Across five studies and one supplementary study (five preregistered; N = 3,215 adults), we found that men, more than women, avoided shared experiences (e.g., going to the movies, sharing food) with individuals of the same gender. Furthermore, persistent societal expectations that men should be unambiguously heterosexual underpinned this pattern: Men felt more apprehensive about signaling same-gender romance in platonic relationships than women did. In turn, romantic prototypicality drove the pattern of men (more than women) avoiding shared activities, above and beyond differences in how hedonic, enjoyable, and feminine the activities were; our findings further suggested that men’s reluctance to share these experiences was due to pressure to conform to societal expectations rather than solely a personal preference. This research offers insight into how, despite evolving societal attitudes, heterosexual norms can lead men to make suboptimal consumption decisions and to forgo opportunities to connect with other men, ultimately perpetuating a stigma against intimacy between men.
AdamczykA.LiaoY.-C. (2019). Examining public opinion about LGBTQ-related issues in the United States and across multiple nations. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022332
2.
AndersonE.McCormackM. (2016). The changing dynamics of bisexual men’s lives: Social research perspectives. Springer.
3.
AnzaniA.DecaroS. P.PrunasA. (2023). Trans masculinity: Comparing trans masculine individuals’ and cisgender men’s conformity to hegemonic masculinity. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 20(2), 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00677-5
4.
AukettR.RitchieJ.MillK. (1988). Gender differences in friendship patterns. Sex Roles, 19, 57–66.
5.
BankB. J.HansfordS. L. (2000). Gender and friendship: Why are men’s best same-sex friendships less intimate and supportive?Personal Relationships, 7(1), 63–78.
6.
BossonJ. K.Prewitt-FreilinoJ. L.TaylorJ. N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 552–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.552
7.
BossonJ. K.TaylorJ. N.Prewitt-FreilinoJ. L. (2006). Gender role violations and identity misclassification: The roles of audience and actor variables. Sex Roles, 55, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9056-5
8.
BrysbaertM. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 1–38.
9.
ButlerJ. (2024). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. In The Performance Studies Reader (pp. 186–196).
10.
ChenE. J. (2012). Caught in a bad bromance. Texas Journal of Women and the Law, 21, 241–266.
11.
CheryanS.MarkusH. R. (2020). Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1022–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000209
12.
ConnellR. W.MesserschmidtJ. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859.
DiefendorfS.BridgesT. (2019). The shifting relationship between masculinity and homophobia. In L. Gottzen, U. Mellstom, & T. Shefer (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of masculinity studies (pp. 233–243). Routledge.
15.
DiefendorfS.BridgesT. (2020). On the enduring relationship between masculinity and homophobia. Sexualities, 23(7), 1264–1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460719876843
16.
DiMuccioS. H.KnowlesE. D. (2020). The political significance of fragile masculinity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.010
FraserG. (2018). Evaluating inclusive gender identity measures for use in quantitative psychological research. Psychology & Sexuality, 9(4), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2018.1497693
20.
GalD.WilkieJ. (2010). Real men don’t eat quiche: Regulation of gender-expressive choices by men. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 1(4), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610365003
21.
Garcia-RadaX.KimT. (2021). Shared time scarcity and the pursuit of extraordinary experiences. Psychological Science, 32(12), 1871–1883. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211026981
22.
Garcia-RadaX.NortonM. I.RatnerR. K. (2024). A desire to create shared memories increases consumers’ willingness to sacrifice experience quality for togetherness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 34, 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1352
23.
GilV. (2023, July12). Missing out: What’s going on with male friendships? Review and discussion of male friendships in the 21st Century—Change and stasis. On Knowing Humanity Journal, 8(1), 26–46.
24.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
25.
HerekG. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scientist, 29(5), 563–577.
26.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
27.
LewisR. A. (1978). Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of Social Issues, 34(1), 108–121.
28.
LiT. (2022). The impact of advertising exposure on the gendered perceptions of men with mental health concerns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 39(6), 610–620. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2021-4394
29.
LiuP. J.DallasS. K.FitzsimonsG. J. (2019). A framework for understanding consumer choices for others. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz009
30.
LorberJ. (2018). The social construction of gender. In GruskyD.HillJ. (Eds.), Inequality in the 21st Century (pp. 347–352). Routledge.
31.
LoweJ. (2019). Masculinizing national service: The cultural reproduction of masculinities and militarization of male citizenship in Singapore. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(6), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1604329
32.
MigliaccioT. (2009). Men’s friendships: Performances of masculinity. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 17(3), 226–241.
33.
MinK. E.LiuP. J.KimS. (2017). Sharing extraordinary experiences fosters feelings of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733077
34.
MishelE.BridgesT.CaudilloM. L. (2022). Google, tell me. Is he gay? Masculinity, heterosexuality, and gendered anxieties in Google search queries about sexuality. Sociological Perspectives, 65(2), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/07311214211001906
35.
MizeT. D.ManagoB. (2018). Precarious sexuality: How men and women are differentially categorized for similar sexual behavior. American Sociological Review, 83(2), 305–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418759544
36.
MorgenrothT.RyanM. K. (2021). The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1113–1142.
37.
MunschC. L.GruysK. (2018). What threatens, defines: Tracing the symbolic boundaries of contemporary masculinity. Sex Roles, 79(7), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0878-0
38.
NikolovaH.LambertonC. (2016). Men and the middle: Gender differences in dyadic compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 355–371.
39.
NielsenJ. M.WaldenG.KunkelC. A. (2000). Gendered heteronormativity: Empirical illustrations in everyday life. Sociological Quarterly, 41(2), 283–296. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4121025
40.
OfosuE. K.ChambersM. K.ChenJ. M.HehmanE. (2019). Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced implicit and explicit antigay bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(18), 8846–8851. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806000116
41.
OsbornM. (2025). Groomers, gays, and gender ideology: Why the anti-LGBTQIA+ legislative backlash is a moral panic and why criminologists should care. Punishment & Society, 27(5), 959–983.
42.
Prewitt-FreilinoJ. L.BossonJ. K. (2008). Defending the self against identity misclassification. Self and Identity, 7(2), 168–183.
43.
RatnerR. K.HamiltonR. W. (2015). Inhibited from bowling alone. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 266–283.
44.
RidgewayC. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
45.
RidgewayC. L.CorrellS. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510–531.
46.
RobinsonS.AndersonE.WhiteA. (2018). The bromance: Undergraduate male friendships and the expansion of contemporary homosocial boundaries. Sex Roles, 78(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0768-5
47.
RudolphK. D.DodsonJ. F. (2022). Gender differences in friendship values: Intensification at adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 42(4), 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316211051948
48.
RussellE. M.IckesW.TaV. P. (2018). Women interact more comfortably and intimately with gay men—but not straight men—after learning their sexual orientation. Psychological Science, 29(2), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617733803
49.
SapadinL. A. (1988, August12–16). Gender and friendships: Hers and his, same-sex and cross-sex. The Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA, USA.
50.
SchermerhornN. E.VescioT. K. (2022). Perceptions of a sexual advance from gay men leads to negative affect and compensatory acts of masculinity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2775
51.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2013, January17–19). Life after p-hacking. Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2205186
StanalandA.GaitherS. (2021). “Be a man”: The role of social pressure in eliciting men’s aggressive cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(11), 1596–1611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220984298
54.
StanalandA.GaitherS.Gassman-PinesA. (2023). When is masculinity “fragile”? An expectancy-discrepancy-threat model of masculine identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(4), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221141176
55.
TangS.QuahS. E. L. (2018). Heteronormativity and sexuality politics in Singapore: The female-headed households of divorced and lesbian mothers. Journal of Sociology, 54(4), 647–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317742530
56.
TankardM. E.PaluckE. L. (2017). The effect of a Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage on social norms and personal attitudes. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1334–1344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617709594
57.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826
58.
VialA. C.MuradogluM.NewmanG. E.CimpianA. (2022). An emphasis on brilliance fosters masculinity-contest cultures. Psychological Science, 33(4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211044133
59.
WatsonO. M. (1968). Proxemic behavior: A cross-cultural study. University of Colorado at Boulder.
60.
WongY. J.Ringo HoM.-H.WangS.-Y.FisherA. R. (2016). Subjective masculine norms among university students in Singapore: A mixed-methods study. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039025
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.
