Penalized for challenging traditional gender roles: Why heterosexual relationships in which women wear the pants may be more precarious
Publication date
2023-02
Editors
Advisors
Supervisors
Document Type
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
License
cc_by
Abstract
There is growing evidence that heterosexual relationships in which traditional gender roles are reversed because women have attained higher societal status than their male partner are more precarious. We argue that this is the case because both partners in role-reversed relationships are evaluated more negatively than partners in more egalitarian or traditional gender role relationships. In two experimental studies conducted in the United States (N = 223) and the Netherlands (N = 269), we found that when encountering role-reversed relationships, participants perceive the woman as the more dominant and agentic one and the man as the weaker one in the relationship. They also perceive women in role-reversed relationships as less likeable, have less respect for men in role-reversed relationships, and expect that such relationships are less satisfying. In addition, in a third partner study (N = 94 heterosexual couples), we found that both male and female partners in role-reversed relationships considered the man to be the weaker one and the woman to be the more dominant one. Moreover, perceiving the man as the weaker one predicted lower relationship satisfaction in role-reversed couples. Overall, this research indicates that gender stereotypes about heterosexual relationships should be considered in efforts to achieve gender equity.
Keywords
Heterosexual couples, Social perception, Socioeconomic status, Sex role attitudes, Gender relations, Traditional gender roles, Egalitarian gender roles, Relationship satisfaction
Citation
Vink, M, Derks, B, Ellemers, N & van der Lippe, T 2023, 'Penalized for challenging traditional gender roles : Why heterosexual relationships in which women wear the pants may be more precarious', Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, vol. 88, no. 3-4, pp. 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01339-5