Reactions to Gender Norm Violations: Individual- and Peer-Level Analyses of Gender Atypicality and Social Exclusion in Adolescence

Abstract

Adolescence is a period marked by the importance of peer-groups and conformity, and thus, deviation from social norms can be particularly sanctioned. In particular, gender norm violations in adolescence have been shown to be linked to several negative outcomes. One possible outcome is social exclusion of gender norm violating adolescents. In the present study, we directly investigated social exclusion, in adolescence, due to gender norm violations, using both self-reports and peer-rating measures. A sample of 310 French adolescents between 11 and 16 years rated themselves and their classmates on measures of social exclusion and gender (a)typicality. Results showed that adolescents’ gender atypicality predicted social exclusion. Theoretical and methodological implications of this study for future research on reactions to gender norm violations are discussed.

Keywords

gender atypicality social exclusion adolescence reactions to gender norm violations

Research into reactions to gender norm violations—(Fine et al., 2024; Hyde et al., 2019)—has been an important area of research within many disciplines of psychology (Li & Wei, 2022; Lobel et al., 2004; Rudman, 1998). Gender norm violations are included in the broader concept of gender atypicality which can refer to a mix of atypical gender expression (i.e., personality traits, preferences, activities that are more typical of the “other gender”) and atypical gender identity (i.e., an identity that is not consistent with one’s biological sex/attributed gender category, Hyde et al., 2019). In the current study, we were interested in the social consequences associated with the degree of misalignment between adolescents’ gender expression and their identity (i.e., gender norm violations; Eareckson & Heilman, 2024; Meimoun et al., 2024). This atypicality in gender expression is not limited to individuals whose gender identity is consistent with their biological sex and can also encompass transgender individuals (Broussard & Warner, 2019). Furthermore, although there exists a plurality of ways that individuals can express and identify themselves along a gender continuum, in this article, we may refer to gender as a binary construct. This is because at the level of the gender system supported by traditional norms and stereotypes, which influence how individuals perceive others, gender is mostly conceived as binary (Means & Morgenroth, 2024; Morgenroth et al., 2024; Morgenroth & Ryan, 2021).

Existing models of reactions to gender norm violations (Meimoun et al., 2024) have argued that individuals’ negative reactions may stem from either a system justification motive (Jost & Banaji, 1994) or social identity motive (Iacoviello et al., 2021; Tajfel, 2010). Specifically, the social identity model suggests that adolescents may exclude atypical adolescents, as this non-conformity to gender-group norms threatens one’s social identity and the distinctiveness between gender groups. The system justification model instead suggests that adolescents’ exclusion of gender norm-violating peers is due to a motivation to perceive social arrangements and norms as the way things should be, ultimately serving the goal of defending the broader (patriarchal) gender system, which rests on traditional gender norms. Regardless of the underlying mechanism, it has been argued that such negative reactions to gender norm violations may be heightened in adolescence due to the crucial role that gender norms play at this age with the onset of heterosexual romantic relationship and the crystallization of gender identity (de Lemus et al., 2010; Hill & Lynch, 1983; Meimoun et al., 2024). So far, research has empirically shown pronounced negative interpersonal consequences due to gender norm violations (Rudman et al., 2012), such as bullying (Gordon et al., 2018), particularly prevalent in adolescence, a period during which an intensification of gender norms can be observed (Hill & Lynch, 1983; Klaczynski et al., 2020). One predicted negative consequence of gender norm violations in adolescence is social exclusion (Mulvey & Killen, 2015; Smith & Leaper, 2006). Yet, such consequences have garnered only limited attention so far. This article addresses this limitation and provides more direct evidence that gender norm violations in adolescence can be associated with social exclusion from peers.

Gender Norm Violation in Adolescence

Classically, research on gender norm violation has shown that gender atypicality leads to more negative social evaluations. For example, experimental research with Israeli adolescents has shown that in the context of a fictional class representative election, gender counter-stereotypical targets were rated as less likable and were less likely to be elected than stereotypical targets (Lobel et al., 2004). Other research has also relied on peer ratings—which involve participants who share a certain connection (i.e., class or school mates, neighbors, family members), evaluating each other—to underscore the consequences of gender norms violations during adolescence and childhood. For instance, by using peer ratings of gender atypicality, popularity, and liking, studies with adolescents from the United States showed that those rated more atypical by their peers were also rated less popular (Jewell & Brown, 2014; Kleiser & Mayeux, 2023) and were less liked by their peers (although this was only true for same-sex liking, Kleiser & Mayeux, 2023). Such negative consequences of gender norm violation have generally been shown to be more pronounced for boys (Jewell & Brown, 2014; Mulvey & Killen, 2015; Sullivan et al., 2018). Indeed, it has been argued that the theoretically higher social status of boys could lead to more rigid gender norms and thus harsher reactions to violations of these norms (Sirin et al., 2004).

However, in recent years, questions of gender diversity and challenges to traditional gender norms have become increasingly widespread, particularly in adolescence (Cover, 2019; Gravillon, 2022). Indeed, western adolescents seem to be more aware than ever of terminology associated with gender diversity (Bragg et al., 2018) and tend to be more accepting of this diversity than previous generations (Parker & Igielnik, 2020). In fact, some recent experimental research has found that French adolescents tend to react rather neutrally to gender norm-violating targets (Meimoun et al., 2023). Given the evolving sociocultural landscape, examining reactions to gender norm violations through ecological methodologies has become imperative. In the present study, using peer ratings, we investigated the link between gender atypicality and social exclusion.

Social Exclusion as a Reaction to Gender Norm Violation in Adolescence

In adolescence, conformity to peer norms is crucial (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Hill & Lynch, 1983), and thus, gender norm violations have been predicted to lead to social exclusion (Hitti et al., 2017). By social exclusion, we mean “being kept apart from others” which includes ostracism or explicit rejection (Hitti et al., 2011; Williams, 2007).

Few studies have examined social exclusion as a potential consequence of gender norm violation. One experiment conducted with United States adolescents showed that participants were more inclined to anticipate exclusion from a peer-group when a hypothetical target deviated from a gender-consistent group norm compared to targets who violated non-gendered group-norms (Mulvey & Killen, 2015, see also Masters et al., 2021). This effect was stronger for atypical boys. However, this study primarily assessed beliefs about exclusion and failed to capture whether social exclusion can be a response to gender atypicality. Another study linked gender atypicality to lower peer acceptance. Adolescents from the United States who felt more atypical reported lower feelings of acceptance (Smith & Leaper, 2006). However, again, this study focused on adolescents’ feelings rather than peer responses.

To sum up, studying social exclusion as a result of gender norm violation is a particularly relevant research question (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Hitti et al., 2017) that has seldom received attention from empirical research. Thus, the current research had two goals: (a) to directly show that adolescents would exclude peers who violate gender norms, by using peer ratings in classroom settings and (b) to replicate the relationship between self-reported atypicality and feelings of exclusion, which to our knowledge, has only been reported in one paper (Smith & Leaper, 2006).

Hypotheses and Current Study

The present research aimed to comprehensively explore the relationship between gender atypicality and social exclusion. Indeed, while past research and theorizing have hinted at the idea that gender norm violation could trigger exclusion from peers, the current study directly tested this hypothesis and did so using both peer ratings and self-reports of gender atypicality and social exclusion. Furthermore, in the current study, we used relative operationalizations of gender atypicality, meaning we measured participants’ similarity to same and other gender peers. In contrast with objective operationalizations—which rely on specific gendered traits and behaviors—relative operationalizations afford several advantages such as contextual sensitivity and more direct access to the construct of gender (a)typicality (Meimoun et al., 2024).

First, to test the exclusionary behaviors of peers toward their classmates, we hypothesized that both peer-rated and self-reported gender atypicality would predict social exclusion expressed by peers (H1a and H1b). Second, to replicate the scarcely found association between gender atypicality and feelings of social exclusion, we predicted that peer-rated atypicality and self-reported atypicality would both be associated with higher feelings of exclusion (H2a and H2b). A final hypothesis considered the moderating role of participants’ gender. Therefore, as suggested by past research presented above, we predicted that the association between gender atypicality and exclusion would be stronger for boys compared to girls (H3).

Method

Ethics and Open Practices

For this study, we validated the social exclusion measures (both self-reported and peer-rated) in a previous study (Institutional Review Board [IRB] no. 2022–91) and included the gender atypicality measures in the current study without seeking additional ethics validation. This was justified by the fact that in France, explicit approval from an ethical committee is not required by national regulation for non-medical/therapeutic research and the fact that we judged that the precautions taken for the social exclusion measures also applied for the gender atypicality measures (we report these precautions in the procedure). Furthermore, we obtained approval from the school direction following the requirements of the French educational authorities about public school data collection. Parents were informed about the study and were given the opportunity to exempt their child from participating. Students were aware that they could refuse to participate or could stop participating at any time, without consequences.

We report below how we determined our sample size, how we evaluated its informational value, as well as all data exclusion criteria and all measures included in the study. For each analysis, we examined the following residuals outliers: studentized deleted residual, Cooks’ distance, and leverage values (see Judd et al., 2017). All data, analysis code, and research materials are available at https://tinyurl.com/yczzb46p. Data were analyzed using R, version 4.2.0 (R Core Team, 2022). Preregistration of the study’s design and analyses is available at https://tinyurl.com/ykvktww7.

Participants

The data in this article were collected as part of a larger study on social exclusion, which included self-reports, peer ratings, and open-ended questions. The open-ended questions prompted adolescents to write how they would respond in certain school situations. The open-ended responses, part of another project, are not discussed here (for more information: https://tinyurl.com/mswz644k). Participants were 310 adolescents from one middle school in France. Data collection was conducted by the third author and a master’s student and took place in person across 17 classes (average class size: 18.2). Participants were aged between 11 and 16 years (M = 13.1, SD = 1.3), with 144 identifying as girls, 164 as boys, and 2 choosing not to identify as either. As preregistered, participants not evaluated by at least 60% of their classmates were excluded from peer-rating analyses (Cillessen & Marks, 2011). Two classes were also excluded due to having fewer than 10 students. This last exclusion criterion was not preregistered but is coherent with the recommendations formulated by Cillessen & Marks (2011) regarding the reliability of peer-judgment measures. Indeed, unreliable peer ratings could negatively impact the validity of the tested hypotheses (Lakens, 2024).¹ Sample size varied between analyses due to our different exclusion criteria, and thus, the smallest sample analyzed contained 241 participants.

Sensitivity Power Analysis

Due to the challenges in recruiting adolescent participants and the complexity of estimating statistical power for multilevel models, we did not conduct an a priori power analysis. Instead, we relied on the available number of students and performed a sensitivity power analysis indicating the smallest detectable effect size for our design with a specific power level. This sensitivity analysis was conducted in R using the simglm package (LeBeau, 2024). Due to exclusion criteria and missing data on some measures, we based our sensitivity analysis on the smallest sample size present in our four main models (N = 241). This analysis revealed that our design had 90% power to detect standardized regression coefficients as small as .29 (equivalent to an $η_{p}^{2}$ of .08) for the main effect of gender atypicality and as small as .41 (equivalent to an $η_{p}^{2}$ of .15) for the interaction between atypicality and participants’ gender. The code to reproduce this analysis can be found at https://tinyurl.com/y5a24xhx.

Materials

This study was fully cross-sectional. No manipulations were included, and four main variables were measured, which we detail in the following section.

Gender Atypicality

Self-reported Gender Atypicality

To measure adolescents’ perception of their own gender atypicality, we presented participants with two items inspired by previous measures of gender (a)typicality (Egan & Perry, 2001). Participants had to rate themselves and then their behaviors and personality on a 5-point bipolar scale ranging from 0 = Completely like other girls my age to 4 = Completely like other boys my age. For analyses, we reversed values for boys so that higher scores would represent higher gender atypicality.

Peer-rated Gender Atypicality

The final measure in our study (in the order presented to participants) was a peer-rating assessment evaluating participants’ perceptions of their peers’ gender atypicality. Each participant was presented with a table containing all of their classmates’ first names. Two versions of this table were created to ensure that the order of first names differed between participants. Participants were asked to assess how closely their peers’ behaviors resembled 0 = Only girls’behavior to 4 = Only boys’ behavior. An additional “I don’t know” option was included, which we treated as a missing response. For each student in a given class, a score was calculated by averaging the ratings from each participant for that particular student. Like the self-reported gender atypicality measure, we reversed values so that higher scores reflected higher gender atypicality perceived by peers, regardless of participants’ gender.

Social Exclusion

Self-reported Social Exclusion

To measure adolescents’ subjective feelings of social exclusion, we used nine items focused on different levels of social exclusion, as a way to capture the varied sources of exclusion that adolescents can be subject to. The first three items interrogated adolescents’ subjective social exclusion broadly, with one item, for example, stating: “I feel that people my age (in and out of school) don’t want to spend time with me.” The next three items prompted participants to report their feelings of social exclusion in school, with items such as: “I feel like other students do not want to spend time with me.” Finally, the last three items asked participants to report their feelings of social exclusion in their class by responding to items such as: “In my class, I feel like students don’t want to spend time with me.” All nine items were answered on 4-point scale ranging from 0 = Not at all true for me to 3 = Very true for me (all items available on the OSF: https://tinyurl.com/mrcfnttm).

Peer-rated Social Exclusion

The first (in the order presented to participants) peer-rated measure was concerned with social exclusion of one’s classmates. Participants saw a similar table as the one presented in the Peer-Rated Gender Atypicality measure. For each classmate, participants had to rate on a 5-point bipolar scale how much they enjoyed/disliked spending time with them. The bipolar nature of our measure allowed for a more precise assessment of social exclusion (beyond the lack of social acceptance) by capturing each student’s sentiments—specifically, their feelings of liking and disliking—toward every other classmate (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2016). This measurement approach is coherent with others used in the literature and has shown to be a reliable indicator of individuals’ social exclusion in peer contexts (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2016, for examples, see also Asher et al., 1979; Ettekal & Ladd, 2020). Each scale anchor was represented by a smiley face whose meaning was explained to participants before the measure. Smileys ranged from a very frowning face to a very smiling face, to visually represent the scale. We also included the option “I have never spent time with this person” (e.g., if students had recently joined the class), and this response was treated as missing data.² In accordance with randomization of students’ names in the previous peer-rated measure, participants consistently saw a different order of names for this measure than the other peer-rating measure. Participants’ ratings of each of their classmates were coded on a scale ranging from −2 = I really like spending time with them to +2 = I really don’t like spending time with them. Participants’ data were computed in a manner similar to the other peer-rated measure, where for each given student, the mean rating from other students was used.³

Procedure

Participants were middle-school students and took part in the study during a 55-minute class session. Participants were given a booklet containing in order: six self-reported social exclusion items (general and school level), the peer-rated social exclusion measure, three self-reported social exclusion items (class level), and open-ended questions. Participants then saw the self-reported gender (a)typicality measure, the peer-rated gender atypicality measures, and finally demographics measures asking their name, an open-ended question where participants specified their gender, age, date of birth, and which class they belonged to. Data collection was collective, but students answered at their own pace. Afterward, participants were thanked, and questions were addressed during a group discussion. Once all classes participated, students were provided with a written debrief explaining the study’s purpose and rationale. The debrief also listed resources (safety hotlines, school contacts, relevant websites) for students feeling excluded or needing to speak with professionals.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Self-Reported Social Exclusion

Following our preregistration, we entered all nine items of self-reported social exclusion into an exploratory factor analysis. Table 1 shows the factorial structure of the nine items.

Table 1.

Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Nine Items of Self-Reported Social Exclusion

Items	Factor
Items	1	Uniqueness
ExcludeSchool2	0.798	0.363
ExcludeSchool1	0.797	0.365
ExcludeGen2	0.776	0.398
ExcludeClass3	0.697	0.514
ExcludeGen1	0.695	0.517
ExcludeClass2	0.658	0.567
ExcludeSchool3	0.514	0.736
ExcludeGen3	0.443	0.803
ExcludeClass1	0.237	0.944

Note. Factor extraction was based on Eigen values above 1 and a “Principal Axis” extraction method was used to deal with the non-normal distribution of some of the items. The self-reported social exclusion items were measured at three different levels, general (Gen), in the school (School), and in the classroom (Class), using three items for each level.

As can be seen, the first item of the scale interrogating social exclusion at the class level did not fit the factorial solution of the other items. Assessing the internal reliability of the other eight items, we found that it was satisfactory (Cronbach’s α = .84) and thus averaged responses to these eight items into one measure of self-reported social exclusion.

Self-Reported Gender Atypicality

As further preliminary analyses, we checked the correlation between our two self-reported gender atypicality items (r = .89, p < .001). In accordance with our preregistration, since this correlation was stronger than .60, we averaged the two items together to create a self-reported gender atypicality measure.

Finally, we present in Table 2 the means and standard deviations for the main variables as well as a correlation matrix of these variables.

Table 2.

Correlation and Significance Indices for the Main Variables

	M (SD)	SelfExclusion	SelfGAtypicality	PeerGAtypicality	PeerExclude
SelfExclusion	0.54 (0.62)	—
SelfGAtypicality	0.68 (0.89)	.309*	—
PeerGAtypicality	0.56 (0.47)	.071	.273*	—
PeerExclude	−0.69 (0.57)	.350*	.208*	.256*	—

Note. SelfExclusion = average score for the eight items of self-reported social exclusion; SelfGAtypicality = averaged score for the two items of gender atypicality; PeerGAtypicality = peer-rated score of gender atypicality; PeerExclude = peer-rated score of social exclusion. Asterisks indicate significant correlations.

Hypotheses Tests

Analysis Plan

As preregistered, we tested our hypotheses using multilevel regression models which were required by the nesting of our data (students within classes). Due to the potentially high inter-class variability in the estimation of our effects, we planned to follow the procedure detailed by Bates and his colleagues (2015). This procedure involved starting with the most complex model structure possible (random intercept and all random slopes) and iteratively reducing the model’s complexity by removing random effects with the smallest variance and checking whether this process significantly affected the models. This procedure can be viewed in our analysis code (https://tinyurl.com/3evpn2c6).

Peer-Rated Social Exclusion

Predicted by Peer-Rated Gender Atypicality

This analysis was conducted on a sample of 269 participants, after excluding missing data (the two classes containing less than 10 students and students who were rated by less than 60% of their participating classmates). The model included three fixed effects, participants’ peer-rated atypicality, gender (coded −1 for girls and 1 for boys) and the interaction of the two and only a random intercept for classes. Here, as the peer-rated social exclusion index relies on classmates and therefore depends on class-dynamics, we deviated from our preregistration and standardized gender atypicality within classes⁴ (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). In this case, we argue that the current deviation from our preregistration does not substantially impact the severity of the hypothesis being tested; however, by taking into account class dynamics in our model via within-class standardization, we improve the validity of our test (Lakens, 2024).

The predicted main effect of peer-rated gender atypicality was significant and positive indicating that, as peer-judgments of gender atypicality increased, social exclusion from peers increased, b = .20, t(265) = 2.94, p = .004, 95% CI = [.06; .33], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03. The effects of participants’ gender and its interaction with atypicality were not significant, respectively: b = −.02, t(265) = −0.38, p = .70, 95% CI = [−.13; .09], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001; b = −.001, t(265) = −0.18, p = .86, 95% CI = [−.12; .10], $η_{p}^{2}$ < .001 (see Figure 1).

Predicted by Self-Reported Gender Atypicality

This analysis was conducted on a sample of 241 participants, after excluding missing data (the two classes containing less than 10 students and students who were rated by less than 60% of their classmates who participated in the study, as well as missing data on the predictor). This model included three fixed effects: participants’ self-reported gender atypicality, gender (coded −1 for girls and 1 for boys) and the interaction of the two as well as a random intercept and the random slope for participants’ gender. We again standardized our predictor within classes and given that participants’ gender had an effect on self-reported gender atypicality, b = −.27, t(286) = −5.46, p < .001, 95% CI = [−.37; −.18], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .10, meaning that gender atypicality on average was lower for boys (M = 0.42, SD = 0.77) than girls (M = 0.96, SD = 0.92), we also standardized within gender groups within each class.⁵ In other words, the standardized self-reported gender atypicality captured the degree to which each boy and girl perceived themselves as gender atypical compared to the average gender atypicality within their own gender-group, within their own class.

A main effect of self-reported gender atypicality indicated that adolescents who felt more atypical were more excluded by their peers, b = .09, t(237) = 2.02, p = .04, 95% CI = [.002; .17], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02. The effects of participants’ gender as well as the interaction of gender and atypicality were not significant, respectively: b = .02, t(237) = 0.42, p = .68, 95% CI = [−.08; .13], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001; b = −.03, t(237) = −0.76, p = .45, 95% CI = [−12; .05], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .003 (see Figure 1).⁶

Self-Reported Social Exclusion

Predicted by Peer-Rated Gender Atypicality

This analysis was conducted on a sample of 269 participants, after excluding missing data (from the dependent variable and from the predictor for the two classes containing less than 10 students and students who were rated by less than 60% of their participating classmates). Participants’ peer-rated atypicality (sample-wide standardized), gender (−1 for girls, 1 for boys), and their interaction were included as fixed effects, and a random intercept for classes was included. Because of an asymmetry in the distribution of residual values for this model, we used a bootstrap estimation of our parameters (Berkovits et al., 2000). The predicted main effect of gender atypicality was non-significant, b = .07, p = .09, 95% CI = [−.01; .14], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. The effect of participants’ gender was significant and showed that boys reported on average lower feelings of social exclusion (M = 0.44, SD = 0.54) compared to girls (M = 0.67, SD = 0.67), b = −.14, p < .001, 95% CI = [−.21; −.07], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06. The interaction between the two was not significant, b = .04, p = .33, 95% CI = [−.04; .12], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .004 (see Figure 2).

Predicted by Self-Reported Gender Atypicality

This analysis was conducted on a sample of 277 participants, after excluding missing data from both the predictor and outcome. Three fixed effects were included in this model: participants’ self-reported atypicality (sample-wide standardized), gender (−1 for girls and 1 for boys), and their interaction and only a random intercept for classes. For this model, we again used a bootstrap estimation of parameters. As predicted, gender atypicality positively predicted social exclusion, b = .17, p < .001, 95% CI = [.10; .24], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .10. The more participants reported they were atypical for their own gender, the more they reported feelings of social exclusion. The effect of participants’ gender was not significant, b = −.07, p = .06, 95% CI = [−.14; .001], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. The effect of the interaction between atypicality and adolescents’ gender was not significant, b = .05, p = .14, 95% CI = [−.02; .12], $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01 (see Figure 2).

Discussion

This study tested the overall prediction that gender atypicality would predict social exclusion in adolescence. To do so, we relied on peer-rating assessments of gender (a)typicality as well as peer-rated social exclusion in middle-school classes. We also asked students to rate their own gender (a)typicality as well as their own, felt, social exclusion. As hypothesized, we found a rather consistent link between adolescents’ gender atypicality and social exclusion, across three out of our four indexes. First, regarding adolescents’ exclusion by their peers, we found that gender atypicality (both felt and perceived by others) positively predicted exclusion from peers, an effect which had never been tested before. Then, turning our attention to the link between gender atypicality and social exclusion felt by adolescents, replicating past results, we found that how adolescents felt about their own gender atypicality positively predicted feelings of social exclusion. We did not find a statistically significant association between gender atypicality perceived by peers and felt social exclusion, although this effect was descriptively in the predicted direction.

The contribution of our research is two-fold. First, the current study replicates previous results showing that gender norm violating adolescents feel more excluded by their peers, which had only been shown in one study prior to ours (Smith & Leaper, 2006). Second, and more importantly, this study adds to the literature by showing that in adolescence, peers tend to exclude more those who deviate from gender norms.

Implications for Research on Reactions to Gender Norm Violations

Recently, experimental research on reactions to gender norm violations has encountered challenges in replicating past effects of sanctioning against gender atypical individuals. Some studies have failed to show sanctions against gender atypical individuals (Mitchell et al., 2023; Streck & Kessels, 2024) and some have even hinted at the possibility of more positive reactions toward gender atypicality, particularly with adolescent samples (Meimoun et al., 2023). Indeed, as questions of gender equality and gender identity become more widely discussed in western societies, particularly with younger generations (Bragg et al., 2018), these results could have been the reflection of a shift regarding gender norms, in that it might now be less acceptable to express outward prejudice against non-conforming individuals.

Yet, the current results, by relying on a different methodology, suggest otherwise, as gender norm violation is still associated with undesirable consequences. Indeed, previous research relied mostly on hypothetical vignettes (e.g., describing a gender typical vs. atypical adolescent) where it might have been easy to suppress discriminatory behavior (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) and where responses may mainly reflect lay theory rather than actual responses. Thus, previous research might have failed to capture the relational and interpersonal dynamics at play in the phenomenon of reactions to gender norm violations captured by our peer-rating measures.

Moreover, to operationalize gender (a)typicality, we chose a relative measure of (a)typicality, asking participants to report how much they (or their peers) behaved or were similar to boys and girls of their age. This contrasts with other research which used more “objective” operationalizations such as personality inventories reflecting stereotypically masculine or feminine traits (Rudman et al., 2012). As noted, these operationalizations afford several advantages such as contextual and historical sensitivity (see Meimoun et al., 2024). Nevertheless, this also suggests that gender atypicality may not have been interpreted in the same way by all participants and that the way the measure was interpreted by participants remains somewhat unclear. Future research should perhaps use both operationalization simultaneously, so as to assess both measures’ associations with the chosen outcomes.

Limits and Areas of Improvement

The present research is not without its limitations. First, we rely on only one study and a sample of only one school. Particularities associated with this school could limit the generalizability of the current results. Another limitation associated with our sample is perhaps lower statistical power than would be necessary to detect moderation of the effect of atypicality by participants’ gender. Indeed, although we did observe descriptive patterns of stronger effects for boys, we did not robustly replicate this effect which has been found in research on reactions to gender norm violations (Kleiser & Mayeux, 2023; Sullivan et al., 2018). We gathered that our study had 90% power to detect interaction effects as small as .41 ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .15), which correspond to rather large effect sizes.

Third, the current design does not enable us to conclude in terms of the directionality and causality of the identified relationship. Here, we interpreted our results in the theoretically relevant direction of social exclusion being a consequence of gender atypicality. This interpretation makes sense in the context of previous research showing sanctioning of gender atypicality. However, it is entirely possible that a peer-judgment of higher gender atypicality could have been expressed as a sanction against adolescents who were excluded by others. Furthermore, as is the case for most non-experimental research, perhaps some other variables could account for the relationship between atypicality and social exclusion. Finally, perhaps gender atypicality can be a consequence of social exclusion. Indeed, past longitudinal research has found that exclusion from gender in-groups led adolescents to withdraw from gender typical behavior (Lee & Gordon, 2011).

Conclusion

The literature on reactions to gender norm violations is in flux, with more and more recent studies calling into question the ubiquity of sanctioning against atypical individuals (Meimoun et al., 2023; Mitchell et al., 2023). This research line is one that is particularly sensitive to contextual and societal factors, such as the changing norms regarding gender identity, gender expression, and overall discrimination, specifically in adolescence (Gravillon, 2022). The current study, using an ecological methodology contributes in a rather sizable way to the literature as so far, no study had directly shown that exclusionary behaviors could be linked to violations of gender norms and a small number of research had investigated exclusion and gender norms violations in general. On a practical level, our results are important as “bias-based” social exclusion could impede mental health, increase substance abuse, and worsen academic achievement for its victims (Mulvey et al., 2017) while ultimately leading to a maintenance of gender norms (Hitti et al., 2017). Future work is still needed to better understand this phenomenon, its causes, and its consequences in hopes to limit the negative impacts on teenagers’ development and well-being.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251331963 – Supplemental material for Reactions to Gender Norm Violations: Individual- and Peer-Level Analyses of Gender Atypicality and Social Exclusion in Adolescence

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251331963 for Reactions to Gender Norm Violations: Individual- and Peer-Level Analyses of Gender Atypicality and Social Exclusion in Adolescence by Ethan Meimoun, Cristina Aelenei, Céline Robert, Marie-Pierre Fayant and Virginie Bonnot in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly thank Lucie Vandewynckele for contributing to the data collection process. The authors would also like to thank Andrei Cimpian for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The authors are grateful to the participating school, the school personnel, and every student who took part in the study.

Handling Editor: Shenel Husnu

Author Contributions

Ethan Meimoun: Conceptualization, Writing—Original Draft Preparation, Review & Editing, Data Analysis;

Cristina Aelenei: Conceptualization, Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision;

Céline Robert: Conceptualization, Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision, Data Collection;

Marie-Pierre Fayant: Conceptualization, Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision;

Virginie Bonnot: Conceptualization, Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Part of this research was supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-19-CE41-0001-01; research project URGEN) and the Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation.

ORCID iDs

Ethan Meimoun

Cristina Aelenei

Virginie Bonnot

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Ethan Meimoun is a Postdoc researcher in Social Psychology at Université Paris Cité. His research focuses on reactions to gender norm violations and how gender stereotypes throughout developmental stages contribute to the maintenance of gender inequalities.

Cristina Aelenei is an Associate Professor in Social Psychology at Université Paris Cité. Her research focuses on understanding how ideological and structural dynamics (e.g., stereotypes, cultural mismatch, backlash effect, glass cliff) contribute to maintaining existing social hierarchies.

Céline Robert is a PhD student in Social Psychology at Université Paris Cité. Her research focuses on the impact of social exclusion on cognitive processes and on social behavior. She also studies this phenomenon, its causes, and consequences in the school environment.

Marie-Pierre Fayant is a Professor in Social Psychology at Université Paris Cité. Her research examines the cognitive, affective, and behavioral regulation of interpersonal and social interactions that can threaten the individual. Her work deals, for instance, with phenomena such as social comparison, society standards, social exclusion, and emotions.

Virginie Bonnot is a Professor in Social Psychology at Université Paris Cité and currently the Director of Cité du Genre, an interdisciplinary research institute in gender studies. Her research is aimed at understanding the role of ideologies (e.g., stereotypes, neoliberal ideology, intensive mothering ideology) in justifying and maintaining social hierarchies. Her work is mainly focused on gender issues.

References

Asher

S. R.

Singleton

L. C.

Tinsley

B. R.

Hymel

(1979). A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 443–444.

Bates

Kliegl

Vasishth

Baayen

(2015). Parsimonious mixed models (Arxiv preprint arxiv: 150604967). https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967

Berkovits

Hancock

G. R.

Nevitt

(2000). Bootstrap resampling approaches for repeated measure designs: Relative robustness to sphericity and normality violations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 877–892. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/00131640021970961

Blakemore

S. J.

Mills

K. L.

(2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202

Bragg

Renold

Ringrose

Jackson

(2018). “More than boy, girl, male, female”: Exploring young people’s views on gender diversity within and beyond school contexts. Sex Education, 18(4), 420–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1439373

Broussard

K. A.

Warner

R. H.

(2019). Gender nonconformity is perceived differently for cisgender and transgender targets. Sex Roles, 80(7–8), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0947-z

Cillessen

A. H.

Marks

P. E.

(2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In Cillessen

A. H. N.

Schwartz

Mayeux

(Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25–56). Guilford Press.

Cover

(2019). Emergent identities: New sexualities, genders and relationships in a digital era. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315104348

Crandall

C. S.

Eshleman

(2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414

10.

de Lemus

Moya

Glick

. (2010). When contact correlates with prejudice: Adolescents’ romantic relationship experience predicts greater benevolent sexism in boys and hostile sexism in girls. Sex Roles, 63(3-4), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9786-2

11.

Eareckson

H. B.

Heilman

M. E.

(2024). Explaining penalties and rewards for gender norm violations: A unified theory. Sex Roles, 90, 1701–1716.

12.

Egan

S. K.

Perry

D. G.

(2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451

13.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121

14.

Meimoun

Ethan

Aelenei

Cristina

Bonnot

Virginie

; Theorizing and Studying Reactions to Gender Norm Violations. Collabra: Psychology: 16 January 2024; 10(1): 125682. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.125682

15.

Ettekal

Ladd

G. W.

(2020). Development of aggressive-victims from childhood through adolescence: Associations with emotion dysregulation, withdrawn behaviors, moral disengagement, peer rejection, and friendships. Development and Psychopathology, 32(1), 271–291.

16.

Fine

R. D.

Olson

K. R.

Guälgoäz

Horton

Gelman

S. A.

(2024). Gender essentialism predicts prejudice against gender nonconformity in two cultural contexts. Social Development, 33(1), e12720. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12720

17.

Gordon

A. R.

Conron

K. J.

Calzo

J. P.

White

M. T.

Reisner

S. L.

Austin

S. B.

(2018). Gender expression, violence, and bullying victimization: Findings from probability samples of high school students in 4 US school districts. Journal of School Health, 88, 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12606

18.

Gravillon

(2022). Pourquoi la question du genre agite-t-elle les adolescents? L’école des Parents, 2022, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.3917/epar.hs2.0008

19.

Hill

J. P.

Lynch

M. E.

(1983). The intensification of gender-related role expectations during early adolescence. In Brooks-Gunn

Petersen

A. C.

(Eds.), Girls at puberty (pp. 201–208). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0354-9_10

20.

Hitti

Mulvey

K. L.

Killen

(2011). Social exclusion in adolescence. In Levesque

R. J. R.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 2783–2792). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2_50

21.

Hitti

Mulvey

K. L.

Killen

(2017). Minority and majority children’s evaluations of social exclusion in intergroup contexts. In Cabrera

Leyendecker

(Eds.), Handbook on positive development of minority children and youth (pp. 281–293). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43645-6_17

22.

Hyde

J. S.

Bigler

R. S.

Joel

Tate

C. C.

van Anders

S. M.

(2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307

23.

Iacoviello

Valsecchi

Berent

Borinca

Falomir-Pichastor

J. M.

(2021). The impact of masculinity beliefs and political ideologies on men’s backlash against non-traditional men: The moderating role of perceived men’s feminization. International Review of Social Psychology, 34(1), Article 588. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.588

24.

Jewell

J. A.

Brown

C. S.

(2014). Relations among gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence. Social Development, 23, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12042

25.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

(1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

26.

Judd

C. M.

McClelland

G. H.

Ryan

C. S.

(2017). Data analysis: A model comparison approach to regression, ANOVA, and beyond. Routledge.

27.

Klaczynski

P. A.

Felmban

W. S.

Kole

(2020). Gender intensification and gender generalization biases in pre-adolescents, adolescents, and emerging adults. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 38, 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12326

28.

Kleiser

M. P.

Mayeux

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

29.

Ladd

G. W.

Kochenderfer-Ladd

(2016). Research in educational psychology: Social exclusion in school. In Riva

Eck

(Eds), Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact (pp. 109–132). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33033-4_6

30.

Lakens

(2024). When and How to Deviate from a Preregistration. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1), Article 117094.

31.

LeBeau

(2024). simglm: Simulate models based on the generalized linear model (R package version 0917). https://github.com/lebebr01/simglm

32.

Lee

E. E.

Gordon

W. T.

(2011). Peer socialization of masculinity and femininity: Differential effects of overt and relational forms of peer victimization. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 197–213.

33.

Wei

(2022). Examining the effects of male candidates’ gender nonconformity on employment decisions. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 62, Article e12363. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12363

34.

Lobel

T. E.

Nov-Krispin

Schiller

Lobel

Feldman

(2004). Gender discriminatory behavior during adolescence and young adulthood: A developmental analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000048067.83738.e6

35.

Masters

S. L.

Hixson

Hayes

A. R.

(2021). Perceptions of gender norm violations among middle school students: An experimental study of the effects of violation type on exclusion expectations. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 41(4), 527–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431620931193

36.

Means

K. K.

Morgenroth

(2024). The ubiquity of the gender/sex binary: Power and status in social psychology. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 2, Article 1455364.

37.

Meimoun

Bonnot

Berenguer

Aelenei

(2023). How are gender counter-stereotypical adolescents evaluated by their peers? Investigating the backlash effect in French schools. Social Psychology of Education, 27, 833–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09807-w

38.

Mitchell

R. L.

Matusik

J. G.

Johnson

R. E.

(2023). Backlashes or boosts? The role of warmth and gender in relational uncertainty reductions. Human Resource Management, 62, 851–865. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22166

39.

Morgenroth

Ryan

M. 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.

40.

Morgenroth

van der Toorn

Pliskin

McMahon

C. E.

(2024). Gender nonconformity leads to identity denial for cisgender and transgender individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 15(1), 46–59.

41.

Mulvey

Boswell

Zheng

(2017). Causes and consequences of social exclusion and peer rejection among children and adolescents. Report on Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth, 17(3), 71–75.

42.

Mulvey

Killen

(2015). Challenging gender stereotypes: Resistance and exclusion. Child Development, 86, 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12317

43.

Parker

Igielnik

(2020). On the cusp of adulthood and facing an uncertain future: What we know about Gen Z so far. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far/

44.

R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

45.

Rudman

L. A.

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

46.

Rudman

L. A.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Glick

Phelan

J. E.

(2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In Devine

Plant

(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

47.

Sirin

McCreary

Mahalik

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

48.

Smith

T. E.

Leaper

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

49.

Streck

Kessels

(2024). Linda’s cars versus Dominik’s dolls: How do pedagogical educators in training react to children’s violations of gender stereotypes? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53, 3835–3854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02958-7

50.

Sullivan

Moss-Racusin

Lopez

Williams

(2018). Backlash against gender stereotype-violating preschool children. PLOS ONE, 13(4), Article e0195503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195503

51.

Tajfel

(2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press.

52.

Williams

K. D.

(2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641

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.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB