The global development community has understood the importance of addressing the social and health needs of young people. It has also acknowledged the negative impact of inequitable gender norms on young people of both sexes. Therefore, it is important to measure the various dimensions of gender norms, especially among early adolescents who should be prioritized in strategies aimed at enhancing gender equality [5].

Our study used gender norms scales, which are part of the GEAS measures that were developed to be cross-cultural measures, so it could be used to monitor and compare gender norms across time and space and help in following global progress towards achieving the United Nations’ 5th Sustainable Development Goal on gender equality by 2030 [18].

These gender norm scales covered different dimensions: heteronormative romantic relationships, sexual double standard, and endorsement of stereotypical gender traits and roles.

Regarding acceptance of heteronormative romantic relationships among the participated adolescents, students of both sexes showed no difference in the acceptance of romantic relationships, but boys were slightly more permissive about romantic relationships than girls. This matches the results from the GEAS in Indonesia and Shanghai, where boys were found to be more likely to approve romantic relations during adolescence [19, 20]. Also, our findings agree with Vu et al. study in Uganda, which tested an adapted GEM scale on young adolescents, and came to the conclusion that boys exhibit more equitable attitudes about relationships than girls in adolescence [21].

Moreau et al. study suggested that the sexual double standard, which is suggestive of perceptions of unequal social status related to romantic relationships for boys and girls, starts early in adolescence and is found across different cultures [15]. More specifically Moreau and her colleagues found that girls scored higher than boys on the sexual double standard scale both in Assiut, Egypt, and Ghent, Belgium [15]. This pattern was also observed in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo [22], where girls were more likely to indicate agreement with a sexual double standard regarding boy/girl relationships. This consistent pattern means that girls have more conservative views about relationships than boys, as they agree more with the sexual double standard subscale and are less accepting romantic relationships during adolescence. Therefore, more research is required to explore the different views boys and girls have regarding their expectations from romantic relationships in adolescence and to examine whether girls’ more cautious view is related to them experiencing unequal relationships or to generally show the two genders socialize.

Concerning stereotypical gender traits, our findings suggested that more than half of the boys and girls who participated in the study expressed more agreement towards stereotypical gender traits regarding male toughness and female vulnerability, and that boys were more likely to endorse stereotypical gender traits than girls; however, there was no significant difference between the genders. On the one hand, this is supported by the finding of the GEAS in Indonesia [19], which indicated that more than half of the adolescents agreed with the statements on stereotypical gender traits, except for “boys should always defend themselves even if it means fighting” (48% agreed) and “boys who behave like girls are considered weak” (43% agreed), and boys, generally, showed higher endorsement on norms that indicate boys’ toughness over girls’ vulnerabilities. This was observed in other localities such as the following: Flanders, Belgium and Cuenca, and Ecuador [23]. On the other hand, most adolescents in Shanghai rejected stereotypical gender traits, but boys were also more likely to endorse stereotypical gender traits than girls [20].

The present study findings of stereotypical gender roles regarding household decisions and division of labor and responsibilities showed that boys were more likely to support stereotypical gender roles than girls. Similarly, more than half of early adolescents in Indonesia supported stereotypical gender roles, but boys showed higher endorsement of males’ authority in the household than girls [19]. Contrary to that, most of early adolescents in Shanghai refused stereotypical gender roles [20].

The last items addressed in the gender norms scales were about negative social repercussions for challenging gender roles, where 51% of participated students agreed that it was okay to tease a boy who acted like a girl, and 27.5% agreed that it was okay to tease a girl who acted like a boy. In contrast, only 18% of adolescents in Indonesia approved of teasing behaviors against adolescents with atypical gendered behavior [19]. This suggests that adolescents with atypical gendered behavior might be more prone to peer violence as it was reported in some studies that adolescents non-conformant to the stereotypical gender norms are often excluded and bullied [24, 25]. However, by investigating the association between gender norms and bullying behavior, our study results showed that the students’ perception of the studied gender norms does not affect the students’ status of bullying and victimization.

Lastly, the study findings regarding the association between the perception of gender norms and some sociodemographic characteristics showed that the students’ endorsement of a sexual double standard, stereotypical gender traits, and stereotypical gender roles decreases with higher education of the mothers and when the mothers are employed. The positive effect of the mother’s education and having a working mother on the gender norms of both boys and girls had been reported in many studies [26, 27]. In Shanghai, China, girls’ endorsement for stereotypical gender roles was negatively associated with their mothers’ employment status [26]. Also, in the USA, Bertrand’s study found that adolescents’ gender attitudes appear positively influenced by having a working mother [27].

First, this study is cross-sectional, and thus inferences about causality are not warranted. Second, the participants were from governmental schools only, so the students in private schools were not represented in the study. Third, this study relied on a single informant assessment for bullying and victimization status, that is, relying on students’ perspectives without incorporating inputs from teachers or parents. This approach may not have yielded a comprehensive understanding of the problem.