferrari, J. R. (1998). Self-perceptions and moral affect: An exploratory analysis of subcultural diversity in guilt and shame emotions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 13, 333–348.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98, 224–253.

Matsumoto, D. (1993). Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display rule attitudes, and self-reported emotional expression in an American sample. Motivation and Emotion , 17, 107–123.

Maxwell, S. E. (2004). The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychological Methods , 9, 147–163.

McContha, J., Lightner, E., & Deaner, S. (1994). Culture, age, and gender variables in the expression of emotions. Journal oj’Social Behavior and Personality , 9, 481–488.

Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80, 68–74.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of education statistics, Table 209 . Retrieved June 1, 2005, from http://www.nces.ed.gov.

Niemann, Y. F., Jennings, L., Rozelle, R. M., Baxter, J. C., & Sullivan, E. (1994). Use of free responses and cluster analysis to determine stereotypes of eight groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 114, 29–51.

Okazaki, S. (2002). Influences of culture on Asian Americans’ sexuality. Journal of Sex Research , 39, 34–41.

Ortony, A., & Turner, T. (1990). What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychological Review , 97, 315–331.

Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self, others, and conflict in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65, 993–1009.

Oyserman, D., Gant, D., & Ager, J. (1996). A socially contextualized model of African American identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69, 1216–1232.

Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. (1993). The sociocultural self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 4, pp. 187–220). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Plant, E. A., Hyde, J. S., Keltner, D., & Devine, P. G. (2000). Gender stereotyping of emotion. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 24, 81–92.

Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2000). The role of honor-related values in the elicitation, experience, and communication of pride, shame and anger: Spain and the Netherlands compared. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 26, 833–844.

Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, S., Bee, H., Broverman, I. K., & Broverman, D. M. (1968). Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 32, 287–295.

Ruan, F. (1991). Sex in China . New York: Plenum.

Ruble, T. L. (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. Sex Roles , 9, 397–402.

Russell, J. A. (1991). Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psychological Bulletin , 110, 428–450.

Shaffer, D. R., Pegalis, L., & Cornell, D. P. (1981). Interactive effects of social context and sex role identity on female self-disclosure during the acquaintance process. Sex Roles , 24, 1–19.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents . Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture . New York: Wiley.

Triandis, H. C., Marin, G., Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. (1984). Simpatia as a cultural script of Hispanics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 47, 1363–1375.

Wierzbicka, A. (1994). Emotion, language and cultural scripts. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 133–196). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Williams, M. K., McCandies, T., & Dunlap, M. R. (2002). Women of color and feminist psychology: Moving from criticism and critique to integration and application. In L. H. Collins, M. R. Dunlap, & J. C. Chrisler, Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp. 65–89). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Friedman, R. J., Cole, P. M., Mizula, I., & Hiruma, N. (1996). Japanese and United States preschool children’s responses to conflict and distress. Child Development , 67, 2462–2477.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the National Science Foundation for the support of co-authors, Anaya and Schultz, through funding of the PREP (Psychology Research Experience Program) in the Department of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin. We would like to extend a special thanks to Ashby Plant, who was very instrumental in many aspects of this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Amanda M. Durik, Janet Shibley Hyde, Amanda C. Marks, Amanda L. Roy, Debra Anaya & Gretchen Schultz

Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA

Amanda M. Durik

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda M. Durik .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Durik, A.M., Hyde, J.S., Marks, A.C. et al. Ethnicity and Gender Stereotypes of Emotion. Sex Roles 54 , 429–445 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9020-4

Download citation

Published : 27 October 2006

Issue Date : April 2006

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9020-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gender stereotypes
• Emotional expression
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Stereotypes of women and men across gender subgroups.

• Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

In this paper, we argue for the value of studying gender stereotypes at the subgroup level, combining insights from the stereotype content model, social role theory, and intersectional perspectives. Empirically, we investigate the stereotype content of gender subgroups in Norway, a cultural context for which a systematic description of stereotypes of gender subgroups is lacking. In a pilot study ( n  = 60), we established salient subgroups within the Norwegian context. Employing the stereotype content model, these groups were rated on warmth and competence in a main study ( n  = 191). Combining social role and intersectional perspectives, we compared stereotypes of women and men in the same social roles and social categories across subgroups. Comparisons between subgroups of women and men occupying the same social role indicated that at the subgroup level, women are often viewed as warmer than men, whereas the reverse appears to be a rare exception. Competence ratings, however, did not show this consistency. Our results at the subgroup level are consistent with research indicating that current gender stereotypes converge on constructs related to the competence dimension and remain divergent for constructs related to warmth.

Introduction

Gender stereotypes are key to understanding a host of psychological phenomena, especially gender-based biases and discrimination. Within this thriving research field, three key issues are currently at the center of scientific inquiry: understanding how stereotypes are shaped by the intersection of gender with other social group memberships (i.e., intersectionality), understanding how gender stereotypes are rooted in specific social roles (e.g., occupational roles), and stability and change in gender stereotypes over time. Researchers interested in intersectionality or social roles often zoom in on the unique issues pertaining to specific gender subgroups (e.g., women and men of different ethnicities, Ghavami and Peplau, 2013 ; women and men in the same occupations, Gustafsson-Sendén et al., 2020 ). Researchers interested in change and stability over time tend to focus on women and men as broad, generic categories ( Hentschel et al., 2019 ; Eagly et al., 2020 ; Bhatia and Bhatia, 2021 ). The merit of both approaches is unquestionable. However, the focus on either a specific intersection of gender with another social category or specific social roles, or on generic women and men, leaves that pattern of stereotype content across a wider range of gender subgroups unaddressed.

In this paper, we argue for the value of studying gender stereotypes at the subgroup level. Empirically, we investigate the stereotype content of gender subgroups in Norway, a cultural context for which a systematic description of stereotypes of gender subgroups is lacking. We draw on both the stereotype content model and social role theory, as well as intersectional perspectives, to address the stereotype content of gender subgroups. Specifically, we investigate the stereotype content of a range of respondent-generated subgroups of women and men in the Norwegian context, including groups defined by gender and social category membership (e.g., age and gender), gender and social role (e.g., female and male academics), and subgroups specific to either women (e.g., babes) or men (e.g., rockers). We particularly compare what we call parallel gender subgroups : women and men who either occupy the same social role or share a social category membership. We discuss what our results mean for the study of change and stability of gender stereotypes and cross-cultural approaches to gender stereotypes.

Across cultures, women have typically been stereotyped as more warm/communal (e.g., kind and nurturing), but less competent (e.g., intelligent and skillful) and agentic (e.g., ambitious, independent, and strong) than men ( Williams and Best, 1982 ; Eagly et al., 2000 ; Wood and Eagly, 2012 ; Ellemers, 2018 ). While there is evidence that these gender stereotypes are resistant to change across time ( Haines et al., 2016 ), there is also research showing that stereotypes of women and men increasingly overlap, especially on the competence dimension ( Diekman and Eagly, 2000 ; Diekman et al., 2005 ; Gustafsson-Sendén et al., 2019 ). For example, based on analyses of public opinion polls in the US from 1946 to 2018, Eagly and colleagues demonstrated that women were increasingly seen as equally, or even more, competent than men. Women were, however, seen as consistently more communal and less agentic than men ( Eagly et al., 2020 ).

Importantly, people hold stereotypes not only of the superordinate categories of “men” and “women,” but also about more specific gender subgroups (e.g., mothers and old men). A range of studies show that people can list and distinguish between the stereotypic traits of several female and male subgroups ( Clifton et al., 1976 ; Eckes, 1994 , 2002 ; Wade and Brewer, 2006 ; Athenstaedt et al., 2008 ). These subgroups often reflect the intersection of gender with other social roles such as occupation or parental status ( Deux and LaFrance, 1998 ; Wood and Eagly, 2010 ) or the intersection of gender with other social categories such as race/ethnicity and sexual orientation ( Ghavami and Peplau, 2013 ; Kang and Bodenhausen, 2015 ; Klysing et al., 2021 ).

Subgroups may be considered the “natural level of categorization for human targets because they provide more specific information than the superordinate category” ( Wade and Brewer, 2006 , p. 759, see also Pattyn et al., 2015 ). Haines et al. (2016) argued that when research participants rate the generic categories of women and men, we cannot know what specific images they have in mind when answering, and stereotypic elements may be stronger for some subgroups of women and men than for others in cases where gender intersects with other categories.

In their model of intersectional invisibility, Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach (2008) argue that ideologies of androcentrism, ethnocentrism, and heterosexism makes the prototypical human a man, the prototypical citizen (in a Western context) white, and heterosexuality prototypical of human sexuality. In combination, this makes prototypical women and men white and heterosexual. Moreover, the prototypical ethnic minority individual is a heterosexual man, and the prototypical homosexual person is a white man. This renders individuals with two subordinate social identities (e.g., ethnic minority women and ethnic minority gay men) to experience intersectional invisibility; they are not fully recognized as members of their groups.

Studies addressing stereotype content from an intersectional perspective largely support this model. For example, Ghavami and Peplau (2013) found that the stereotype content of “women” overlapped to a greater extent with “white women” than with “Middle Eastern American,” “Asian American,” “Latina,” or “Black” women. Similarly, they found that the overlap in stereotype content was largest between “men” and “white men” as compared to men of other ethnicities. In a study of the stereotype content of women, men, and women and men with different sexual orientations, Klysing et al. (2021 , Study 1, p. 6) found that “general gender stereotypes only apply to heterosexual women and men.” Studies of stereotypes of typical women and men should therefore be complimented by studies that address gender stereotypes at the subgroup level. Research demonstrating changes in superordinate-level stereotypes of women and men also begs the question of whether and how these broad changes may be reflected at the level of subgroups.

There are several theoretical approaches to the study of stereotypes of gender subgroups. Following earlier research on subgroups of women and men ( Eckes, 2002 ; Wade and Brewer, 2006 ), we take the Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002 ; Fiske et al., 2007 ) as our starting point. In the SCM, warmth and competence 1 are considered universal dimensions of social perception, along which stereotypes of social groups may be differentiated. Some groups are stereotyped as high or low on both dimensions, but many groups receive ambivalent stereotypes (i.e., high competence/low warmth or low competence/high warmth; SCM; Fiske et al., 2002 ; Fiske et al., 2007 ). The SCM is a general model of stereotype content and has been applied to a range of social groups; however, its emphasis on ambivalent stereotypes is particularly relevant to women and men as social categories. In fact, the SCM originated in research on ambivalent sexism ( Glick and Fiske, 2011 ). According to ambivalent sexism theory, women fulfilling traditional roles (e.g., housewife and mother) are targets of benevolent sexism and paternalistic prejudice. Stereotyped as warm but incompetent, they are liked but disrespected. Women who challenge the status quo (e.g., feminists and career women) are targets of hostile sexism and envious prejudice. Stereotyped as competent but cold, they are respected for their competence but disliked ( Glick and Fiske, 2001 ). Similarly, subgroups of men have also been found to be targets of both paternalistic prejudice (e.g., warm but incompetent “soft men”) and envious prejudice (e.g., competent and but cold male managers; Eckes, 2002 ).

In the SCM, stereotype content is theorized to stem from structural relationships between groups ( Fiske et al., 2002 ). High-status groups are stereotyped as competent, low-status groups as incompetent. Well-intentioned, non-competitive groups are stereotyped as warm, groups that compete over scarce resources are viewed as cold. From a SCM perspective, women and men in the same social role or sharing another category membership may be stereotyped similarly or differently, depending on how the groups are assessed in terms of status and competition.

We also draw on social role theory ( Eagly and Wood, 2012 ) which postulates that stereotypes of women and men are rooted in the division of labor between the sexes and distribution of women and men in different social roles. Unlike the SCM, a key prediction of social role theory is that role information overrides the effect of gender on stereotyping. Put differently, when women and men occupy the same social role, the effect of gender on inferences of stereotypical traits weakens or disappears ( Eagly and Steffen, 1984 ; Bosak et al., 2012 ; Koenig and Eagly, 2014 ; Gustafsson-Sendén et al., 2020 ). For example, research showing that working mothers and working fathers ( Cuddy et al., 2004 ) and male and female middle managers ( Rosette and Tost, 2010 ) are stereotyped as equally warm and competent, supports this claim. However, there is also evidence that women and men in the same social role are stereotyped differently. Schneider and Bos (2014) found that stereotypes of male and female politicians differed; women were seen as lower in traits reflective of leadership, competence, and agency, and slightly higher in warmth. There are also instances in which the provision of role information has a counter-stereotypical effect, so that, for example, men described in a female-dominated role (i.e., a social role most commonly enacted by women) are seen as more communal than women in the same social role ( Eagly and Steffen, 1984 ; Steinmetz et al., 2014 ).

What is clear from the above examples is that gender interacts with social roles with respect to stereotype content. However, it is more difficult to discern a systematic pattern in this process because each study compares stereotypes of women and men in a single or a limited number of social roles. There are studies of stereotypes of gender subgroups that include a whole range of male and/or female groups ( Eckes, 1994 , 2002 ; Wade and Brewer, 2006 ). However, these studies have not had a comparative focus addressing stereotypes of women and men in the same social roles. We combine these two approaches and look at stereotypes of subgroups of both women and men across several social roles (i.e., occupations, civil and parental status, and leisure roles).

Finally, we draw on intersectional perspectives. In their definition of intersectionality, Else-Quest and Hyde (2016 , p. 156–157) emphasize that an intersectional perspective entails first a recognition that all people are characterized by multiple social identities (e.g., gender, race, sexual orientation, and age), that these categories are intertwined, and that the experience of each category is linked to the other categories. Second, embedded in these social categories is a dimension or aspect of inequality or power. Third, social categories are both properties of individuals (i.e., identity) and characterizations of social contexts (i.e., categories are constructed, and power inequalities are enforced by social structures, institutions, and interpersonal interactions). Stereotypes, as collective and shared cultural images of characteristics of social groups, form part of individuals’ social contexts and thus likely shape individuals’ experiences of what it means to be a member of a specific social group.

In theoretical scope, intersectional perspectives reach far beyond the domain of stereotypes. But, of relevance to the present study, intersectional perspectives also speak to how gender intersects with other social categories to form stereotypes ( Crenshaw, 1989 ; Cole, 2009 ; Kang and Bodenhausen, 2015 ). When stereotypes have been studied from an intersectional perspective, researchers have studied mainly intersections of gender and race, as well as sexual orientation and age ( Kang and Bodenhausen, 2015 ; Klysing et al., 2021 ). Unlike social roles, which are theorized to override the effect of gender on stereotype ascriptions, important social categorizations such as age groups and race/ethnicity combine with gender to produce stereotypes of subgroups of women and men that are more than—or rather qualitatively different from—the simple sum of each category’s constituent parts ( Crenshaw, 1989 ; Cole, 2009 ; Ghavami and Peplau, 2013 ; Kang and Bodenhausen, 2015 ; Rosenthal and Lobel, 2016 ). A study of gender subgroups needs therefore include subgroups formed by both gender and social roles, and gender and social categories.

To summarize, our claim is not that stereotypes of gender subgroups have not been studied previously. Rather, the first contribution of this study is to combine the simultaneous study of many gender subgroups (building on the stereotype content model), with the study of parallel gender subgroups across social roles (building on social role theory) and across social categories (intersectionality). The second contribution is to provide empirical data from a cultural context—Norway—for which a systematic description of gender subgroup stereotypes is lacking.

Most studies on gender stereotypes have been conducted in the United States (but see Gustafsson-Sendén et al., 2019 and Klysing et al., 2021 for recent studies in the Swedish context) and expanding research to more cultural contexts had been identified as an important avenue for research ( Sczesny et al., 2019 ). In their review of the literature, Athenstaedt et al. (2008) point to similarities in common gender subgroups and their associated stereotype content in Western societies. However, one would also expect some variations across cultures because gender stereotypes are shaped by both cultural values and the social roles enacted by women and men within a society ( Wood and Eagly, 2012 ; Steinmetz et al., 2014 ; Cuddy et al., 2015 ). From both these perspectives, Norway provides an interesting context. With respect to cultural values, Hofstede’s dimension of masculinity-femininity appears particularly relevant. In highly feminine cultures, there is comparatively less social role differentiation between women and men, and sympathy and caring for others are viewed as desirable among both women and men. On this dimension, Norway has been ranked as one of the world’s most feminine cultures ( Hofstede, 2011 ). This cultural value emphasis on femininity is consistent with Norway’s ranking on the global gender gap index ( World Economic Forum, 2020 ). In 2020, Norway was ranked the second most gender equal country in the world, below Iceland ranked first. The other Nordic countries followed at rank 3 and 4 (Finland and Sweden) and 14 (Denmark). On some central indicators of women’s economic status and power, such as labor market participation (73% vs. 67.2% for men and women, respectively) and political representation (members of parliament: men 55%; women 45%), the figures are approaching an equal distribution ( Statistics Norway, 2019 , 2021 ).

Men’s roles are also becoming more equal to those of women, especially in the family domain. Although mothers take longer parental leaves than fathers, in 2017, 70% of fathers stayed at home during the weeks of parental leave reserved for them (10 weeks in 2017) or took an even greater share of the total parental leave period ( Statistics Norway, 2017 ). Thus, the present study was conducted within a national and cultural context of high, but far from perfect, equality between women and men.

Materials and Methods

To investigate stereotypes of subgroups of women and men, we first conducted a pilot study to compile a list of contemporary gender subgroups in Norwegian society. Next, in the main study, subgroups identified in the pilot study were rated on warmth and competence.

Pilot Study

Participants ( N  = 60) were approached in public places in the city center of Bergen, Norway, and asked to take part in a short survey about which groups they experience that women and men in society are divided in to. Among the participants, 50.0% were women. A 48.3% were men (one participant did not answer the question about sex/gender 2 ) and the mean age was 29.58 ( SD = 13.75, range 18–79). The majority (90.0%) did not have an immigrant background. The remainder had either immigrated themselves (6.7%) or were Norwegian born to one or two immigrant parents (1.7%). One participant did not answer the background question.

The instruction to the participants was as: ‘There are many different “types” of women in today’s society. Please write down as many different types of women (e.g., mothers of small children, businesswomen) as you can think of.’ The rest of the page was left blank for the participant to write on. On a separate page, an identical instruction referring to types of men was presented. The order of presentation was counterbalanced so that half the participants listed women first, the other half listed men first.

On average, the participants listed 7.28 different types of women ( SD  = 4.07, range 0–21) and 7.42 different types of men ( SD  = 4.47, range 0–24). Three criteria were employed to determine which groups would be chosen as stimulus groups in the main study: (a) the group had to be mentioned by at least four participants, (b) we sought to have groups from different social roles and categories (e.g., groups defined by family and professional roles and sexual orientations), and (c) we wanted to ensure that we had parallel male and female subgroups (e.g., male politicians and female politicians, single mothers, and single fathers) to facilitate comparisons of men and women occupying the same social role and category. Our choice that a groups should be mentioned by four participants was informed by prior published work (e.g., Lee and Fiske, 2006 ; Durante et al., 2013 ) but was also pragmatic in the sense that a stricter criterion would limit the number of groups included and a more lenient one would involve too many groups to be rated.

Based on these criteria, 19 male subgroups (business men, fathers of small children, police- and firemen, bachelors, rich men, work men, soft men, male students, outdoorsy men, single fathers, handy men, single men, male leaders, old men, gay men, male academics, sporty men, male politicians, and rockers) and 22 subgroups of women (single mothers, female politicians, career women, mothers of small children, nurses, feminists, female students, outdoorsy women, teachers (the female version of the word in Norwegian was used), lesbians, old ladies, bloggers, single women, immigrant women, macho women, babes, female artists, exercise women, female academics, fashion women, housewives, and female leaders) were selected.

Choosing groups in part based on their salience in the pilot sample is not without risks. As Fiske et al. (2002) described, both groups eliciting antipathy and in-groups may be less likely to appear. We recognize that our list of groups is limited in several ways: For example, the list does not contain a full range of sexual orientations (e.g., bisexual women or men are excluded, heterosexuality was not mentioned in the pilot and presumably taken for granted), and “immigrants” were used rather than specifying specific ethnicities or countries of origin. We are not suggesting that our list is representative of the subgroups that women and men may belong to. However, the groups selected are salient in the Norwegian context, and many of the included gender subgroups have been identified in previous research in other national contexts ( Athenstaedt et al., 2008 ).

Participants and Procedure

Similar to the pilot study, participants 3 ( N  = 191) were approached in public places. We collected data in 2014 and 2015, in a town in Northern Norway, in a municipality outside Bergen, and in the Oslo-region, in addition to Bergen city center. Participants were asked to take part in a short survey about how different types of men and women are regarded in Norwegian society. Participants were explicitly instructed to indicate how they believed the groups were viewed by most people, and not to give their personal opinions.

Among the participants, 43.5% were men, 56.0% were women (one participant did not answer the question about sex/gender), and the mean age was 36.84 years ( SD = 16.32, range 17–82). The majority (81.1%) did not have an immigrant background. The remainder had either immigrated themselves (9.4%) or were Norwegian born to one or two immigrant parents (5.8%). Four participants indicated “other background,” three indicated that they did not want to respond to this question, and one did not answer the background question.

Based on the pilot study, the participants rated 42 subgroups of women and men on warmth and competence. 4 This part of the questionnaire consisted of four parts (lists of subgroups of women and men to be rated on warmth and competence), whose order was randomized. Similar to the procedure in Lee and Fiske (2006) , one question measured perceived warmth and competence, respectively. For each list of subgroups, the respondents were asked to “think about how the different groups of women [men] listed below are perceived by people in Norway in general. To what extent do most people view each of the groups as (a) warm (friendly, good natured, and sincere) and (b) competent (confident, capable, and skillful)?” The items were responded to on a scale from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (To a very large extent). Single-item measures of warmth and competence were chosen to allow for a design in which all participants rated all groups. To off-set some of the limitations of using single-item measures, we included additional characteristics in each item (as described above) to convey to the participants the breadth and intended meaning of the “warmth” and “competence” constructs.

Preliminary Analyses

As a preliminary analysis, we explored whether stereotype ratings differed systematically between women and men. We conducted a series of independent samples ( t ) tests (two tailed) and corrected the p -values to control for the familywise error rate with the Holm-Bonferroni correction ( Holm, 1979 ; Gaetano, 2018 ). Across the in total 84 ratings of subgroup warmth and competence, the ratings made by women and men did not differ significantly ( p  > 0.05) in 82 instances (97.6%), suggesting that perceptions of societal subgroup stereotypes are largely similar among women and men. The exception to this pattern was that men rated feminists as significantly less warm and less competent than women did. Given the similarity in women and men’s ratings of the subgroups, our main analyses are not stratified by participant sex/gender.

Stereotypes of Subgroups of Women and Men

First, we provide an overview of the stereotype content of subgroups of women and men across all the subgroups included in the study. The stereotype content of subgroups of women is presented in Table 1 and Figure 1 . Table 1 presents the ratings of warmth and competence for each subgroup of women, and paired samples t -tests (two tailed) comparing each group’s warmth and competence corrected for multiple testing by the Holm-Bonferroni correction ( Holm, 1979 ; Gaetano, 2018 ). With only three exceptions (single women, lesbians, and female artists), all subgroups of women were ambivalently stereotyped. Figure 1 shows that housewives, old ladies, mothers with young children, and single mothers are similarly stereotyped as warm, but not so competent. Female politicians, female leaders, and career women clustered together as competent, but not warm. Babes and bloggers stand out as subgroups stereotyped as cold and incompetent, joined by fashion women, feminists, and macho women in the cold, but not competent quadrant of the SCM space. Immigrant women were rated as average in warmth, but as incompetent. Stereotypes of lesbians, female artists, single women, and exercise women were located in the middle of the SCM space, indicating more moderate perceptions of both warmth and competence. In the warm and competent quadrant of the SCM space, where previous research indicates that “women” as a generic category are located in the Norwegian context ( Bye et al., 2014 ), we find groups based on two very common professional roles for women, nurses, and teachers, but also female students and outdoorsy women.

Table 1 . Warmth and competence means, standard deviations, and paired samples t -tests for subgroups of women.

Figure 1 . Means of warmth and competence for subgroups of women. Dotted lines indicate grand means across subgroups. Please note that the axes in the figure have been truncated.

Table 2 presents the ratings of warmth and competence for each subgroup of men, and paired samples t -tests (two tailed) comparing each group’s warmth and competence corrected for multiple testing by the Holm-Bonferroni correction ( Holm, 1979 ; Gaetano, 2018 ). Stereotypes of subgroups of men along the warmth and competence axes are plotted in Figure 2 . Like the results for the subgroups of women, male politicians, leaders, businessmen, and rich men were stereotyped as competent but cold. Men described as single, bachelors, rockers, or immigrants were viewed as cold, and less competent, although competence scores were significantly higher than warmth ratings for rockers and bachelors. Handy men, work men, sporty men, male students, and male academics were stereotyped as competent and moderately warm, similar to the superordinate category of men in previous research in Norway ( Bye et al., 2014 ). Both fathers of small children and single fathers, along with soft men, were perceived as particularly warm, but less competent. These groups were in the warm but incompetent quadrant of the SCM space, along with gay men and old men.

Table 2 . Warmth and competence means, standard deviations, and paired samples t -tests for subgroups of men.

Figure 2 . Means of warmth and competence for subgroups of men. Dotted lines indicate grand means across subgroups. Please note that the axes in the figure have been truncated.

Together, Figures 1 and 2 provide an overview of stereotypes of subgroups of women and men in Norway.

Women and Men in the Same Social Roles and Categories Across Subgroups

Next, we compared the stereotypes of women and men in the same social roles and categories across several subgroups. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 3 . Paired samples t -tests (two tailed), again corrected for multiple testing by the Holm-Bonferroni correction ( Holm, 1979 ; Gaetano, 2018 ), indicated that warmth ratings of subgroups of women were significantly higher than those of subgroups of men for five out of 12 comparisons (career women, old ladies, immigrant women, female academics, and single women were all rated as relatively warmer than their parallel male subgroups). In six instances, warmth ratings of parallel subgroups of women and men did not differ significantly (mothers and fathers with small children, female and male leaders, female and male students, female and male politicians, exercise/sporty women and men, and outdoorsy women and men). The only comparison in which the warmth rating of a subgroup of men was significantly higher than that of a subgroup of women was in the case of single parents: single fathers were rated as warmer than single mothers.

Table 3 . Means, standard deviations, and comparisons of warmth and competence ratings for parallel subgroups of women and men.

Subgroups of men were rated as more competent than the parallel subgroup of women in two out of 12 comparisons (single fathers and old men were rated as more competent than their parallel female subgroups). In seven comparisons, there was not a significant difference in competence ratings of parallel subgroups (career women and businessmen, female and male leaders, female and male politicians, outdoorsy women and men, exercise women and sporty men, immigrant women and men, and mothers and fathers with small children). Finally, in three comparisons, subgroups of women were rated as higher in competence (single women, female academics and female students versus single men, male academics, and male students, respectively). The position of the parallel subgroups of women and men is presented in Figure 3 .

Figure 3 . Means of warmth and competence for parallel subgroups of women and men. Squares represent subgroups of men; dots represent subgroups of women. Dotted lines indicate grand means across subgroups. Please note that the axes in the figure have been truncated.

Our results provide an overview of stereotypes of gender subgroups in a Norwegian context, answering calls for research beyond the US context ( Sczesny et al., 2019 ). Despite the country’s ranking as one of the world’s most gender equal nations ( World Economic Forum, 2020 ), our results to a large extent resonate with extant research on gender stereotypes ( Ellemers, 2018 ), ambivalent sexism ( Glick and Fiske, 2001 , 2011 ), and social role theory ( Eagly and Wood, 2012 ; Koenig and Eagly, 2014 ). Women and men in care-giving roles traditionally reserved for women are depicted as stereotypically warm and low in competence. Both women and men in traditional male roles (leaders, politicians, and businesspeople) are stereotypically competent and low in warmth. Our results regarding sexual minorities align with other research in finding stereotypes of gay men to indicate high warmth and moderate competence ( Mize and Manago, 2018 ; Klysing et al., 2021 ). With respect to stereotypes of lesbians, we found moderate ascriptions of both competence and warmth, in line with Klysing et al., 2021 (Study 2). Others have indicated stereotypes of lesbians to ambivalent, with higher scores on competence/agency than warmth ( Klysing et al., 2021 , Study 1; Mize and Manago, 2018 ). This may suggest that there is variation in the perceptions of lesbians across national settings, but differences across samples could also reflect methodological issues, such as which other groups participants have rated as these may serve as anchors for the ratings of lesbians.

Moreover, we found that subgroups of women defined by their appearance (“babes”), who make a living in part from their appearance (“bloggers”) or show a marked interest in their appearance (“fashion women”), are likely targets of so-called contemptuous prejudice ( Fiske et al., 2002 ) in Norwegian society. Here, our results correspond with research demonstrating that women facing sexualized or appearance-based objectification are viewed as lower in traits reflective of agency/competence and warmth than non-objectified women ( Morris et al., 2018 ). More specific to the Norwegian context, perhaps, our results show that being outdoorsy appears to be culturally normative for both women and men. This peculiarity noted, our results point to cross-cultural similarity of gender stereotypes at the subgroup level, both in terms of which subgroups were mentioned and to some extent in their associated contents. A systematic cross-cultural study of gender stereotypes at the subgroup level would however be necessary to ascertain this empirically.

We also compared the warmth and competence ratings of women and men occupying the same social roles or sharing a social group membership. The results of these comparisons tell us four important things. First, also at the subgroup level, women are viewed as either warmer, or at least equally warm, compared to men. We documented only one exception to this general pattern, in the case of single fathers being viewed as warmer than single mothers. Thus, although our study was conducted in a different national context than that of Eagly et al. (2020) , our results at the subgroup level are generally consistent with their results concerning the continued stereotyping of women in general as warmer than men. Gustafsson-Sendén et al., (2019) raised the question as to whether communal traits are harder to gain (stereotypically) for those not belonging to the category “woman.” They found that increasing men’s participation in communal roles (i.e., taking parental leave) did not lead to men in general being perceived as more communal. Our results suggest that it is not the case that subgroups of men cannot be perceived as warm: we found that men are viewed as warm (and at least as warm as women) when they occupy the role of father or enter professions that involve the protection of others (police and firemen). Similarly, other researchers have also found that stereotypes of fathers are dynamic and increasingly include “maternal” (warm) traits ( Banchefsky and Park, 2016 ). Rather, our results suggest that warmth appears to be harder for women to lose. When women enter traditionally masculine roles, they are seen as colder than women in general, but not as cold as men in the same role. We find this pattern for career women, female academics, and (albeit not statistically significantly) female leaders and politicians. Paralleling our findings in their study of perceptions of parents, Banchefsky and Park (2016) found that although women and men’s roles as parents were seen as changing, women’s perceived maternal (warm) traits were not perceived to change.

That said, it is not that case that subgroups of women cannot be perceived as cold. The clearest example of this in our data is the subgroup “macho women,” but also other groups of women were rated as relatively cold (e.g., feminist and career women). To the extent that warmth stereotypes can be seen as parallels to femininity or reflective of womanhood, warmth is not indiscriminately ascribed to all types of women in an essentialist way. Relating our findings to the discussion about manhood and womanhood as achieved statuses ( Chrisler, 2013 ; Vandello and Bosson, 2013 ), an interesting path for future research would be to investigate the perceived gender status (womanhood/manhood) of gender subgroups.

Second, our results indicate that competence ratings do not show the same consistency as ratings of warmth. Depending on the subgroups in question, the subgroups of women were rated as lower, equal, or higher in competence than the parallel subgroups of men. In roles associated with academia, politics, leadership, and business, women were rated as high or higher in competence than men. Men were rated as more competent than their female counterparts in the case of old men and single fathers. Again, this is consistent with the results of Eagly et al. (2020) with respect to women in general being perceived as equally (or more) competent as men. Thus, for both warmth and competence, our results at the subgroup level are broadly consistent with research indicating that current stereotypes of women and men converge on constructs related to the competence dimension and remain divergent for constructs related to warmth ( Diekman and Eagly, 2000 ; Gustafsson-Sendén et al., 2019 ; Eagly et al., 2020 ). Martin and Slepian (2021 , p. 1149) argue that “conceptions of competence vary according to the demands of the environment and thus easily shift depending on the goals that become valued.” Competence, they argue is a fundamental dimension of social perception “only to the extent that it is conflated with masculinity, dominance, and the agentic goals that have previously been needed and valued in the course of human evolution.” This could be an explanation of the seemingly higher degree of flexibility in competence perceptions. Future research should explore how intersecting gender with social roles and social categories impact on the ascription of traits and characteristics in the broader domain of agency/masculinity.

Third, our results show that when taking a broader perspective, women and men in the same social role were in the near vicinity of each other in the SCM space (see Figure 3 ). This is also true of the cases in which women and men in the same social role were rated as differing significantly in warmth or competence. Irrespective of their gender, businesspeople are broadly stereotyped as competent, but cold; parents are warm and academics competent. This attests both to the pervasiveness of the impact of role information on gender stereotypes ( Eagly and Steffen, 1984 ; Eagly and Wood, 2012 ) and to the usefulness of studying stereotypes of gender subgroups within the general framework of the Stereotype Content Model ( Fiske et al., 2002 ; Fiske et al., 2007 ). It also fits well with the emphasis in intersectional perspectives on the dynamic and fluid nature of social categorizations or positions ( Else-Quest and Hyde, 2016 ). The characteristics associated with women and men are closely related to, and vary across, other category memberships (e.g., age and sexual orientation) and social roles (e.g., professional roles and parental status).

Fourth, for the subgroups created by the crossing of two social group memberships (i.e., gender and immigration status and gender and age), there is a tendency of larger effect sizes when comparing stereotypes of subgroups of women and men, than what we generally observed for subgroups created by the intersection of gender with a social role. Our study contained too few social category-by-gender subgroups to establish whether this is a consistent pattern, but it may be: Whereas social roles are expectations to incumbents of a social position in specific settings (e.g., at work), social group memberships based on demographic characteristics (e.g., age) have trans-situational implications ( Koenig and Eagly, 2014 , p. 372). How gender stereotypes are influenced may vary depending on whether gender is combined with a social group membership or with a social role. This could be investigated in future research by explicitly comparing subgroups created by combining gender with roles (e.g., gender and leadership), other social group memberships (e.g., gender and age), and both a role and a group membership (e.g., gender, age, and leadership). Whether gender, role, or other social category memberships more strongly impact stereotype ratings may also be impacted by individual differences in gender essentialism ( Lee et al., 2020 ) and could be investigated in future work.

A limitation of the present study is the use of convenience rather than random samples. This is partly mitigated by the fact that we collected data from several geographic locations and from the public rather than a student sample. Moreover, our preliminary analyses demonstrated similarities in the perceptions of society’s view of subgroups of men and women reported by women and men (as participants). This points to a lack of impact of demographic variables on ratings of gender stereotypes as seen from the perspective of society. In line with this assertion, in a recent review of research on the Stereotype Content Model, Fiske (2018 , p. 69) writes:

Because respondents report society’s views, this minimizes social desirability concerns, and it means that samples need not be representative, because everyone knows the society’s stereotypes of common groups (compare the representative sample in Cuddy et al., 2007 , with the convenience samples in Fiske et al., 2002 ). Individual differences and in-group favoritism are rare.

Another limitation is our focus on competence rather than the broader construct of agency (encompassing both assertiveness and competence; Abele et al., 2016 ). We have also focused exclusively on positive traits (warmth and competence) and did not include negative characteristics previously included in research on gender stereotypes (see, e.g., Diekman and Eagly, 2000 ). Considering the number of groups our participants had to rate, we were limited in the number of measures we could include. However, we recognize that including a broader set of measures would have allowed for a more fine-grained analysis.

We also opted for a design in which all participants rated all subgroups, with the advantage of increased statistical power compared to a between-groups design (i.e., where smaller subsets of participants rate a random subset of groups). This was the background for the decision to measure warmth and competence with single items, following Lee and Fiske (2006) . We recognize that our measures may not cover the full breadth of the warmth and competence constructs, even though the inclusion of “friendly, good natured, and sincere” in parentheses following “warm” and “confident, capable, and skillful” following “competent” may have given out participants an acceptable understanding of warmth and competence as global constructs. An alternative approach would have been to employ a three-item or four-item measure of warmth and competence (as commonly seen in between-groups designs). With 42 groups, however, this would lead participants to make 252–336 ratings. Given the time required and repetitive nature of the task, we suspect that this would have caused participant fatigue and hurt the validity of the ratings.

There is also the issue of statistical power, given the moderate size of our sample. G*Power version 3.1.9.4 ( Faul et al., 2007 ) was used to conduct a sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect sizes that could be detected in our data. The smallest n in the comparisons between parallel subgroups was 116. With that sample size, we could detect mean differences with an effect of d z  = 0.26 at power = 0.80 ( α  = 0.05, two tailed). For most of our statistical tests, the sample size is ≥185. With a sample of 185, we could detect mean differences with an effect of d z  = 0.21 at power = 0.80 ( α  = 0.05, two tailed).

Finally, our study addresses perceptions, and not behaviors directed toward, gender subgroups. The Behavior from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes Map ( Cuddy et al., 2007 ) describe how warmth and competence perceptions trigger different types of emotional prejudices and intergroup behaviors along axes of facilitation and harm. This, combined with insights into the prescriptive nature of gender stereotypes ( Ellemers, 2018 ), may be used as a framework for comparing the facets of gender-based prejudice and discrimination women and men belonging to different social groups and enacting different roles may experience. Also studies in other disciplines point to the value of stereotype content for predicting social behaviors toward social groups more generally (e.g., Jenkins et al., 2018 ).

These limitations noted, we believe the present study has several contributions. We have provided a rich description of stereotypes of gender subgroups in Norway, adding to our knowledge about the Scandinavian context ( Gustafsson-Sendén et al., 2019 ; Klysing et al., 2021 ) and answering calls for research in a broader range of cultural contexts ( Sczesny et al., 2019 ). We have shown that stereotypes at the subgroup level are consistent with research indicating that current gender stereotypes converge on constructs related to the competence dimension and remain divergent for constructs related to warmth ( Eagly et al., 2020 ), contributing to the understanding of stereotype change. Finally, our study shows the relevance of studying multiple gender subgroups simultaneously and combining the stereotype content model, social role theory, and intersectional perspectives in the study of gender stereotypes.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

HB, VS, MF, and MA contributed to the conception and design of the study. VS, MF, and MA collected the data. HB performed the statistical analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

The open access publication of this paper is funded by the University of Bergen.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. ^ It is important to note that within the SCM framework, the labels warmth and competence are used, rather than the terms communion and agency commonly employed in research on gender stereotypes ( Ellemers, 2018 ). Warmth, as operationalized within the SCM, is largely synonymous with communion, including both traits indicative of warmth/sociability and morality (e.g., sincere). The competence dimension may be viewed as a facet of agency, which also encompasses traits related more to assertiveness ( Abele et al., 2016 ; Eagly et al., 2020 ).

2. ^ In Norwegian, the participants were asked to indicate “Kjønn.” This term is used both to refer to “sex” and “gender,” and does not distinguish between biological, social, cultural or identity aspects of sex and gender. The response options were “Man” and “Woman,” and we regret not including more response options to this question.

3. ^ For the main study, we collected data from two samples. The first sample ( n = 70) was on average quite young and had a majority of participants who identified as women and we wanted to obtain a more age and gender-balanced total sample of respondents, which led to the expansion of data collection with a second sample ( n = 121). Financial and pragmatic issues contributed to a gap of a few months between the collection of data from sample 1 and 2.

4. ^ The measures were identical in the two sub samples of the main sample, with two exceptions. Due to an unfortunate error, “female leaders” was not included in the main questionnaire in the first sub-sample and was added to the list of groups in the questionnaire in the second sub sample. While “immigrant men” were only mentioned twice in the pilot, and therefore not originally included, we took the opportunity to include this group in the second round of data collection to have a parallel subgroup to “immigrant women.”

Abele, A. E., Hauke, N., Peters, K., Louvet, E., Szymkow, A., and Duan, Y. (2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: agency with competence and assertiveness—communion with warmth and morality. Front. Psychol. 7:1810. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Athenstaedt, U., Heinzle, C., and Lerchbaumer, G. (2008). Gender subgroup self-categorization and gender role self-concept. Sex Roles 58, 266–278. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9288-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Banchefsky, S., and Park, B. (2016). The “New Father”: dynamic stereotypes of fathers. Psychol. of Men and Masculinity 17, 103–107. doi: 10.1037/a0038945

Bhatia, N., and Bhatia, S. (2021). Changes in gender stereotypes over time: a computational analysis. Psychol. Women Q. 45, 106–125. doi: 10.1177/0361684320977178

Bosak, J., Sczesny, S., and Eagly, A. H. (2012). The impact of social roles on trait judgments: a critical reexamination. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38, 429–440. doi: 10.1177/0146167211427308

Bye, H. H., Herrebrøden, H., Hjetland, G. J., Røyset, G. O., and Westby, L. L. (2014). Stereotypes of Norwegian social groups. Scand. J. Psychol. 55, 469–476. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12141

Chrisler, J. C. (2013). Womanhood is not as easy as it seems: femininity requires both achievement and restraint. Psychol. Men Masculinity 14, 117–120. doi: 10.1037/a0031005

Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., and Wick, B. (1976). Stereotypes of woman: a single category? Sex Roles 2, 135–148. doi: 10.1007/BF00287246

Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. Am. Psychol. 64, 170–180. doi: 10.1037/a0014564

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Univ. Chic. Leg. Forum 1989:8.

Google Scholar

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., and Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. J. Soc. Issues 60, 701–718. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., and Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 631–648. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631

Cuddy, A. J. C., Wolf, E. B., Glick, P., Crotty, S., Chong, J., and Norton, M. I. (2015). Men as cultural ideals: cultural values moderate gender s,tereotype content. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 622–635. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000027

Deux, K., and LaFrance, M. (1998). “Gender,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology . Vol. 1, 4th Edn. eds. D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (New York: McGraw-Hill), 788–827.

Diekman, A. B., and Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past, present, and future. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 1171–1188. doi: 10.1177/0146167200262001

Diekman, A. B., Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., and Ferreira, M. C. (2005). Dynamic stereotypes about women and men in Latin America and the United States. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 36, 209–226. doi: 10.1177/0022022104272902

Durante, F., Fiske, S. T., Kervyn, N., Cuddy, A. J. C., Akande, A., Adetoun, B. E., et al. (2013). Nations’ income inequality predicts ambivalence in stereotype content: how societies mind the gap. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 52, 726–746. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12005

Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., and Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. Am. Psychol. 75, 301–315. doi: 10.1037/amp0000494

Eagly, A. H., and Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46, 735–754. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.46.4.735

Eagly, A. H., and Wood, W. (2012). “Social role theory.” in Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology . eds. P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., and Diekman, A. B. (2000). “Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: a current appraisal,” in The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender . eds. T. Eckes and H. M. Trautner (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 123–174.

Eckes, T. (1994). Features of men, features of women – assessing stereotypic beliefs about gender subtypes. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 33, 107–123. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01013.x

Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles 47, 99–114. doi: 10.1023/a:1021020920715

Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 69, 275–298. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719

Else-Quest, N. M., and Hyde, J. S. (2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: I. theoretical and epistemological issues. Psychol. of Women Quarterly 40, 155–170. doi: 10.1177/0361684316629797

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., and Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146

Fiske, S. T. (2018). Stereotype content: warmth and competence endure. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27, 67–73. doi: 10.1177/0963721417738825

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., and Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., and Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 878–902. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878

Gaetano, J. (2018). Holm-Bonferroni sequential correction: An excel calculator (1.3) [Microsoft excel workbook]. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322569220_Holm-Bonferroni_sequential_correction_An_Excel_calculator_13 (Accessed December 13, 2019).

Ghavami, N., and Peplau, L. A. (2013). An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: testing three hypotheses. Psychol. Women Q. 37, 113–127. doi: 10.1177/0361684312464203

Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 33, 115–188. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2601(01)80005-8

Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychol. Women Q. 35, 530–535. doi: 10.1177/0361684311414832

Gustafsson-Sendén, M., Eagly, A., and Sczesny, S. (2020). Of caring nurses and assertive police officers: social role information overrides gender stereotypes in linguistic behavior. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11, 743–751. doi: 10.1177/1948550619876636

Gustafsson-Sendén, M., Klysing, A., Lindqvist, A., and Renström, E. A. (2019). The (not so) changing man: dynamic gender stereotypes in Sweden. Front. Psychol. 10:37. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00037

Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., and Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing … or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychol. Women Q. 40, 353–363. doi: 10.1177/0361684316634081

Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., and Peus, C. V. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: a current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Front. Psychol. 10:11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2:1014. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6, 65–70.

Jenkins, A. C., Karashchuk, P., Zhu, L., and Hsu, M. (2018). Predicting human behavior toward members of different social groups. PNAS 115, 9696–9701. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1719452115

Kang, S. K., and Bodenhausen, G. V. (2015). Multiple identities in social perception and interaction: challenges and opportunities. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 547–574. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015025

Klysing, A., Lindqvist, A., and Björklund, F. (2021). Stereotype content at the intersection of gender and sexual orientation. Front. Psychol. 12:713839. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713839

Koenig, A. M., and Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 371–392. doi: 10.1037/a0037215

Lee, T. L., and Fiske, S. T. (2006). Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: immigrants in the stereotype content model. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 30, 751–768. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.005

Lee, K. Y., Reis, H. T., and Rogge, R. D. (2020). Seeing the world in pink and blue: developing and exploring a new measure of essentialistic thinking about gender. Sex Roles 83, 685–705. doi: 10.1007/s11199-020-01141-1

Martin, A. E., and Slepian, M. L. (2021). The primacy of gender: gendered cognition underlies the big two dimensions of social cognition. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16, 1143–1158. doi: 10.1177/1745691620904961

Mize, T. D., and Manago, B. (2018). The stereotype content of sexual orientation. Social Currents 5, 458–478. doi: 10.1177/2329496518761999

Morris, K. L., Goldenberg, J., and Boyd, P. (2018). Women as animals, women as objects: evidence for two forms of objectification. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44, 1302–1314. doi: 10.1177/0146167218765739

Pattyn, S., Rosseel, Y., Van Overwalle, F., and Van Hiel, A. (2015). Social classification occurs at the subgroup level evidence based on a multidimensional scaling study. Soc. Psychol. 46, 13–23. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000217

Purdie-Vaughns, V., and Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: the distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles 59, 377–391. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4

Rosenthal, L., and Lobel, M. (2016). Stereotypes of black American women related to sexuality and motherhood. Psychol. Women Q. 40, 414–427. doi: 10.1177/0361684315627459

Rosette, A. S., and Tost, L. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: how role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 221–235. doi: 10.1037/a0018204

Schneider, M. C., and Bos, A. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Polit. Psychol. 35, 245–266. doi: 10.1111/pops.12040

Sczesny, S., Nater, C., and Eagly, A. H. (2019). “Agency and communion. Their implications for gender stereotypes and gender identities,” in Agency and Communion in Social Psychology . eds. A. E. Abele and B. Wojciszke (London: Routledge), 103–116.

Statistics Norway (2017). Fedrekvoten – mer populær enn noen gang [Paternal leave - more popular than ever]. Available at: https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/fedrekvoten-mer-populaer-enn-noen-gang--298200 (Accessed November 12, 2019).

Statistics Norway (2019). Fakta om likestilling [Facts about gender equality]. Available at: https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/faktaside/likestilling (Accessed November 12, 2019).

Statistics Norway (2021). Fakta om valg [Facts about elections]. Available at: https://www.ssb.no/valg/faktaside/valg (Accessed February 14, 2021).

Steinmetz, J., Bosak, J., Sczesny, S., and Eagly, A. H. (2014). Social role effects on gender stereotyping in Germany and Japan. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 17, 52–60. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12044

Vandello, J. A., and Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: a review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychol. Men Masculinity 14, 101–113. doi: 10.1037/a0029826

Wade, M. L., and Brewer, M. B. (2006). The structure of female subgroups: an exploration of ambivalent stereotypes. Sex Roles 54, 753–765. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9043-x

Williams, J. E., and Best, D. L. (1982). “Pancultural similarities,” in Measuring Sex Stereotypes. A Thirty-Nation Study (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 225–245.

Wood, W., and Eagly, A. H. (2010). “Gender,” in Handbook of Social Psychology . eds. S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey Vol. 1. 5th Edn (New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.), 629–667.

Wood, W., and Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology . eds. J. M. Olson and M. P. Zanna New York: Academic Press. 46, 55–123.

World Economic Forum (2020). Global Gender Gap Report 2020. Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2021).

Keywords: gender stereotypes, warmth, stereotype content model, social role theory, intersectionality, competence

Citation: Bye HH, Solianik VV, Five M and Agai MS (2022) Stereotypes of Women and Men Across Gender Subgroups. Front. Psychol . 13:881418. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.881418

Received: 25 February 2022; Accepted: 24 March 2022; Published: 28 April 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Bye, Solianik, Five and Agai. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Hege H. Bye, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

POW Chapter 6 Quiz

Students also viewed