Alice H. Eagly

Sex Differences in Social Behavior : A Social-role interpretation

Contents: The Analysis of Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A New Theory and a New Method. Sex Differences in Helping Behavior. Sex Differences in Aggressive Behavior. Sex Differences in Other Social Behaviors. The Interpretation of Sex Differences in Social Behavior.

Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

A role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders proposes that perceived incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles leads to 2 forms of prejudice: (a) perceiving women less favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership roles and (b) evaluating behavior that fulfills the prescriptions of a leader role less favorably when it is enacted by a woman. One consequence is that attitudes are less positive toward female than male leaders and potential leaders. Other consequences are that it is more difficult for women to become leaders and to achieve success in leadership roles. Evidence from varied research paradigms substantiates that these consequences occur, especially in situations that heighten perceptions of incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles.

Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature

According to our social-role theory of gender and helping, the male gender role fosters helping that is heroic and chivalrous, whereas the female gender role fosters helping that is nurturant and caring. In social psychological studies, helping behavior has been examined in the context of short-term encounters with strangers. This focus has tended to exclude from the research literature those helping behaviors prescribed by the female gender role, because they are displayed primarily in long-term, close relationships. In contrast, the helping behaviors prescribed by the male gender role have been generously represented in research findings because they are displayed in relationships with strangers as well as in close relationships. Results from our meta-analytic review of sex differences in helping behavior indicate that in general men helped more than women and women received more help than men. Nevertheless, sex differences in helping were extremely inconsistent across studies and were successfully predicted by various attributes of the studies and the helping behaviors. These predictors were interpreted in terms of several aspects of our social-role theory of gender and helping.

Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis

Research comparing the leadership styles of women and men is reviewed, and evidence is found for both the presence and the absence of differences between the sexes. In contrast to the gender-stereotypic expectation that women lead in an interpersonaily oriented style and men in a task-oriented style, female and male leaders did not differ in these two styles in organizational studies. However, these aspects of leadership style were somewhat gender stereotypic in the two other classes of leadership studies investigated, namely (a) laboratory experiments and (b) assessment studies, which were denned as research that assessed the leadership styles of people not selected for occupancy of leadership roles. Consistent with stereotypic expectations about a different aspect of leadership style, the tendency to lead democratically or autocratically, women tended to adopt a more democratic or participative style and a less autocratic or directive style than did men. This sex difference appeared in all three classes of leadership studies, including those conducted in organizations. These and other findings are interpreted in terms of a social role theory of sex differences in social behavior.

Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.

This article reviews research on the evaluation of women and men who occupy leadership roles. In these experiments, the characteristics of leaders other than their sex were field constant, and the sex of the leader was varied. These experiments thus investigated whether people are biased against female leaders and managers. Although this research showed only a small overall tendency for subjects to evaluate female leaders less favorably than male leaders, this tendency was more pronounced under certain circumstances

A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences.

This article evaluates theories of the origins of sex differences in human behavior. It reviews the cross-cultural evidence on the behavior of women and men in nonindustrial societies, especially the activities that contribute to the sex-typed division of labor and patriarchy. To explain the cross-cultural findings, the authors consider social constructionism, evolutionary psychology, and their own biosocial theory. Supporting the biosocial analysis, sex differences derive from the interaction between the physical specialization of the sexes, especially female reproductive capacity, and the economic and social structural aspects of societies. This biosocial approach treats the psychological attributes of women and men as emergent given the evolved characteristics of the sexes, their developmental experiences, and their situated activity in society.

The Leadership Styles of Women and Men

As women increasingly enter leadership roles that traditionally have been occupied mainly by men, the possibility that the leadership styles of women and men differ continues to attract attention. The focus of these debates on sameness versus difference can obscure the array of causal factors that can produce differences or similarities. Adopting the perspective of social role theory, we offer a framework that encompasses many of the complexities of the empirical literature on the leadership styles of women and men. Supplementing Eagly and Johnsons (1990) review of the interpersonally oriented, task-oriented, autocratic, and democratic styles of women and men, we present new data concerning the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles.

Stereotypes as Dynamic Constructs: Women and Men of the Past, Present, and Future

Dynamic stereotypes characterize social groups that are thought to have changed from the attributes they manifested in the past and even to continue to change in the future. According to social role theory’s assumption that the role behavior of group members shapes their stereotype, groups should have dynamic stereotypes to the extent that their typical social roles are perceived to change over time. Applied to men and women, this theory makes two predictions about perceived change: (a) perceivers should think that sex differences are eroding because of increasing similarity of the roles of men and women and (b) the female stereotype should be particularly dynamic because of greater change in the roles of women than of men. This theory was tested and confirmed in five experiments that examined perceptions of the roles and the personality, cognitive, and physical attributes of men and women of the past, present, and future.

Gender and the Emergence of Leaders: A Meta-Analysis

In this article, research is reviewed on the emergence of male and female leaders in initially leaderless groups

Explaining Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Perspective

Recent meta-analytic reviews have documented that the sexes typically differ in a variety of social behaviors, including aggression, helping, nonverbal behavior, and various aspects of inter-action in task-oriented groups. In general, these findings are consistent with a social-role theory of sex differences, which emphasizes the causal impact of gender roles-that is, of peoples beliefs about the behavior that is appropriate for each sex. To move beyond the demonstration of consistency between role expectations and social behavior, meta-analyses have examined the moderators and mediators specified by this theoretical model The outcomes of these moderator and mediator analyses are illustrated from several meta-analyses of gender and social behavior. These meta-analyses thus show that quantitative reviewing is not limited to the mere summarizing of research findings; the technique also allows reviewers to examine the plausibility of theories that are relevant to these findings.