Gender Bending and Gender Conformity: The Social Consequences of Engaging in Feminine and Masculine Pro-Environmental Behaviors

Abstract

Although pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) have been characterized as feminine, some PEBs are masculine suggesting that gender bending (e.g., engaging in pro-environmental behaviors inconsistent with one’s own gender) and gender conformity (e.g., engaging in pro-environmental behaviors consistent with one’s own gender) are possible for both women and men. Social consequences for gender bending versus conformity with PEBs were assessed in three studies. Gender bending created uncertainty about an actor’s heterosexual identity (Studies 1 and 2). Consistent with stigma-by-association, actors’ gender bending influenced judgments about an actor’s friend’s sexual identity (Study 2). However, gender bending had limited effects on ascription of gendered traits: More feminine than masculine traits were ascribed to PEB actors, even actors of masculine PEBs (Studies 1 and 2). Consistent with social ostracism, Study 3 illustrated that men were most likely to socially distance themselves from female gender benders, likely as a result of prejudice against gender-bending women. In contrast, women preferred to socially interact with gender-conforming women, likely resulting from a combination of their greater interest in feminine than masculine PEBs and preferring to interact with women more so than with men. Social repercussions are discussed in terms of stigmatizing engagement in PEBs.

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

References

  1. Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A. L., Nadolny, D., & Noyes, I. (2013). The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 614–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bloodhart, B. & Swim, J.K. (2019). Sustainability & consumption: What's gender got to do with it? Manuscript submitted for publication.

  3. Bos, A. E. R., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bosson, J. K., Taylor, J. N., & Prewitt-Freilino, J. L. (2006). Gender-role violations and identity misclassification: The roles of audience and actor variables. Sex Roles, 55(1–2), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9056-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boudet, H. S., Flora, J. A., & Armel, K. C. (2016). Clustering household energy-saving behaviours by behavioural attribute. Energy Policy, 92, 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brick, C., Sherman, D. K., & Kim, H. S. (2017). “Green to be seen” and “brown to keep down”: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buck, D. M., Plant, E. A., Ratcliff, J., Zielaskowski, K., & Boerner, P. (2013). Concern over the misidentification of sexual identity: Social contagion and the avoidance of sexual minorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 941–960. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., & Lindén, A.-L. (2007). Energy efficiency in residences—Challenges for women and men in the north. Energy Policy, 35(4), 2163–2172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.06.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dahl, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Swim, J. K., & Johnson, S. L. (2013, February). Masculinity and pro-environmental engagement. Austin: Presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 991–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1171–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–447). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(44), 18452–18456. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910851106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Doherty, T. J., & Clayton, S. (2011). The psychological impacts of global climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Filip-Crawford, G. (2015). Community interconnectedness and antigay behavior: A test of the lay disease-spread model of homosexuality (Doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

  18. Filip-Crawford, G., & Neuberg, S. L. (2016). Homosexuality and pro-gay ideology as pathogens? Implications of a disease-spread lay model for understanding anti-gay behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(4), 332–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315601613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Geiger, N., & Swim, J. K. (2018). Gendered Impressions of Issue Publics as Predictors of Climate Activism. Frontiers in Communication, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00054

  20. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing … or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316634081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors*. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3), 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00239.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(1), 83–96 http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., Adamska, K., Jaśkiewicz, M., Jurek, P., & Vandello, J. A. (2016). If my masculinity is threatened I won’t support gender equality? The role of agentic self-stereotyping in restoration of manhood and perception of gender relations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(3), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. LaMar, L., & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Malterud, K., & Bjorkman, M. (2016). The invisible work of closeting: A qualitative study about strategies used by lesbian and gay persons to conceal their sexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(10), 1339–1354. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1157995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McShane, B. B., & Böckenholt, U. (2017). Single-paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study summary, theory testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1048–1063. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2019). Retrieved January 25, 2019, from https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html

  31. Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., Hoffman, J. C., & Russell, F. J. (1994). When we observe stigmatized and “normal” individuals interacting: Stigma by association. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(2), 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294202007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pohlmann, A. (2015). Threatened at the table: Meat consumption, maleness and men’s gender identities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii, Hawaii Manoa, USA. Retrieved from https://www.scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/100470/Pohlmann_Attila_r.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2019

  33. Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Monroe, A. E. (2012). The infection of bad company: Stigma by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Riva, P., & Eck, J. (2016). Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rome, A. (2006). “Political hermaphrodites”: Gender and environmental reform in progressive America. Environmental History, 11(3), 440–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2007). The F word: Is feminism incompatible with beauty and romance? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(2), 125–136 http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00346.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rule, N. O., & Alaei, R. (2016). “Gaydar”: The perception of sexual identity from subtle cues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416664403, 444–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Snyder, M. L., Kleck, R. E., Strenta, A., & Mentzer, S. J. (1979). Avoidance of the handicapped: An attributional ambiguity analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(12), 2297–2306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.12.2297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Swim, J. K., & Geiger, N. (2018). The gendered nature of stereotypes about climate change opinion groups (Supplemental material). Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/doi/suppl/10.1177/1368430217747406. Accessed 6 May 2019

  42. Swim, J. K., Ferguson, M. J., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Avoiding stigma by association: Subtle prejudice against lesbians in the form of social distancing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/15324839951036560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Swim, J. K., Vescio, T. K., Dahl, J. L., & Zawadzki, S. J. (2018). Gendered discourse about climate change policies. Global Environmental Change, 48, 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Truelove, H. B., & Gillis, A. J. (2018). Perception of pro-environmental behavior. Global Environmental Change, 49, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., & Burnaford, R. M. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vandenbergh, M. P., & Gilligan, J. M. (2017). Beyond politics: The private governance response to climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  47. Vannette, D. (2017, June 28). Using attention checks in your surveys may harm data quality. Retrieved from https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/using-attention-checks-in-your-surveys-may-harm-data-quality/. Accessed 22 Jan 2019

  48. Weaver, J. R., Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Intrepid, imprudent, or impetuous? The effects of gender threats on men’s financial decisions. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wilke, J., & Saad, L. (2013). Older Americans’ moral attitudes changing. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/162881/older-americans-moral-attitudes-changing.aspx. Accessed 26 Jan 2019

  50. Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. The Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.12.2297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: National Science Foundation (NSF-BCS #1152147) awarded to Janet K. Swim and Theresa K. Vescio.

We would like to thank the following undergraduates for their assistance in data collection: Maria Amalia Arizaga, Ashley Caceres, Anita Chen, Maria Emelia Cordovez Dalmu, Alyssa A. Lauer, Laurene Roup, Mackenzie L. Sheetz, Stacy M. Sutton, Anna M. Vargo, Shuowen Zhang. We would like to thank Gabriele Filip-Crawford for her feedback when developing experimental study and Jonathan Cook for his feedback on the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet K. Swim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Swim, J.K., Gillis, A.J. & Hamaty, K.J. Gender Bending and Gender Conformity: The Social Consequences of Engaging in Feminine and Masculine Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Sex Roles 82, 363–385 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01061-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sex roles
  • Environmental psychology
  • Stigma
  • Masculinity
  • Femininity
  • Conservation (ecological behavior)
  • Sexual identity