Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Differential Reactions to Male and Female Gender-Role Violations: Testing the Sexual Orientation Hypothesis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research has found that gender-atypical males are evaluated more negatively than gender-atypical females. According to the sexual orientation hypothesis, this asymmetry in evaluations occurs because the feminine characteristics taken on by males when they violate gender roles are more closely tied to perceived sexual orientation than are the masculine characteristics of gender-atypical females. The current series of studies were designed to confirm the existence and generality of the asymmetry phenomenon (Study 1), the preconditions for testing the sexual orientation hypothesis (Study 2), and then to test the hypothesis itself (Study 3). Study 1 found that, as predicted, adults (N = 195, females = 97) displayed more intolerance of males than of females committing gender-role violations across a wide variety of characteristics within multiple domains, although the existence of asymmetry varied somewhat depending on the domain. Study 2 revealed that, as predicted, adults (N = 196, females = 117) believed that gender-role violations indicate homosexuality more so for males than for females overall and across all four domains studied (occupation, activity, trait, and appearance). Study 3 directly tested the sexual orientation hypotheses by examining the relationship between intolerance of specific gender-role violations (scores from Study 1) and the perceived homosexuality associated with those violations (scores from Study 2). Overall, there was a positive relationship between intolerance and perceived homosexuality, indicating that the more a given gender-role violation is thought to implicate homosexuality, the more negatively/less positively people tend to react to the violation, consistent with the sexual orientation hypothesis.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Funding

This study received no outside funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ursula A. Sanborn-Overby.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanborn-Overby, U.A., Powlishta, K.K. Differential Reactions to Male and Female Gender-Role Violations: Testing the Sexual Orientation Hypothesis. Arch Sex Behav 49, 2531–2546 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01803-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01803-x

Keywords

Navigation