Women face backlash when expressing anger about gender inequality

A new study published in The Journal of Social Psychology indicates that women who express anger about gender inequality tend to be judged more harshly and receive less public support for their causes compared to those who express no anger. The research also suggests that when women frame their anger as motivated by concern for others in their community, the negative effects on public support are partially reduced.

The research builds on longstanding findings that women tend to be penalized for expressing anger. This reaction appears to stem from widely held expectations that women should be warm, nurturing, and communal—traits that are often seen as incompatible with overt displays of anger. While anger can be a powerful motivator for social change, women’s use of this emotion in political or activist contexts may conflict with societal gender norms, undermining their perceived legitimacy and influence.

Previous studies have demonstrated that women who break from traditional gender roles, such as those who act assertively or express negative emotions, are often evaluated more negatively. But until now, little empirical work has examined how these dynamics play out when women express anger specifically about gender inequality—a topic where anger might be both appropriate and necessary for driving collective action.

The new research aimed to address that gap. The researchers wanted to know whether women who express anger about gender-based injustice are viewed less favorably and whether this response makes people less likely to join them in advocating for change. They also explored whether anger that aligns more closely with communal norms—such as concern for other women and girls—would reduce this backlash.

“We wanted to contribute a piece of the puzzle to achieving gender equality,” said study author Helena Radke, a senior lecturer in psychology at James Cook University. “Collective action like protesting and signing petitions is an effective route through which gender equality can be achieved but we also noticed that people seemed reluctant to engage in collective action when women expressed anger about gender inequality despite this being a perfectly understandable response. So we conducted this research to find out whether this was the case.”

Free daily newsletter

The researchers conducted two separate studies involving a total of 481 participants. In both studies, participants were exposed to a fictional newspaper article about a woman named Sarah Wilson, a political candidate running for office. The article consistently described gender inequality as one of Sarah’s core campaign issues, but the way she discussed it varied. Depending on the condition, Sarah either expressed:

• Group-based anger, where she was simply angry about gender inequality.
• Communal anger, where she expressed anger specifically on behalf of other women and girls in her community.
• No anger, where she discussed gender inequality without expressing emotion.

Participants then evaluated the candidate along several dimensions: perceived warmth, competence, whether she seemed like a “complainer,” and their own willingness to support her campaign or engage in collective action for gender equality alongside her.

Study 1 also examined whether participant gender affected their evaluations, while Study 2 introduced an additional manipulation—some participants were told that Sarah was a Black woman, while others were told she was White.

Across both studies, the results indicated that expressing group-based anger tends to harm women’s public image and reduce support for their causes. Participants consistently rated the angry candidate as less warm, more of a complainer, and were less inclined to vote for her or take collective action with her. This trend was particularly evident when comparing group-based anger to the no-anger condition.

“People are less willing to engage in collective action for gender equality with a woman who expresses anger about gender inequality,” Radke told PsyPost. “This might undermine progress towards gender equality because we know that collective action is an effective route through which social equality can be achieved.”

Importantly, communal anger—when the candidate expressed anger on behalf of others—partially mitigated these effects. In the first study, participants responded more favorably to communal anger than to general anger. They perceived the candidate as warmer and were more likely to support her campaign and join her in collective action. However, these differences were less clear in the second study, possibly due to variations in the participant pool, which included a more diverse sample in terms of gender, race, and sexual orientation.

But the researchers caution against interpreting their findings as advice for women to change how they express themselves.

“The findings were partially attenuated when participants were exposed to a woman who expressed anger about gender inequality for communal reasons (e.g., on behalf of women and girls in their community),” Radke said. “This does not mean we should encourage women to be more communal. Instead these findings indicate that we should tackle the narrow expectations of what it means to be a woman to make progress towards gender equality.”

Interestingly, perceptions of the candidate’s competence remained stable across all conditions. Whether she expressed anger or not did not appear to affect how capable participants thought she was. This suggests that negative reactions to female anger may be driven more by perceptions of likability and emotional demeanor than by judgments of ability.

Participant gender also influenced responses. In the first study, women consistently rated the candidate more positively than men and were more willing to take action with or on behalf of her. This pattern fits with previous findings suggesting that women are more likely to engage in collective efforts toward gender equality, possibly because such actions directly benefit them, while men may feel that these efforts challenge their group’s higher societal status.

The second study found that the candidate’s race did not significantly alter the relationship between anger expression and participant reactions. However, participants did perceive the Black candidate as warmer and were more willing to support her campaign than the White candidate, regardless of emotional expression. This finding may reflect an effort by participants—especially White ones—to avoid appearing prejudiced, or it may stem from broader cultural narratives about authenticity and intersectional advocacy. But the researchers caution that these interpretations remain speculative and warrant further investigation.

While the studies provide evidence that women’s anger about gender inequality tends to carry social costs, there are limitations to consider. The samples, while adequately powered for detecting small-to-medium effects, could be expanded to improve generalizability. Strengthening the experimental materials—for example, by incorporating video or audio instead of just text—might also offer a more realistic portrayal of anger and enhance the manipulation’s impact.

The study focused exclusively on women. Future research might examine whether men face similar consequences for expressing anger about gender inequality, though prior findings suggest they tend to be judged more favorably when showing anger. This may reflect broader beliefs that men are more authoritative and less self-interested when addressing these topics.

The researchers also note that communal anger, while somewhat more acceptable, still resulted in participants viewing the candidate as more of a complainer than when she expressed no anger at all. This suggests that even when women frame their anger in socially acceptable ways, they may not fully escape gendered backlash.

Going forward, Radke said that she and her colleagues would “love to develop an intervention to reduce the derogation of women who express anger experience and hopefully encourage greater collective action for gender equality.”

The study, “Women are derogated for expressing group-based anger which undermines collective action for gender equality,” was authored by Helena R. M. Radke and Amy Hanson.