Gender rules, that is, prescriptive and proscriptive gender stereotypes, dictate how women and men should and should not be, and thereby perpetuate the gender hierarchy that privileges men over women. Across seven nations that span the continuum of gender equality, we investigated gender status norms by identifying the extent to which gender rules correspond with social status beliefs. As expected, in all investigated nations, participants (N = 4,327) believed that men should not show low-status traits reflecting weakness (e.g., weak, naive) but should show high-status traits reflecting agency (e.g., leadership ability, ambitious). Correlational analyses found that the more gender-equal a nation, the more men's agency prescriptions were aligned with high-status and their weakness proscriptions with low-status characteristics. Moreover, participants believed that women should not show high-status traits reflecting dominance (e.g., dominant, demanding) in the United States, Turkey, India, and Ghana—that is, in the relatively less gender-equal nations. Yet, no trait was proscribed for women in the relatively more gender-equal nations of Switzerland and Sweden. The status alignment of women's prescriptions and proscriptions did not relate to nations’ achieved gender equality. We discuss how the alignment of men's gender rules with status beliefs represents a hidden barrier to achieving full gender equality.
AbeleA. E.EllemersN.FiskeS. T.KochA.YzerbytV. (2021). Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychological Review, 128(2), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000262
2.
AyentimiD. T.AbadiH. A.AdjeiB.BurgessJ. (2020). Gender equity and inclusion in Ghana; good intentions, uneven progress. Labour and Industry, 30(1), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2019.1697486
3.
BahamondesJ.SibleyC. G.OsborneD. (2022). System justification or social dominance? A multilevel test of the ideological motivators of perceived discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(7), 1134–1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211036020
4.
BakanD. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Rand McNally.
BlackburnR. M.JarmanJ.BrooksB. (2000). The puzzle of gender segregation and inequality: A cross-national analysis. European Sociological Review, 16(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/16.2.119
7.
BossonJ. K.JurekP.VandelloJ. A.Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.OlechM.BestaT.BenderM.HoorensV.BeckerM.Timur SevincerA.BestD. L.SafdarS.WłodarczykA.ZawiszaM.ŻadkowskaM.AbuhamdehS.Badu AgyemangC.AkbaşG.Albayrak-AydemirN., …, ŽukauskienėR. (2021). Psychometric properties and correlates of precarious manhood beliefs in 62 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(3), 231–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022121997997
8.
BossonJ. K.WilkersonM.Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.JurekP.OlechM. (2022). Harder won and easier lost? Testing the double standard in gender rules in 62 countries. Sex Roles, 87, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01297-y
9.
BredaT.JouiniE.NappC.ThebaultG. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 31063–31069. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008704117
10.
CharlesworthT. E. S.YangV.MannT. C.KurdiB.BanajiM. R. (2021). Gender stereotypes in natural language: Word embeddings show robust consistency across child and adult language corpora of more than 65 million words. Psychological Science, 32(2), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620963619
11.
ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.FoulshamT.KingstoneA.HenrichJ. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030398
12.
CroftA.SchmaderT.BlockK. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789
13.
DiMuccioS. H.KnowlesE. D. (2021). Precarious manhood predicts support for aggressive policies and politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(7), 1169–1187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220963577
EaglyA. H.NaterC.MillerD. I.KaufmannM.SczesnyS. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. Public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494
16.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Sage Publications Ltd.
17.
Else-QuestN. M.GrabeS. (2012). The political is personal measurement and application of nation-level indicators of gender equity in psychological research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312441592
18.
EnglandP.LevineA.MishelE. (2020). Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(13), 6990–6997. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918891117
GlickP.Sakallı-UğurluN.AkbaşG.OrtaİMCeylanS. (2016). Why do women endorse honor beliefs? Ambivalent sexism and religiosity as predictors. Sex Roles, 75(11), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0550-5
GuoJ.BasarkodG.PeralesF.ParkerP. D.MarshH. W.DonaldJ.DickeT.SahdraB. K.CiarrochiJ.HuX.LonsdaleC.SandersT.del Pozo CruzB. (2024). The equality paradox: Gender equality intensifies male advantages in adolescent subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(1), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221125619
23.
HainesS.NaterC.SczesnyS. (2024). Creating a system that cares: A PRISMA review and road map to increase men’s representation in early childhood education and care. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 25(4), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000486
HeilmanM. E.WallenA. S. (2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 664–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.008
26.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
27.
HodsonG.EarleM.CraigM. A. (2022). Privilege lost: How dominant groups react to shifts in cultural primacy and power. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 25(3), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211070524
JacksonE. F.BusseyK. (2020). Under pressure: Differentiating adolescents’ expectations regarding stereotypic masculine and feminine behavior. Sex Roles, 83(5), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01113-0
30.
JarmanJ.BlackburnR. M.RackoG. (2012). The dimensions of occupational gender segregation in industrial countries. Sociology, 46(6), 1003–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511435063
31.
JostJ. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 263–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12297
KervynN.FiskeS. T.YzerbytV. Y. (2013). Integrating the stereotype content model (warmth and competence) and the Osgood semantic differential (evaluation, potency, and activity). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 673–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1978
34.
KnightC. R.BrintonM. C. (2017). One egalitarianism or several? Two decades of gender-role attitude change in Europe. American Journal of Sociology, 122(5), 1485–1532. https://doi.org/10.1086/689814
35.
KoenigA. M. (2018). Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children, adults, and the elderly. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01086
36.
Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.SawickiA.CelikkolG.BossonJ. K.Van LaarC.Van RossumA.BestD.JurekP.BestaT.OlechM.GlickP. (2024). Does culture moderate gender stereotypes? Individualism predicts communal (but not agentic) prescriptions for men across 62 nations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231221913
37.
KuchynkaS. L.BossonJ. K.VandelloJ. A.PuryearC. (2018). Zero-sum thinking and the masculinity contest: Perceived intergroup competition and workplace gender bias. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12281
38.
LeeI.-C.PrattoF.JohnsonB. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group based hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 1029–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025410
39.
LeonardelliG. J.PickettC. L.BrewerM. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. In ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 63–113). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43002-6
40.
LeungA. K.-Y.CohenD. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022151
41.
LevanonA.GruskyD. B. (2016). The persistence of extreme gender segregation in the twenty-first century. American Journal of Sociology, 122(2), 573–619. https://doi.org/10.1086/688628
42.
LovakovA.AgadullinaE. R. (2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2752
43.
MaA.RosetteA. S.KovalC. Z. (2022). Reconciling female agentic advantage and disadvantage with the CADDIS measure of agency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2115–2148. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000550
44.
Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.RudmanL. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018093
45.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
OffG. (2023). Gender equality salience, backlash and radical right voting in the gender-equal context of Sweden. West European Politics, 46(3), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2022.2084986
48.
OffG.CharronN.AlexanderA. (2022). Who perceives women’s rights as threatening to men and boys? Explaining modern sexism among young men in Europe. Frontiers in Political Science, 4, 909811. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.909811
49.
OwuamalamC. K.CaricatiL.BonettiC. (2024). A large-scale test of the reality constraint and ingroup bias accounts of women’s support for male privilege. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 48(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231176222
50.
ParthA.-M. (2022). Backlash by men against the socio-economic and political promotion of women in Europe. Social Sciences, 11(10), 428. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100428
51.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
52.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2004). Sustaining cultural beliefs in the face of their violation: The case of gender stereotypes. In SchallerM.CrandallC. S. (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture (pp. 259–280). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
53.
RidgewayC. L.BourgC. (2004). Gender as status: An expectation states theory approach. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), The psychology of gender (pp. 217–241). The Guilford Press.
54.
RidgewayC. L.CorrellS. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265269
55.
RidgewayC. L.MarkusH. R. (2022). The significance of Status: What it is and how it shapes inequality. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 8(6), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2022.8.6.01
56.
RiosK.SosaN.OsbornH. (2018). An experimental approach to intergroup threat theory: Manipulations, moderators, and consequences of realistic vs. symbolic threat. European Review of Social Psychology, 29(1), 212–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1537049
57.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.GlickP.PhelanJ. E. (2012a). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In DevineP. G.PlantE. A. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 167–227). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00004-4
58.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012b). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
59.
RuthigJ. C.KehnA.GamblinB. W.VanderzandenK.JonesK. (2017). When women’s gains equal men’s losses: Predicting a zero-sum perspective of gender status. Sex Roles, 76(1–2), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0651-9
60.
Sakallı-UğurluN.GlickP. (2003). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women who engage in premarital sex in Turkey. Journal of Sex Research, 40(3), 296–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552194
61.
SchmaderT.NaterC. (2025). Gender. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.FinkelE. J.MendesW. B. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (6th ed.). Situational Press. https://doi.org/10.70400/AKXO6205
62.
SczesnyS.NaterC.EaglyA. H. (2019). Agency and communion: Their implications for gender stereotypes and gender identities. In AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (Eds.), Agency and communion in social psychology (pp. 103–116). Routledge.
63.
SczesnyS.NaterC.HainesS. (2022). Perceived to be incompetent, but not a risk: Why men are evaluated as less suitable for childcare work than women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(8), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12845
64.
StanalandA.GaitherS.Gassman-PinesA.Galvez-CepedaD.CimpianA. (2024). Adolescent boys’ aggressive responses to perceived threats to their gender typicality. Developmental Science, 27(6), e13544. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13544
StephanW. G.YbarraO.RiosK. (2015). Intergroup threat theory. In Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 255–278). Psychology Press.
67.
StoetG.GearyD. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719
68.
TeigenM.WängnerudL. (2009). Tracing gender equality cultures: Elite perceptions of gender equality in Norway and Sweden. Politics & Gender, 5(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X09000026
UskulA. K.CrossS. E. (2019). The social and cultural psychology of honour: What have we learned from researching honour in Turkey?European Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 39–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1542903
72.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826
73.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K.CohenD.BurnafordR. M.WeaverJ. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
74.
VandelloJ. A.WilkersonM.BossonJ. K.WiernikB. M.Kosakowska-BerezeckaN. (2023). Precarious manhood and men’s physical health around the world. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 24(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000407
75.
VishkinA.SlepianM. L.GalinskyA. D. (2022). The gender-equality paradox and optimal distinctiveness: More gender-equal societies have more gendered names. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211037576
76.
WilliamsJ. E.BestD. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study. Sage.
77.
WilliamsM. J.TiedensL. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039
78.
WongY. L. A.CharlesM. (2020). Gender and occupational segregation. In NaplesN. A. (Ed.), Companion to women’s and gender studies (pp. 303–325). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119315063.ch16
YuW.LeeP. (2013). Decomposing gender beliefs: Cross-national differences in attitudes toward maternal employment and gender equality at home. Sociological Inquiry, 83(4), 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12013
81.
ZehnterM. K.ManziF.ShroutP. E.HeilmanM. E. (2021). Belief in sexism shift: Defining a new form of contemporary sexism and introducing the belief in sexism shift scale (BSS scale). PLoS ONE, 16(3), e0248374. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248374
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
