Trapped in Transition: Generational Perspectives on Gender Role Strain in Contemporary India

Abstract

This study examines gender role strain in the Indian context by exploring how individuals across age and gender experience tension between personal identity and societal expectations. Using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, data were collected from 213 participants in North India, stratified into Gen Z and Gen X cohorts across binary gender lines. Grounded in Pleck’s (1981, The myth of masculinity, 1995) Gender Role Strain Paradigm, this study operationalizes strain through an eight-item questionnaire capturing self-role discrepancy and perceived socialized dysfunction across four domains (behaviour, appearance, personality and interests) complemented by semi-structured interviews. Quantitative analysis revealed that Gen Z females experienced the highest internal conflict across domains, while Gen X males reported the least. Appearance was the only domain in which socialized dysfunction showed significant group differences. Qualitative insights highlighted patterns of voiced resistance, silent compliance, performed masculinity and emotional disconnection across cohorts. The findings reveal how evolving gender norms, especially among Gen Z groups, intensify identity strain, while Gen X individuals often normalize or internalize it. This research contributes insights into gendered stressors in transitional societies and underlines the need for deeper consideration of how age and gender intersect in shaping lived realities.

Keywords

Gender role strain self-role discrepancy socialized dysfunction gendered expectations generational differences

Introduction

Society has long engineered identities through rigid roles, mass-manufacturing ideals of masculinity and femininity that silence the raw self. In India, where tradition and modernity coexist, gender remains a breathing reality intersecting with age to shape how roles are learned, negotiated or silently carried (Chaudhuri, 2012; Pande, 2025). Situated in this context, the present research examines gender role strain across generations (Gen X and Gen Z) and genders (males and females) in urban North India.

Post-colonial India carries the weight of both indigenous patriarchy and colonial moral codes, even as urbanization, increasing awareness of gender injustice, legal reforms and digital access reshape gender roles (Kumari & Siotra, 2023; Patil, 2021). Yet, structural inequalities remain, women’s work is still concentrated in informal and unpaid labour, men continue to face breadwinner pressure (Chaurasia & Kewalramani, 2025), and India’s gender gap rankings reflect disparities across economic, educational, health and political domains (International Labour Organization, 2018; World Economic Forum, 2025). Gendered emotional patterns persist, with men often socialized into suppression through ideals of toughness and control (Martin, 2024; Mohla & Neera, 2023), and women more likely to internalize distress through norms of self-sacrifice (National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, 2016), alongside biased educational messaging that reinforces rigid scripts early in life (Kalra et al., 2021). While academic discourse frequently highlights overt gender-based discrimination, what remains invisible is the internal dissonance: a private conflict that occurs when one’s sense of self does not align with socially prescribed roles.

Across the life course, generational location influences how people internalize and contest gendered expectations (Gangal et al., 2024; Risman, 2018; Scarborough et al., 2021). Gender, therefore, is not static but historically situated: norms that shaped an older cohort can contrast sharply with those shaping a younger cohort, even embedded in shared cultural values (Woodman, 2018; Yildiz & Bilgin, 2023). Generation X (1965–1980) came of age in a period where gender socialization was shaped by family structures, institutional authority (Rothfuss, 2021) and comparatively stable gender scripts (Hill Cone et al., 2025), with their formative years unfolding before the deep penetration of digital media and algorithm-driven exposure to alternative gender narratives (Sonni, 2025). Generation Z (1997–2012) has grown up amid rapid globalization, social media visibility (Dimock, 2019) and increased public conversation around gender equity and identity (Hovorun et al., 2024), making them more likely to question rigid gender roles. In this transition, Gen Z often finds itself fighting inherited gender expectations, while Gen X is more frequently required to unlearn roles that were once socially rewarded and taken for granted (Fazloon & Usman, 2024). This study focuses exclusively on Gen X and Gen Z, excluding Millennials, because they represent two cohorts positioned at sharply different socio-historical points in India’s transition, with Gen X shaped by pre-digital socialization and normalized role continuity (Giarla, 2019), and Gen Z shaped by accelerated cultural change and heightened identity reflexivity (Karmakar & Chandola, 2023), allowing clearer examination of how age and era intersect to produce distinct patterns of GRS in contemporary life.

Theoretical Framework

Joseph Pleck introduced the gender role strain paradigm (GRSP) in 1981. He argued that traditional gender roles are inherently contradictory and dysfunctional, causing stress or ‘strain’ for individuals who attempt to conform to them (Levant & Richmond, 2016). Pleck (1981) stated that GRS occurs when individuals: fail to meet societal gender expectations (self-role discrepancy), experience negative consequences even when they conform (socialized dysfunction) or face punishment or stigma for violating gender norms (trauma).

In India, traditional expectations of docile femininity and stoic masculinity, reinforced through family systems, media narratives, caste-based codes of honour and religious moralities, create an inescapable web where deviation from normativity is punished through shame or violence (Pandya & Bhangaokar, 2022; Shukla, 2015). Women experience GRS both as role overload (managing domestic and professional work) and role contradiction (modern aspirations vs. traditional expectations). Urban women may access education and employment, yet still internalize guilt for ‘neglecting’ domestic duties (Aziz, 2023). For men, GRS often emerges from a need to meet hypermasculine ideals of being providers, decision-makers, emotionally controlled and sexually dominant (Arshad & Shahed, 2021). Socialized dysfunction strain is especially evident, as boys are taught emotional suppression that later manifests as aggression, substance use or relationship breakdowns (Baugher & Gazmararian, 2015). LGBTQ+ individuals face the pressure to conform to heteronormative gender roles, and the marginalization within queer spaces for not fitting dominant gender expressions (Fields et al., 2015). Each intersection (e.g., caste and religion) magnifies strain in unique ways that cannot be flattened into universal gender experiences (Crenshaw, 1989).

Though understudied, literature on GRS in India highlights gaps in representation, particularly across rural-urban divides and its cisheteronormative and male-centric focus (Harrington et al., 2022). Much of the work on GRS lacks methodological innovation, particularly in the absence of open-ended tools. The current study adopts a mixed-methods approach as it explores GRS through the experiences and perceptions of Gen Z (18–28) and Gen X (44–60) adults in the domains of behaviour, appearance, personality and interests. These domains were chosen because gendered expectations are most strongly communicated and policed through how people act, look, embody traits and engage with interests, making them culturally relevant and practical (Mahalik et al., 2003; Pleck, 1981). The research questions catered by the study are as follows:

How do levels of self-role discrepancy differ between Gen Z (18–28) and Gen X (44–60) adults across the domains of behaviour, appearance, personality and interests?

How do levels of socialized dysfunction differ between Gen Z and Gen X adults across these domains?

Within each generation, what gendered patterns (men vs. women) emerge in narratives of strain, and how do participants explain the sources of that strain in daily life?

In what ways do the qualitative narratives illuminate or challenge the statistical patterns identified in RQ1 and RQ2, offering a fuller picture of GRS in transitional urban India?

Methodology

This research adopted a convergent parallel mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011), wherein quantitative and qualitative data were gathered simultaneously, analyzed independently and integrated during interpretation. Quantitative frequencies and qualitative themes were merged in a domain-by-construct joint display; convergence and divergence were identified and informed in the discussion. The study operationalized Pleck’s GRSP (1981) through two constructs: self-role discrepancy and socialized dysfunction, applied across four domains—behaviour, appearance, personality and interests.

Instrument Development and Scoring

Eight items were adapted verbatim from Helgeson’s (2016) gender role strain classroom exercise (The Psychology of Gender, 5th ed., p. 118). Items 1–4 tap self-role discrepancy and Items 5–8 tap socialized dysfunction across the four domains as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Items Used to Measure Self-role Discrepancy (1–4) and Socialized Dysfunction (5–8).

Item Number	Item Statement
1	‘Does your behaviour differ from how men/women are expected to behave?’
2	‘Does your appearance differ from how men/women are expected to look?’
3	‘Does your personality differ from the personality men/women are expected to have?’
4	‘Do your interests differ from the interests that men/women are expected to have?’
5	‘Do you feel any of these behaviours are harmful?’
6	‘Do you feel any of these appearance-related expectations are harmful?’
7	‘Do you feel any of these personality traits are harmful?’
8	‘Do you feel it is harmful to have any of these interests?’

Source: Adapted from Helgeson (2016).

Participants answered each prompt as yes/no, a format chosen to minimize respondent burden, before the interviews. ‘Yes’ was scored 1, ‘No’ scored 0 and summed within each construct (range = 0–4). Internal consistency (KR-20) in the present sample was 0.70 for discrepancy and 0.74 for dysfunction (Gen Z); 0.67 and 0.72, respectively (Gen X). Two gender-psychology researchers rated item-to-domain alignment (83% agreement), providing preliminary content validity.

These items were adapted from a classroom exercise rather than a validated scale; coefficients and validity checks reported above should be viewed as preliminary.

Drawing on survey research methodology (Groves et al., 2009) and critical incident analysis (Flanagan, 1954), the study prioritized culturally grounded, experience-near indicators of GRS over standardized global measures to ensure ecological validity.

Quantitative Component

A total of 213 participants (ages 18–28, 44–60) completed the self-role discrepancy scale, with 201 participants completing the socialized dysfunction scale due to minor attrition (Table 2). Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants who: (a) self-identified as male/female, (b) residing in urban/semi-urban North India, (c) belonged to Gen Z (18–28) or Gen X (44–60) cohorts, and (d) were proficient in English or Hindi. Exclusion criteria included non-binary or gender-diverse individuals, rural residents, participants outside North India and those from other generational cohorts. A sensitivity power analysis using G*Power indicated that (α = 0.05, power = 0.80, df = 3) the obtained sample (N = 213) was sufficient to detect small-to-medium effects (w = 0.23) in χ² tests. Although the study aimed to include Millennials (Gen Y), of the 63 individuals contacted during the pilot phase, 41 (≈65%) declined participation, citing demanding work schedules, and the remaining 22 participants did not constitute a statistically viable cohort for the planned χ² analysis. Participants were recruited through university networks, online forums, workplaces and community outreach, without incentives.

Table 2.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sample (N = 213).

Demographic Variable	N	%
Gender
Female	110	51.60
Male	103	48.40
Generation
Gen Z (18–28 years)	106	49.80
Gen X (44–60 years)	107	50.20
Region
Urban	181	85.00
Semi-urban	32	15.00
Education Level
Undergraduate degree	126	59.15
Postgraduate degree or above	87	40.85
Occupation
Student	74	34.70
Employed (full/part-time)	108	50.70
Homemaker	21	9.90
Retired/Unemployed	10	4.70
Marital Status
Single	99	46.50
Married/Partnered	103	48.40
Divorced/Widowed	11	5.10

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS, with cross-tabulations and Pearson’s χ² tests employed to explore associations between age-gender categories across domains. Eight chi-square tests were run (four domains × two constructs). To control the family-wise error rate, a Bonferroni adjustment was applied: αᴮ = 0.05/8 = 0.00625. Effect sizes were reported using Cramér’s V (0.10 = small, 0.30 = medium; Cohen, 1988).

Qualitative Component

Parallel to the survey, participants were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews focused on eliciting rich, narrative accounts of internal dissonance in relation to gendered expectations. Although the initial interview target was 50 participants, only 40 were interviewed, as theoretical saturation was achieved. Interviews, conducted in English or Hindi, lasting 45–60 min, were conducted either in person or via phone. Participants were asked two broad, open-ended questions: (a) ‘How has your experience of being a man/woman in today’s world shaped your everyday life?’ and (b) ‘In what ways do you feel pressured to behave, look or express yourself based on your gender?’ Additional probes were introduced based on participants’ responses, guided by the three-dimensional narrative inquiry space (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), attending to temporality, sociality and place. All interviews were subjected to the same analytic process: manual transcription, domain-based organization and narrative analysis. Informed consent was obtained, and confidentiality was strictly maintained throughout the study. For participants whose personal details or quotations appear in the findings, pseudonyms were used to protect their identities.

Qualitative data were based on narrative inquiry, which allows for the in-depth study of individuals’ experiences in context; we engaged with participants in the field, creating field texts and writing both interim and final research texts, presented in the article as critical incidents or verbatim narratives. Field texts were composed with attention to the three-dimensional narrative inquiry space, across multiple interactions with participants and were co-composed through participants’ and researchers’ reflections on, and of, earlier life experiences.

As narrative inquirers, we justified our inquiry on personal, practical and social grounds and we kept revisiting and negotiating with participants to clarify, substantiate or shift them. Being part of the two generations studied, we could situate ourselves within participants’ possible lives. However, we made sure that it does not become an autobiographical narrative inquiry; we collaboratively negotiated our engagement while allowing participants the space to express their experiences without hesitation.

Results

Chi-square analysis showed significant gender-generation differences in self-role discrepancy across all four domains, with appearance yielding the strongest association. Appearance was also the only significant domain for socialized dysfunction, especially among Gen X women. Cramér’s V indicated near-moderate associations overall, with the largest effects in the appearance domain.

Behaviour-related Gender Role Strain

As shown in Table 3, Gen Z females report the highest self-role discrepancy and harm perception, while Gen X males report the lowest.

Table 3.

Self-role Discrepancy Experienced in the Behaviour Domain by Gender and Generation.

Gender-generation	Self-role Discrepancy Experienced in Behaviour Domain
	High		Low
	N	%	N	%
Gen Z males	25	50.00	25	50.00
Gen Z females	33	61.11	21	38.89
Gen X males	15	27.78	39	72.22
Gen X females	30	54.54	25	45.45
Total	103	100.00	110	100.00

Notes: Behaviour domain. χ²(3) = 13.57*, p = .004, Cramér’s V = 0.25, N = 213; exceeds Bonferroni-adjusted α^B = 0.006. *p < α^B (.006), Bonferroni-adjusted.

Gen Z females positioned themselves at the centre of their lives, with higher autonomy and aspirations. However, participants reported restrictions on the expression of negative emotions such as anger or frustration. Nikita, a 21-year-old philosophy undergraduate, reflected: ‘I can’t even show my frustration with words, because “girls from good families” don’t behave like this’. Socialized dysfunction was evident as compliance with traditional gender roles increases vulnerability, often inviting exploitation. Riya, a 22-year-old content writer, recounted a high-school experience: ‘The quieter girls were asked to stay back, the teacher would touch them inappropriately’.

In Gen Z male participants, softer skills and positive emotions such as love, care and respect were perceived as highly uncharacteristic. Seeking any form of assistance or guidance was perceived as a sign of weakness. Karan, a 19-year-old engineering student: ‘My friends say I’ll never get a girlfriend if I will be so respectful’. While many dismissed these expectations as natural (‘I am a man, and this is how I behave’), they also acknowledged the strain of constantly being ‘on’: ‘If I don’t fight or mock, I become the target’. Young men reported not just enacting masculinity but defending their right to exist within their social hierarchies.

Selflessness placed noticeable strain on Gen X females, as their personal desires took a backseat. The expectation to ‘prove affection and loyalty’ led to emotional exhaustion, worsened by emotional dependence on husbands or children. Meena, a 44-year-old criminal lawyer, expressed: ‘I feel guilty when I don’t want to cook for my kids or my husband’. Especially for working women, the clash between public visibility and private duties heightened the strain. Lata, a 44-year-old government official: ‘I constantly feel pressured to always put family first’. Socialized dysfunction manifested as a loss of identity as they felt chained to the role of caregiver, sacrificing their dreams, happiness and individuality. Sarita, a 50-year-old homemaker, confessed: ‘I have nothing to look forward to in my life except their achievements now’.

A primary expectation reported for Gen X males was to be the breadwinner and provider for their families. The pressure to ‘hold it all together’ was felt as they were often expected to assume roles of authority, both in the workplace and within their families. Anil, a 51-year-old insurance agent: ‘I suffered a chronic illness in the past. All I could think about was the kids’ school fees’. Strong opposition to dowry and domestic abuse was perceived as a deviance, highlighting that masculinity is still defined by its capacity for dominance or even violence. Gen X men faced a paradox of emotional incompetence coupled with the pressure to maintain social prestige and uphold reputations, distancing them from authentic connections. Vinod, a 55-year-old retired police officer, reflected: ‘My kids don’t share anything about their personal lives with me because I never shared my life with them’.

Appearance-related Gender Role Strain

Referring to Table 4, Gen Z females show the highest self-role discrepancy, while Gen Z males report the lowest. Gen X females perceive these expectations as most harmful, whereas Gen Z males are least affected (as seen in Table 5).

Table 4.

Self-role Discrepancy Experienced in the Appearance Domain by Gender and Generation.

Gender-generation	Self-role Discrepancy Experienced in Appearance Domain
	High		Low
	N	%	N	%
Gen Z males	13	26.00	25	74.00
Gen Z females	33	63.50	21	36.50
Gen X males	20	37.00	39	63.00
Gen X females	33	60.00	25	40.00
Total	99	100.00	112	100.00

Notes: Appearance domain. χ²(3) = 20.40*, p = .000, Cramér’s V = 0.311, N = 211; exceeds Bonferroni-adjusted α^B = 0.006. *p < α^B (.006), Bonferroni-adjusted.

Table 5.

Socialized Dysfunction Experienced in the Appearance Domain by Gender and Generation.

Gender-generation	Socialized Dysfunction Experienced in Appearance Domain
	High		Low
	N	%	N	%
Gen Z males	20	42.55	27	57.45
Gen Z females	32	62.75	19	37.25
Gen X males	31	63.27	18	36.73
Gen X females	38	70.37	16	29.63
Total	121	100.00	80	100.00

Notes: Socialized dysfunction appearance domain. χ²(3) = 8.77*, p = .003, Cramér’s V = 0.21, N = 201; exceeds Bonferroni-adjusted α^B = 0.006. *p < α^B (.006), Bonferroni-adjusted.

Gen Z females openly embraced body hair and adopted attire often associated with men. These choices left participants feeling torn between their bodily autonomy and the ‘public gaze’. Aakriti, a 22-year-old freelance artist: ‘My sister is fair and is complimented for her looks. I feel uncomfortable with my own skin tone’. In terms of socialized dysfunction, many shared feelings of pressure that pushed them toward strict dieting, skin-lightening and painful grooming routines, where external validation was more important than the internal efforts to reject it.

In Gen Z males, muscularity and physical strength came up frequently as an appeal to romantic interests, reinforcing the idea that masculinity is often judged by body size. Raghav, a 24-year-old gym enthusiast: ‘I have to maintain my physique because girls like muscles’. A few also spoke about how showing interest in grooming or dressing well sometimes led to derogatory comments or assumptions about their sexuality, highlighting how appearance was strictly policed by peers.

Gen X women spoke of dissatisfaction with their physical appearance, whether related to weight, hair length or not conforming to beauty standards promoted by the media. Participants spoke about the struggle of choosing between traditional clothing and more modern styles. Neelam, a 48-year-old homemaker: ‘I prefer dressing in traditional attire, but my husband wants me to wear Western clothes’. The reported fear of judgement ‘What will others say?’ dictated the relationship they have with their bodies. Masking insecurities becomes a daily negotiation for them, where their self-image is inevitably distorted, and they are ‘never truly comfortable in their own skin’.

When it comes to appearance, the pressure on Gen X men tends to focus on two primary aspects: projecting their masculinity and demonstrating their success and power. Participants supported the belief that a well-groomed, physically fit and sharply dressed man naturally commands respect. Anil, a 51-year-old banker: ‘In the end, how much you earn is the last factor’. Participants reported dysfunction as they expressed discomfort with evolving grooming trends, equating practices like skincare, hairstyling or accessorizing with a loss of masculine authenticity. Manoj, a 51-year-old business owner, reflected: ‘Nowadays, boys apply makeup or nail polish. In our time, a man just looked like a man’.

Personality-related Gender Role Strain

As shown in Table 6, Gen Z females report the highest self-role discrepancy, while Gen X males report the lowest. Gen Z males perceive the most harm, with Gen X females reporting the least.

Table 6.

Self-role Discrepancy Experienced in the Personality Domain by Gender and Generation.

Gender-generation	Self-role Discrepancy Experienced in Personality Domain
	High		Low
	N	%	N	%
Gen Z males	22	45.80	26	54.20
Gen Z females	31	60.80	20	39.20
Gen X males	16	29.60%	38	70.40
Gen X females	31	56.40	24	43.60
Total	100	100.00	108	100.00

Notes: Personality domain. χ²(3) = 12.27*, p = .006, Cramér’s V = 0.243, N = 213; exceeds Bonferroni-adjusted α^B = 0.006. *p < α^B (.006), Bonferroni-adjusted.

Gen Z females, primarily associated with emotional sensitivity and nurturing roles, are now embracing radical shifts in mindset, prioritizing independence. Meghna, a 24-year-old management trainee: ‘I know I’m good at what I do, but if I talk about my achievements, people say I’m arrogant’. Socialized dysfunction manifested as a constrained sense of self, where the expectation to balance ambition with humility led to self-monitoring, reinforcing a cycle of hesitation and self-suppression in personal and professional spaces.

Gen Z males reported feeling pressured to assert dominance, often bordering on violence, while also being expected to protect others as a means of valorizing themselves. Socially, emotional detachment was rewarded, with a prevailing expectation that men should exhibit limited social skills, such as reduced empathy. Participants highlighted socialized dysfunction in the form of emotional isolation, leaving men deprived of essential support. Yash, a 21-year-old economics student, reflected: ‘If something’s bothering me, I just keep it to myself’.

Gen X females struggled to assert themselves without being labelled selfish. Many felt obligated to be emotional anchors, to be emotionally available while suppressing their own needs. Lalita, a 50-year-old homemaker: ‘As a housewife, everyone’s problem is your problem’. In terms of dysfunction, the expectation to be submissive has left many women believing they have lost their voice and their agency. This slow erosion of self-worth was reported as causing sudden outbursts toward family members.

Financial, emotional and psychological resilience were perceived as the cornerstone of Gen X masculine identity, while the open expression of feelings was viewed as a departure from male norms. Vivek, a 57-year-old school principal, shared: ‘Being men, my son is expected to not share and I am expected to not ask’. Socialized dysfunction revealed the subtle ways in which society deprives men of the emotional flexibility to inhabit safer, more expressive psychological spaces.

Interests-related Gender Role Strain

Table 7 shows that Gen Z females face the highest self-role discrepancy and perceive more harm, while Gen X males report the lowest.

Table 7.

Self-role Discrepancy Experienced in the Interests Domain by Gender and Generation.

Gender-generation	Self-role Discrepancy Experienced in the Interests Domain
	High		Low
	N	%	N	%
Gen Z males	18	38.30	29	61.70
Gen Z females	34	61.80	21	38.20
Gen X males	18	33.30	36	66.70
Gen X females	25	45.50	30	54.50
Total	95	100.00	116	100.00

Notes: Interest domain. χ²(3) = 10.11*, p = .005, Cramér’s V = 0.22, N = 211; exceeds Bonferroni-adjusted α^B = 0.006. *p < α^B (.006), Bonferroni-adjusted.

Gen Z women spoke with excitement about things like sports, politics, biking and gaming—spaces usually associated with men. Sanya, a 22-year-old architecture student: ‘Now, women are in every field breaking stereotype’. Participants described gendered hobbies as lonely and uninspiring, especially when compared to the energy and teamwork they observed in spaces typically occupied by boys.

Gen Z males often described how being accepted socially meant taking part in high-energy or physically intensive activities like sports or adventure outings. Behaviours like smoking, alcohol use and reckless driving were frequently celebrated. Aayush, a 19-year-old psychology student: ‘I am made fun of because I am pursuing a career in arts’. Socialized dysfunction pointed out how such rigid norms can silence individual preference and normalize risky behaviour as a pathway to social approval.

Gen X women reflected on how, as they grew older, their socially accepted interests became increasingly confined to household duties and caregiving responsibilities. Interests that extended beyond domestic boundaries were brushed off as inappropriate or unproductive. Participants shared how this pressure led them to quietly abandon the things they truly cared about. Jyoti, a 52-year-old homemaker, admitted: ‘My interests are expected to revolve around cooking. I say, “Oh, I do it because I enjoy it,” because it is easier to accept for myself too’.

Gen X men shared adopting healthier habits, moving away from smoking and drinking, while prioritizing family needs over personal indulgence. Their interests often focused on career-driven goals, like investment or entrepreneurship. Many spoke about immersing themselves in these activities as a way to avoid deeper emotional introspection, using distractions as a coping mechanism.

Discussion

Gender role strain remains an unacknowledged phenomenon in India, despite the country’s deeply entrenched gender norms (Pande, 2025). While Western research has explored this concept extensively (Levant & Richmond, 2016), Indian scholarship has yet to address its pervasive yet invisible hold over people’s lives. This study captures how individuals perceive and articulate their own struggles with gendered expectations. The study reveals distinct GRS patterns, with Gen Z females facing the highest self-role discrepancy, while Gen X males report the least, except in appearance, where Gen Z males show the lowest. Socialized dysfunction is largely insignificant, except in appearance, where Gen X females report the highest harm and Gen Z males the least. Qualitative narratives both reinforce and complicate these patterns, revealing how strain is expressed, concealed, normalized or resisted.

The higher self-role discrepancy among Gen Z females is understood through a convergence of generational, structural and psychological processes. While education, urban exposure and feminist discourse provide Gen Z women with language to question gender norms (Desai & Andrist, 2010; Lamberg, 2023), the qualitative narratives revealed that resistance attracts social sanctions: being labelled ‘arrogant’, ‘too bold’ or morally inappropriate. In this sense, qualitative data illuminate why self-role discrepancy is highest in this group: the ability to imagine alternative identities coexists with continued pressure to conform within collectivist social settings (Anand, 2024; Barthwal, 2023). In contrast, the lower self-role discrepancy reported by Gen X males quantitatively appears to suggest reduced strain. However, qualitative narratives challenge this interpretation. Gen X men rarely named their experiences as stressful, yet their reflections were marked by emotional distance, difficulty expressing vulnerability and resignation toward rigid provider roles. This divergence illustrates that low reported strain does not indicate absence of strain, but may reflect its normalization and the internalized disincentive to acknowledge vulnerability (Berke et al., 2020; Manirajah, 2013).

Quantitatively, appearance emerged as the only domain with significant group differences in socialized dysfunction, with Gen X females reporting the highest dysfunction and Gen Z males the least. Qualitative narratives from Gen X women explain this pattern by highlighting lifelong scrutiny of women’s bodies as markers of respectability, morality and ageing ‘appropriately’ (Ahmed-Ghosh, 2009; Wallach et al., 2017), aligning with research on ageism and gendered body politics (Åberg et al., 2020; Helfert & Warschburger, 2013). For Gen Z males, the lowest appearance-based dysfunction is contextualized by their narratives of relative freedom, where non-conformity is often socially rewarded (Gualdi-Russo et al., 2022). Here, qualitative data do not contradict the quantitative findings but clarify the cultural logic behind them. Lack of significant findings in other domains of socialized dysfunction is explained by the normalization of gendered expectations in areas such as behaviour, personality and interests, where individuals are socialized to see their roles not as imposed but as ‘natural’ or ‘appropriate’ (Levant & Richmond, 2016; Pandya & Bhangaokar, 2022). Participants across groups described behavioural expectations, traits and ‘acceptable’ interests as commonsensical ways of being.

Gendered contrasts within generations further illustrate this dialogue. Gen X women displayed ‘generationally silenced strain’, echoing research by Curran et al. (2016) and Panchal et al. (2016), where women’s societal value is tied to ideals of sacrifice, leading to participants’ stories of self-neglect and the burden of caretaking. This mirrors Hochschild’s (1983) concept of emotional labour, where constant emotional regulation depletes one’s inner resources. In contrast, Gen Z women, despite resisting gender roles, faced backlash such as being labelled ‘arrogant’ or ‘too bold’ (Kelmendi & Gemini-Gashi, 2022; Sumadevi, 2023). Crenshaw’s (1989) theory of intersectionality contextualizes this, showing how generational status, gender and exposure to modernity intersect to create unique pressures.

Among male participants, a similar generational divide in qualitative narratives emerged. Gen X men reflected quiet resignation, emotional disconnection and discomfort with changing self-care norms, reflecting hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Jewkes et al., 2015). Carvalho (2024) and Mohla and Neera (2023) have similarly found that suppressed emotionality in Indian men correlates with mental health concerns. In contrast, Gen Z men showed a form of ‘performed masculinity’ as they enacted strength, stoicism and dominance under peer pressure (Smiler, 2006). Their unwillingness, or inability, to name emotional discomfort reflects what Tagore (2024) discusses as the invisibilities of male vulnerability in Indian settings. When compared across genders, a notable contrast emerged: while women are emotionally overextended, men are emotionally under-resourced—two parallel outcomes of gender socialization.

Analyzing strain across the four domains reveals significant patterns. Appearance was the most visibly strained domain for women, with Gen Z females resisting conventional beauty standards (Imelda et al., 2024), while Gen X women internalizing them (Wallach et al., 2017). In behaviour, Gen Z females faced tension between assertiveness and social censure, echoing Iwamoto et al. (2023), who noted how non-conforming behaviour in women attracts moral judgement and poor health. Conversely, Gen Z and Gen X males upheld behavioural norms of dominance and restraint, though reporting psychological fatigue, paralleling Connell’s (2005) theory of hegemonic masculinity and its emotional toll (Barragán, 2024). The personality domain showed women’s experiences of being labelled ‘aggressive’ or ‘overconfident’, while men continued to be rewarded for stoicism (Levant & Richmond, 2016; Mahalingam & Balan, 2008). In interests, Gen Z females embraced non-traditional hobbies, Gen X participants, especially men, felt pressured to centre interests around productivity and utility, with Gen Z males reporting peer pressure to adopt high-risk or hypermasculine interests (Iwamoto & Smiler, 2013; Su et al., 2009).

Thus, this research highlights that GRS in India arises not merely from deviance but from compliance, where living within accepted norms itself produces emotional fatigue and identity distortion. Addressing this issue requires culturally grounded strategies that bring families into the conversation, confront rigid social templates and create space for honest, everyday dialogue about gender.

Implications of the Study

Theoretically, this study advances the GRS framework by embedding it within a generational Indian context, demonstrating that strain is also produced through sustained compliance with socially sanctioned roles. By integrating quantitative indicators with qualitative narratives, the study extends beyond Western, male-centric models to capture how age and socio-historical location shape strain. Practically, the findings call for generationally sensitive psychosocial interventions: for Gen Z females, gender-affirmative counselling and campus spaces to address self-role discrepancy; for Gen Z males, peer-led emotional literacy programmes to reduce isolation and challenge stoicism; for Gen X females, community-based narrative groups to support identity reconstruction; and for Gen X males, family systems interventions to promote intergenerational emotional dialogue. Across groups, psychoeducational programmes for families, schools and workplaces are essential to recognize compliance-related strain in transitional contexts.

Limitations of the Study

Participants were purposively sampled from urban North India, excluding rural, lower socio-economic and non-Hindi-speaking groups, limiting generalizability. The sample (N = 213) reflects a narrow slice of India’s demographic diversity. Eligibility was limited to self-identified Gen Z and Gen X men and women, excluding LGBTQIA+ individuals, Millennials and other cohorts, restricting insights across identities. The study relied on a non-validated, context-specific instrument, as existing Western-centric measures are insufficiently sensitive to everyday gendered experiences in India. As data were self-reported, cross-sectional and conducted in English or Hindi, they are constrained by social desirability, limited causal insight and possible loss of nuance in translation.

Directions for Future Research

Future research should use stratified sampling across rural and urban areas, multiple Indian states, caste and class groups and broader age cohorts (e.g., Millennials), while including transgender, non-binary and intersex participants to capture intersectional experiences. It should develop and validate culturally relevant multidimensional tools, use longitudinal designs to track strain across life transitions, test context-sensitive interventions and strengthen qualitative work through formal coding, multiple coders and participatory approaches.

Conclusion

This research offers a pioneering examination of gender role strain in India through open-ended inquiry. Quantitative findings showed that Gen Z females reported the highest self-role discrepancy, Gen X females the greatest appearance-related dysfunction and Gen X males the least overall strain, while qualitative patterns revealed participants describing how they were raised within rigid gender expectations, only to encounter a society in flux. These findings suggest a critical need to move beyond merely encouraging role flexibility. Instead, interventions must begin to question the relevance of the roles themselves, in how families, institutions and media continue to prioritize conformity over authenticity.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank all participants who generously shared their time and personal experiences for this study. Gratitude is extended to faculty members, peers and anonymous peer reviewers for their valuable feedback and critical insights.

Authors’ Contribution

AA: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, visualization, writing - original draft.

SJT: Supervision, validation, writing - review & editing, project administration, resources.

Consent to Participate

Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation, in accordance with the approval granted by the Institutional Ethics Committee for Human Research (IEC).

Consent for Publication

Verbal informed consent for publication of anonymized responses was obtained from all participants. Personal identifiers have been removed, and pseudonyms have been used to ensure confidentiality.

Data Availability Statement

Not Applicable.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

This is to confirm that prior to commencing the study, ethical approval for all protocols was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee for Human Research (IEC), the parent institution, under the Reference Number DRC/82(Mis)/2025/697.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Åberg

, Koivula

, & Kukkonen

(2020). A feminine burden of perfection? Appearance-related pressures on social networking sites. Telematics and Informatics, 46, 101319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101319

Ahmed-Ghosh

(2009). Ageing and gender in India: Paradoxes of a feminist perspective. Asian Women, 25(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.14431/aw.2009.06.25.2.1

Anand

(2024). Exploring the status of women in Indian society: A descriptive analysis. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(6), 4157–4171. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i6.6525

Arshad

, & Shahed

(2021). Development and validation of gender role strain scale for men. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 36(1), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.33824/pjpr.2021.36.1.08

Aziz

(2023). Women’s double burden in the family between culture and discrimination. Potret Pemikiran, 27(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.30984/pp.v27i2.2782

Barthwal

(2023). Gender portrayals and perceptions in the new age society of India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 31(1), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 09715215231210530

Barragán

J. J.

(2024). Beyond ‘Manning Up’: The impact of hegemonic masculinity & gender norms on mental health help-seeking among college men (Master’s thesis, San José State University). SJSU Scholar Works. https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.5vfn-3dca

Baugher

A. R.

, & Gazmararian

J. A.

(2015). Masculine gender role stress and violence: A literature review and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.04.002

Berke

D. S.

, Liautaud

, & Tuten

(2020). Men’s psychiatric distress in context: Understanding the impact of masculine discrepancy stress, race, and barriers to help-seeking. Journal of Health Psychology, 27(4), 946–960. https://doi.org/10.1177 /1359105320977641

10.

Carvalho

(2024). Restrictive emotionality in Indian men: A hindrance to help-seeking behaviour. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 12(2), 4214–4229. https://doi.org/10.25215/1202.376

11.

Chaudhuri

(2012). Indian “modernity” and “tradition”: A gender analysis. Polish Sociological Review, 178, 281–293.

12.

Chaurasia

, & Kewalramani

(2025). Mask of masculinity: Effects of finance on coping and anger on men. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 13(2), 630–637. https://doi.org/10.25215/1302.054

13.

Clandinin

D. J.

, & Connelly

F. M.

(2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

14.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.

15.

Connell

R. W.

, & Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

16.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum.

17.

Creswell

J. W.

, & Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

18.

Curran

M. A.

, McDaniel

B. T.

, Pollitt

A. M.

, & Totenhagen

C. J.

(2015). Gender, emotion work, and relationship quality: A daily diary study. Sex Roles, 73(3–4), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0495-8

19.

Desai

, & Andrist

(2010). Gender scripts and age at marriage in India. Demography, 47(3), 667–687. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0118

20.

Dimock

(2019). Defining generations: Where millennials end and generation Z begins. Pew Research Center, 17(1), 1–7.

21.

Fazloon

, & Usman

(2024). Exploring the factors behind the rejection of traditional gender roles: A preliminary study amongst Gen Zers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Futures in Education and Society, 3(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.58946/apjfes-3.2.P4

22.

Fields

E. L.

, Bogart

L. M.

, Smith

K. C.

, Malebranche

D. J.

, Ellen

, & Schuster

M. A.

(2015). “I always felt I had to prove my manhood”: Homosexuality, masculinity, gender role strain, and HIV risk among young Black men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301866

23.

Flanagan

J. C.

(1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470

24.

Gangal

A. D.

, Yigit

, & Ali

(2024). Generational differences in attitudes towards gender roles and violence against women. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 17(1), 198–208.

25.

Giarla

(2019). Generational social media: How social media influences the online and in-person relationships of Gen X, Gen Y and Gen Z. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:210488938

26.

Groves

R. M.

, Fowler

F. J.

, Couper

M. P.

, Lepkowski

J. M.

, Singer

, & Tourangeau

(2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Wiley.

27.

Gualdi-Russo

, Rinaldo

, Masotti

, Bramanti

, & Zaccagni

(2022). Sex differences in body image perception and ideals: Analysis of possible determinants. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2745. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052745

28.

Harrington

A. G.

, Overall

N. C.

, & Maxwell

J. A.

(2022). Feminine gender role discrepancy strain and women’s self-esteem in daily and weekly life: A person × context perspective. Sex Roles, 87(2), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01305-1

29.

Helgeson

V. S.

(2016). The psychology of gender (5th ed.). Routledge.

30.

Helfert

, & Warschburger

(2013). The face of appearance-related social pressure: Gender, age and body mass variations in peer and parental pressure during adolescence. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-7-16

31.

Hill Cone

, Zubielevitch

, Sibley

C. G.

, & Osborne

(2025). Gender identity is becoming more central to women of all ages, but less central to young men. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 9, 100242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2025.100242

32.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

33.

Hovorun

, Kikinezhdi

, & Savelyuk

(2024). Gender transformation of views from baby boomers to Generation Z, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.46727/c.v1.21-22-03-2024.p199-208

34.

Imelda

R. W.

, Prayogo

R. A.

, Silvia

, & Musa

D. T.

(2024). Gender resistance in women’s beauty in TikTok. Indev Literasi Media Dakwah dan Pengembangan Masyarakat, 3(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.31958/indev.v3i2.13309

35.

International Labour Organization. (2018). Women do 4 times more unpaid care work than men in Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved, 24 May 2026, from https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/ilo-women-do-4-times-more-unpaid-care-work-men-asia-and-pacific

36.

Iwamoto

D. K.

, & Smiler

A. P.

(2013). Alcohol makes you macho and helps you make friends: The role of masculine norms and peer pressure in adolescent boys’ and girls’ alcohol use. Substance Use & Misuse, 48(5), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2013.765479

37.

Iwamoto

D. K.

, Le

T. P.

, Clinton

, Grivel

, & Lucaine

(2023). Why conform? The implications of conformity to feminine norms on psychological distress among college women. Current Psychology, 43(2), 8655–8664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05023-z

38.

Jewkes

, Morrell

, Hearn

, Lundqvist

, Blackbeard

, & Lindegger

(2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(suppl 2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1085094

39.

Kalra

, Sharma

, Sumaiya

, Devi

, & Ansari

S. N.

(2021). A descriptive literature review: Scrutinizing gender sensitisation in education sector. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(2), 1316–1327.

40.

Karmakar

, & Chandola

(2023). Difference in perceiving role of man and women among Gen X and Gen Z in current society. European Chemical Bulletin, 12, 99–104. https://doi.org/10.31838/ecb/2023.12.g1.119

41.

Kelmendi

, & Jemini-Gashi

(2022). An exploratory study of gender role stress and psychological distress of women in Kosovo. Women’s Health, 18, Article 17455057221097823. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057221097823

42.

Kumari

, & Siotra

(2023). Indian females in the twenty-first century: How they have fared? An analysis using geospatial techniques. GeoJournal, 88(4), 4279–4295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-023-10865-y

43.

Lamberg

(2023). Persistent paradoxes, pragmatic postfeminism: How young women negotiate the contradictions of gender equality. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 31(4), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2023.2178503

44.

Levant

R. F.

, & Richmond

(2016). The gender role strain paradigm and masculinity ideologies. In Wong

Y. J.

& Wester

S. R.

(Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 23–49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14594-002

45.

Mahalik

J. R.

, Locke

B. D.

, Ludlow

L. H.

, Diemer

M. A.

, Scott

R. P. J.

, Gottfried

, & Freitas

(2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3

46.

Mahalingam

, & Balan

(2008). Culture, son preference, and beliefs about masculinity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00570.x

47.

Manirajah

S. M.

(2013). Are you man enough? A look at the attitudes of young male professionals on notions of masculinity and male gender norms in modern India [Independent Study Project, SIT Study Abroad]. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection.

48.

Martin

R. M.

(2024). Gender differences in suppression based on type of emotion. Psychology, 15(6), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2024.156052

49.

Mohla

, & Neera. (2023). Men are stoic, or are they? Emotional suppression in men and its relation with masculinity norms. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.25215/1103.399

50.

National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences. (2016). National mental health survey of India, 2015–16: Summary (ISBN 81-86477-00-X). https://indianmhs.nimhans.ac.in/phase1/Docs/Report2.pdf

51.

Panchal

, Belani

, & Darji

(2016). The challenges faced by Indian working women to balance professional and social life in the 21st century. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Women in Science & Technology: Creating Sustainable Careers (ICWSTCSC-2016). Indian Journal of Technical Education.

52.

Pande

(2025). From tradition to modernity: Navigating gender roles in India. In Yang

, Williams

, & Kaufman-Parks

(Eds.), Gender roles vs. gender equality. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1010992

53.

Pandya

, & Bhangaokar

(2022). Equal but different: Views on gender roles and responsibilities among upper-class Hindu Indians in established adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 30(1), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-022-09417-4

54.

Patil

R. H.

(2021). The social status of Indian women of different periods in the patriarchal society. Research Ambition: An International Multidisciplinary e-Journal, 5(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.53724/ambition/v5n4.06

55.

Pleck

J. H.

(1981). The myth of masculinity. MIT Press.

56.

Risman

B. J.

(2018). Gender as a social structure. In Risman

, Froyum

, & Scarborough

(Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 19–43). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76333-0_2

57.

Rothfuss

(2021). Comparing generation Z and generation X: The struggles of teens following in the faith of their parents (Doctoral dissertation). Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary.

58.

Scarborough

W. J.

, Fessenden

, & Sin

(2021). Convergence or divergence? The generational gap in gender attitudes, 1977–2018. In Gender, sexuality, and the family (Chapter 4). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-212620210000030004

59.

Shukla

(2015). Attitudes towards role and status of women in India: A comparison of three generations of men and women. Psychological Studies, 60, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-015-0298-6

60.

Smiler

A. P.

(2006). Conforming to masculine norms: Evidence for validity among adult men and women. Sex Roles, 54(11–12), 767–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9045-8

61.

Sonni

A. F.

(2025). Algorithmic gender representation in digital journalism: A perspective on platform-mediated masculinities in Indonesian media. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 7, 1735924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2025.1735924

62.

, Rounds

, & Armstrong

P. I.

(2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364

63.

Sumadevi

(2023). Impact of social media on youth: Comprehensive analysis. Shodh Sari – An International Multidisciplinary Journal, 2, 286–301. https://doi.org/ 10.59231/SARI7640

64.

Tagore

(2024). Mental health of men amidst the increasing gender bias in laws: A sociological study in the Indian context. Electronic Journal of Social and Strategic Studies, 5(2), 174. https://doi.org/10.47362/EJSSS.2024.5204

65.

Wallach

, Chamberland

, Lavigne

, Beauchamp

, Duford

, & Miller

(2017). The aging female body, ageist beauty norms, and social exclusion: From internalization to resistance. Innovation in Aging, 1(Suppl 1), 645. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx004.2284

66.

Woodman

(2018). Gender and generations: Using a generational framework to rethink continuity and change in the gender order. About Gender, 7(13). https://doi.org/10.15167/2279-5057/AG2018.7.13.500

67.

World Economic Forum. (2025). Global gender gap report 2025. World Economic Forum. Retrieved, 24 May 2026, from https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2025/

68.

Yildiz

, & Bilgin

(2023). How do young generations perceive gender differences? A case study. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 12(64), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.64.04.3