The His and Hers of Prosocial Behavior - An Examination of The Social Psychology of Gender PDF

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978).
78). Causal
The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Har- inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion
vard Business School Press change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,
424 435.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of
attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analy-
sis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128,
function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey 699 727.
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (in press). Gender. In S. T.
pp. 269 322). New York: McGraw-Hill. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of
social psychology (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Eagly, A. H., Chen, S., Chaiken, S., & Shaw-Barnes, K.
(1999). The impact of attitudes on memory: An affair to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
remember. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 64 89.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The His and Hers of Prosocial Behavior: An

Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping Examination of the Social Psychology of
behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychologi- Gender
cal literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283308.
Alice H. Eagly
Northwestern University
Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C.,
& Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender gaps in sociopolitical
attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 87, 796 816.
Prosocial behavior consists of behaviors regarded as
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, beneficial to others, including helping, sharing, comforting,
M. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire guiding, rescuing, and defending others. Although women
leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and and men are similar in engaging in extensive prosocial
men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569 591. behavior, they are different in their emphasis on particular
classes of these behaviors. The specialty of women is
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leader- prosocial behaviors that are more communal and
ship style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, relational, and that of men is behaviors that are more
233256. agentic and collectively oriented as well as strength
intensive. These sex differences, which appear in research
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. (1991). Gender and the emer- in various settings, match widely shared gender role
gence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality beliefs. The origins of these beliefs lie in the division of
and Social Psychology, 60, 685710. labor, which reflects a biosocial interaction between male
and female physical attributes and the social structure. The
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory effects of gender roles on behavior are mediated by
of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, hormonal processes, social expectations, and individual
109, 573598. dispositions.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995).

Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Editors Note
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125145. Alice H. Eagly received the Award for Distinguished Scien-
tific Contributions. Award winners are invited to deliver an
Eagly, A. H., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of award address at the APAs annual convention. A version
nationalities applied to both women and men? Journal of of this award address was delivered at the 117th annual
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 451 462. meeting, held August 6 9, 2009, in Toronto, Ontario, Can-
ada. Articles based on award addresses are reviewed, but
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive they differ from unsolicited articles in that they are expres-
behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological sions of the winners reflections on their work and their
literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309330. views of the field.
644 November 2009 American Psychologist

Keywords: prosocial behavior, gender, sex differences, al- cially identified sex (Eagly, 1987). Gender role beliefs are
truism, helping both descriptive and prescriptive in that they indicate what
men and women usually do and what they should do. The
Gender fascinates the public and scientists alike, inspiring descriptive aspect of gender roles, or stereotypes, tells peo-
continuing debate about how nature and nurture intertwine ple what is typical for their sex. Especially if a situation is
in influencing female and male behavior. The fact that the ambiguous or confusing, people tend to enact sex-typical
keyword gender garnered 24,169 hits in 2000 2008 in the behaviors. The prescriptive aspect of gender roles tells peo-
PsycINFO database shows the thriving state of scholarship ple what is considered admirable for their sex in their cul-
on gender. These publications contain an abundance of in- tural context. People may enact these desirable behaviors
formation about malefemale similarities and differences. to gain social approval or bolster their own esteem. To
Although the aggregation of large amounts of such infor- varying extents, gender role beliefs are embedded both in
mation in meta-analyses or other summaries is useful, such others expectations, thereby acting as social norms, and in
approaches can also be limiting. If the puzzles of gender individuals internalized gender identities, thereby acting as
are to be solved, the integration of malefemale compari- personal dispositions (Wood & Eagly, 2009, in press).
sons must be coordinated with effective theory. In its ab- These culturally shared beliefs provide a general frame-
sence, variation in the direction and magnitude of these work for understanding why male and female behavior can
differences and similarities can appear to be random and be different or similar, depending on the behavior and its
can even give the impression that gender has little or no circumstances.
effect on behavior. Yet, the experiences and observations Gender role beliefs imply different prosocial behaviors
of everyday life suggest that gender remains a multifaceted for women and men. Following concepts introduced by
system of influences on personal choices, social interaction, Bakan (1966), most beliefs about men and women can be
and societal institutions. In this article, I examine how summarized in two dimensions, which are most often la-
these influences operate in one domain of human behavior. beled communion, or connection with others, and agency,
This domain is prosocial behavior, which consists of or self-assertion. Women, more than men, are thought to
behaviors consensually regarded as beneficial to others. be communalthat is, friendly, unselfish, concerned with
It includes actions such as helping, sharing, comforting, others, and emotionally expressive. Men, more than
guiding, rescuing, and defending (Batson, 1998; women, are thought to be agenticthat is, masterful, asser-
Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006). Much tive, competitive, and dominant (e.g., Newport, 2001;
prosocial behavior is directed to helping individuals, but Spence & Buckner, 2000). Studies of gender stereotypes
it can be directed as well to supporting a collective, have consistently found that their content is heavily satu-
such as a group, organization, or nation. Although such rated with communion and agency, with more minor
actions are not necessarily altruistic in the sense of be- themes pertaining to other qualities (e.g., Kite, Deaux, &
ing devoid of self-oriented motivation, they deliver help Haines, 2007). This predominance of communion and
to others. agency is widespread in world cultures (Williams & Best,
A simple first question might be whether there is a more 1990). To understand the relevance of these beliefs for
helpful sex. If armchair analysis answers this question, prosocial behavior, it is helpful to consider their implica-
ones first thoughts, be they implicit or explicit, might well tions for the types of social bonds that people form.
reflect gender stereotypes that ascribe kindness and concern Social bonds can take a relational form by linking peo-
with others more to women than to men (e.g., Diekman & ple to particular others in close relationships or a collective
Goodfriend, 2006; Williams & Best, 1990). Yet, probing form by linking people to groups and organizations
for second thoughts should bring to mind examples of (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). This distinction between rela-
helpful men. What about heroic men who take enormous tional and collective interdependence corresponds to the
risks for others and warriors who protect their tribe or na- communal and agentic dimensions of gender stereotypes
tion from external assault? Given these disparate images, a (Gardner & Gabriel, 2004). By ascribing warm, sympa-
first step toward understanding the prosocial behavior of thetic, and kind qualities to women, gender role beliefs
women and men involves an examination of gender roles. imply that women have a propensity for bonding with oth-
Subsequent steps involve explaining the origins of gender ers in close, dyadic relationships. Expressive, affectionate
roles and the processes by which they affect behavior. qualities facilitate friendships, romantic relationships, and
Gender Roles as a Tool for Understanding Prosocial family relationships and convey cooperative interdepen-
Behavior dence with others (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002).
In contrast, by ascribing assertive, ambitious, and com-
Elementary insights about social behavior follow from petitive qualities to men, gender role beliefs imply a social
scrutiny of a societys gender roles, which are the shared context in which people differ in status and men strive to
beliefs that apply to individuals on the basis of their so- improve their hierarchical position (Baumeister & Sommer,
November 2009 American Psychologist 645

1997; Gardner & Gabriel, 2004). Such qualities are consis- text can influence the salience of gender norms and the
tent with mens directing of much of their prosocial behav- accessibility of gender identities (e.g., Deaux & Major,
ior to collectives (Gilmore, 1990). Although independence 1987; Piliavin & Unger, 1985).
is also one of the agentic qualities commonly ascribed to A convenient organization of trends in agentic and com-
men, demonstrating a degree of independence in a group munal prosocial behavior classifies findings by their social
setting can produce influence (Moscovici & Nemeth, 1974; context: interactions with strangers, interactions in close
Shackelford, Wood, & Worchel, 1996) and potentially pro- relationships, interactions in workplaces, and interactions in
vide an opportunity for leadership (Eagly, Wood, & Fish- other social settings. Meta-analyses are informative, as are
baugh, 1981). In general, superior social status is conveyed archival data and individual field and laboratory studies.
by the agentic attributes ascribed to men, such as being Invoking these rich sources of data, in the next section I
dominant and masterful (Ridgeway & Bourg, 2004), even report malefemale differences and similarities, organized
though these attributes are not as favorably evaluated as by gender role beliefs and social context. In a subsequent
the communal attributes ascribed to women (Eagly & Mla- section (The Origin and Consequences of Gender Roles), I
dinic, 1994; Langford & MacKinnon, 2000). consider the causal relations in which these beliefs and
In the next section of this article I classify prosocial behaviors are embedded.
behaviors according to their agentic or communal empha- Malefemale comparisons from meta-analyses appear in
sis. A gender role analysis suggests that prosocial behav- this article as averaged findings in the d metric, defined as the
iors are more common in women to the extent that these difference between the male and female mean values divided
behaviors have primarily a communal focus and more com- by the pooled standard deviation (see Borenstein, Hedges,
mon in men to the extent that they have primarily an agen- Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). Effect sizes from single studies,
tic focus. A corollary of this prediction is that prosocial which are less reliable, are omitted. In contemplating the ef-
behaviors are more common in women if they have a rela- fect sizes, readers should keep in mind that the cumulative
tional emphasis (e.g., supporting or caring for an individ- impact of small effects can be considerable. This insight was
ual). A second corollary is that prosocial behaviors are compellingly explained by Abelson (1985, p. 133), who con-
more common in men if they have a collective emphasis, cluded that small variance contributions of independent vari-
facilitate gaining status, or imply higher status. Yet another ables in single-shot studies grossly understate the variance
consideration is that some differences in male and female contribution in the long run (see also Epstein, 1980;
behavior reflect sex differences in physical size and Rosenthal, 1990). If studies measures are not single-shot
strength. Womens lesser physical prowess can act as a but are appropriately aggregated across multiple observations
deterrent to their participation in highly strength-intensive of behaviors, effect magnitudes are generally larger.
activities, which include some prosocial behaviors (Wood Given these considerations, the most relevant baseline
& Eagly, 2002, in press). for interpreting effect magnitudes for prosocial behavior
These predictions should be understood as implying not incorporates the methodological characteristics of its typi-
dichotomous malefemale differences but general trends cal research paradigms. In this domain, single-shot studies
(or main effects of participant sex) that emerge across situ- are common, depressing effect magnitudes. It is therefore
ational and other individual factors that also affect proso- not surprising that averaging the effects from all available
cial behavior and that can moderate or compete with the meta-analyses of prosocial behaviors in social psychology,
effects of gender roles. The logic of prediction for gender regardless of hypothesis, yielded a d of only 0.37 (Richard,
effects is thus similar to that for other personal characteris- Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003).
tics (see Leary & Hoyle, 2009). In particular, gender roles Research Comparing Female and Male Prosocial
influence behavior in conjunction with many other roles, Behavior
including those associated with other group memberships
(e.g., ethnicity, religion) and specific obligations (e.g., fam- Interactions With Strangers
ily, occupation). Helping strangers, a domain that includes many agentic
Despite the myriad of influences on social behaviors, behaviors, became a focus of social psychological research
gender roles are important, acting in part through others in the wake of Darley and Latanes (1968) research ad-
expectations and broader social norms. These external pres- dressing the failure of bystanders to intervene in the infa-
sures range from subtle (e.g., stereotype threat) to obvious mous Kitty Genovese murder. Social psychologists then
(e.g., laws or norms forbidding one sex access to certain carried out numerous field and laboratory experiments on
roles or opportunities). Gender roles also act through indi- helping behavior (see Batson, 1998; Dovidio et al., 2006).
viduals personal identification with their gender and are Many of these researchers, like Darley and Latane, studied
intertwined with hormonal processes that facilitate mascu- bystander interventions in emergency situations in which
line and feminine behavior (Wood & Eagly, 2009). In ad- another person appeared to be distressed or endangered
dition, all behaviors are contextually situated, and this con- (e.g., helping a man who fell in the subway). Other types

of helping that attracted experimentation included assis- crimes and emergencies (Huston, Ruggiero, Conner, &
tance in response to requests (e.g., giving someone money Geis, 1981).
for the subway) as well as polite behaviors (e.g., helping Relevant archival data come from the Carnegie Hero
someone pick up dropped packages). Fund Commission (2009), which recognizes individuals
A meta-analysis of these experiments revealed that in who voluntarily risk their own lives while saving or at-
general men helped more than women (d 0.34, Eagly & tempting to save the life of another person. People whose
Crowley, 1986; see Johnson et al., 1989, for cross-cultural job roles or parental responsibilities require acts of rescu-
replication with a self-report questionnaire). Although all ing are ineligible for this recognition. Men have received
of the behaviors assessed in these experiments required the great majority of these heroism awards (91% in 1904
some attentiveness to the needs of others, only a portion 2008), and there is no evidence of systematic change in
required taking the initiative, thus calling on the assertive this distribution over the years (e.g., 92% men in 2004
qualities central to the male gender role. Therefore, the 2008; W. F. Rutkowsky, Executive Director of the Carne-
studies were classified by whether a need merely presented gie Hero Fund Commission, personal communication, May
itself to bystanders (e.g., through observation that someone 27, 2009). This disproportion is very unlikely to reflect a
was ill or distressed) or an explicit request to help was di- bias against honoring eligible women (see Becker & Eagly,
rected to them (e.g., an appeal for a charity donation). 2004). Replication of this pattern has emerged from the
When a need is merely present, helpers assert themselves Canadian governments awarding of a similar Medal of
to deliver aid, whereas when a request is made, helpers Bravery; 87% of these awards in 2004 2008 have honored
acquiesce to someone elses wishes. A finding consistent men (Governor General of Canada, 2009). In addition, men
with the agentic theme of the male gender role was that have strongly predominated in contemporary newspaper
men were especially more helpful than women when help- accounts of heroic interventions (Lyons, 2005) and among
ers had to take the initiative (d 0.55) than when helpers people recognized for intervening in dangerous criminal
had to acquiesce to a request (d 0.07). events such as muggings and bank holdups (e.g., Huston et
Many of these helping behaviors drew on agencys im- al., 1981). Also, in the social psychological helping experi-
plications for statusthat is, the common, albeit eroding, ments, to the extent that a behavior was perceived as more
expectation that men are dominant over women. In a dangerous by women than men (e.g., letting a stranger into
prosocial context, male dominance implies directing benev- your house to use the phone), it yielded greater male ad-
olent protectiveness and politeness toward women. Men are vantage in helping (Eagly & Crowley, 1986).
expected not only to protect women from dangers but to
deliver acts of courtesy such as helping them put on their Interactions in Close Relationships
coats. With cultural roots in medieval codes of chivalry, In close relationships, much prosocial behavior has a com-
such norms have survived in common paternalistic beliefs munal emphasis in that it involves extending care, nurtur-
and behaviors (Glick & Fiske, 2001). ing, helping, and sympathy to individuals. Among people
Aspects of the helping behavior findings suggest male bound to others through friendship and family roles,
chivalry. Specifically, in experiments that had divided data women generally provide more sensitive emotional support
by the sex of the person receiving aid, men helped more than do men. For example, on the basis of their narrative
than women for female recipients of help (d 0.27); this review, Burleson and Kunkel (2006, p. 150) concluded that
effect slightly reversed for male recipients (d 0.08,
Eagly & Crowley, 1986). In a finding consistent with the women are more likely than men to provide emotional sup-
idea that mens helping is driven in part by social norms port to others, to seek emotional support from others, to focus
that can be made salient by others presence, another anal- on emotions while providing support, and to use HPC [highly
ysis showed that the tendency for men to help more than person-centered] comforting messages in the effort to relieve
distress. . . . the observed gender differences in behavior are
women was substantial when the potential helpers were in comparatively substantial, often accounting for more than
the presence of onlookers (d 0.74) but not when they 10% of the variance in the examined dependent variables.
were the only bystander (d 0.02).
Some prosocial behaviors, often labeled heroic, require These conclusions echoed Cross and Madsons (1997) nar-
that the helper take considerable personal risk to aid an- rative review claiming that women manifest greater aware-
other person (Becker & Eagly, 2004). Heroic acts of rescu- ness and sensitivity concerning emotions and their impor-
ing others in emergencies are consistent with the male gen- tance in friendships. As a result of these behaviors, both
der role in that they are highly agentic in their requirement men and women generally prefer to obtain emotional sup-
for quick and decisive intervention that often places the port from women (Burleson & Kunkel, 2006). For exam-
rescuers own life at risk. Many such actions also advan- ple, among students asked whether they would likely seek
tage mens greater size and strength, as suggested by the emotional support from a friend of their own or the other
larger physical size of interveners than of noninterveners in sex, a preference for a woman emerged in 71% of the men

and 76% of the women (Kunkel & Burleson, 1999). These in the same job, they reduce sex differences in the behav-
patterns in adult behavior are preceded by analogous trends iors bound by such requirements. Therefore, of special in-
in childhood and adolescent friendships: Girls are more terest are organizational citizenship behaviors, which con-
likely than boys to engage in prosocial interactions empha- sist of discretionary acts that are not explicitly recognized
sizing helping, self-disclosure, and empathy (e.g., Rose & by the formal reward system and that promote the func-
Asher, 2004; see review by Rose & Rudolph, 2006, Tables tioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). Some of these
1 and 2). behaviors are relationally prosocial in extending help to
Similar patterns of social interaction exist in marital specific individuals (e.g., aiding a colleague with an exces-
relationships (e.g., Cutrona, 1996), especially in womens sive workload). In contrast, others of these behaviors,
provision of emotional support to their spouses when it is sometimes labeled civic virtue, demonstrate extra commit-
most needed (Neff & Karney, 2005). Prosocial behavior in ment to the employing organization and may yield gains in
families extends beyond emotional support to broader pat- status (e.g., attending meetings that are not mandatory).
terns of caring (see Cancian & Oliker, 2000). Despite some Research assessing peoples estimates of organizational
weakening of the traditional family division of labor in citizenship behaviors suggests little overall difference be-
recent decades, in U.S. households with children present, tween women and men in these behaviors (e.g., Organ &
women spend approximately twice as much time as men in Ryan, 1995). However, within this domain, women, more
caring for and helping household members (U.S. Bureau of than men, appear to engage in relationally prosocial citi-
Labor Statistics, 2008a). Women also comprise approxi- zenship behaviors (e.g., Farrell & Finkelstein, 2007; Heil-
mately 75% of caregivers for older family members and man & Chen, 2005; Kidder, 2002). These findings cohere
friends and 62% of grandparents living with and caring for with meta-analytic research on managerial style showing
grandchildren (U.S. Health Resources and Services Admin- that female managers, more than male managers, deliver
istration, 2005). Men, more often than women, are the individualized consideration behaviors, which focus on de-
main family provider, thereby carrying out collectively ori- veloping and mentoring subordinates and attending to their
ented prosocial behavior. In U.S. households with children individual needs (e.g., d 0.19, Eagly, Johannesen-
present, men spend almost twice as much time as women Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003). Less consistently, men,
in their employment activities (U.S. Bureau of Labor Sta- more than women, appear to engage in the civic virtue be-
tistics, 2008a). haviors that focus on the organization itself (e.g., Farrell &
Providing additional insight into familial prosocial behavior Finkelstein, 2007; Heilman & Chen, 2005; Kidder, 2002).
are excellent records that exist for a rare yet highly beneficial Providing additional evidence of womens relational
act: living kidney donation, which occurs mainly between workplace behavior, Moskowitz, Suh, and Desaulniers
genetically related persons. In this context, the medical goal (1994, with a Canadian sample) found that women, regard-
of maximizing donorrecipient biological compatibility should less of their job status, reported more communal behaviors,
foster gender similarity in donations. Nevertheless, living kid- such as friendly, unselfish, and expressive acts, than did
ney donors are somewhat more likely to be female in the men, especially when interacting with other women. Simi-
United States (58%), as are living donors of all organs (58%, larly, a meta-analysis of physicians behavior established
with a gradually rising female trend from 1988 to the present, that women and men physicians gave equivalent medical
U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, 2009; information but that women physicians displayed more
see Biller-Andorno, 2002, for similar German data). In addi- communal behaviors, including more positive talk, psycho-
tion, donations between unrelated individuals are often be- social counseling, emotion-focused talk, and nodding and
tween spouses, and wife-to-husband transfers are considerably smiling (e.g., ds 0.36 for positive talk and 0.22 for psy-
more common than husband-to-wife transfers (Becker & Ea- chosocial counseling, Roter, Hall, & Aoki, 2002). Many
gly, 2004). Consistent with these data and the communal occupational roles thus appear to allow relational prosocial
theme of the female gender role is the finding that female behavior that goes beyond job requirements (see also
donors, more than male donors, viewed themselves as having Fletcher, 1999).
an obligation to family members that extended to this physical Also relevant to prosocial behavior are occupational
form of caring (Simmons, Klein, & Simmons, 1977). These roles themselves, some of which are defined primarily by
kidney donation findings are consistent as well with the al- role occupants activities of extending help, support, or
ready noted family division of labor between womens caring protection to individuals or collectives (see Cancian &
and service activities and mens wage earning. Oliker, 2000). Many such roles remain dominated by one
sex, which is consistent with the moderate overall sex seg-
Interactions in Workplaces
regation of the U.S. labor force (Tomaskovic-Devey et al.,
Gender often marks prosocial workplace behaviors that go 2006). As general trends, the distributions of women and
beyond what people are required to do on the job. Because men into occupations are correlated with gender stereo-
formal job descriptions apply equally to women and men types, with male-dominated occupations regarded as agenti-

cally demanding and female-dominated occupations re- youth, and schools, a finding consistent with sociological
garded as communally demanding (Cejka & Eagly, 1999). research (Rotolo & Wilson, 2007). Specifically, female vol-
Women are relatively rare in occupations such as firefighter unteers, more than male volunteers, perform care work re-
(5%), police officer (15%), and soldier (14%), which are lated to education or youth-oriented or health services (e.g.,
designed to protect the community and society (U.S. Bu- Rotolo & Wilson, 2007; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
reau of Labor Statistics, 2009; U.S. Department of De- 2008b). In addition, men are disproportionally represented
fense, 2009). In contrast, women especially predominate in in leadership roles and as coaches of sports teams, and
occupations such as preschool and kindergarten teacher women in activities pertaining to the provision and prepa-
(98%), social worker (79%), and registered nurse (92%), ration of food.
which emphasize caring for individuals (England, Budig, &
Folbre, 2002; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). Gender Roles as Descriptions of Similarity and
Difference
Interactions in Other Social Settings
This review reveals that neither sex deserves recognition
Social scientists have studied prosocial behavior in other for delivering the majority of prosocial behavior. Although
settings that encompass varied social relationships and span both women and men deliver extensive help to others, they
a wide range of behaviors. One example is the rescuing of specialize to some extent in different types of behavior. In
Jews in the occupied countries of Europe during World general, these patterns are consistent with societal gender
War II, which involved risky acts that could be punished roles, which can act both as social pressures external to
by death or confinement in concentration camps (Becker & individuals and as internalized gender identities. Thus, the
Eagly, 2004). Some people rescued coworkers or friends, size and direction of sex differences in prosocial behaviors
but others rescued strangers (e.g., M. Gilbert, 2003; Oliner depend in part on whether a behavior requires mainly
& Oliner, 1988). Rescuers sometimes took the initiative to agentic attributes associated with men or communal at-
help Jews and other times responded to appeals from them. tributes associated with women. In addition, mens physi-
Some gave short-term help, but many entered into longer cal prowess yields male advantage for those prosocial ac-
term caring relationships by hiding Jews, often within their tions that favor exceptional physical strength. As overall
own dwellings. Holocaust rescuing thus encompassed com- trends, men tend to extend heroic help in dangerous emer-
munal and agentic behaviors, often involving complex se- gencies, interventionist help to strangers encountering acci-
quences of actions. Consistent with this variability is the dents and difficulties, chivalrous help to women, and col-
finding from an analysis of the Yad Vashem archive of lectivist support that promotes the interests of families,
data on non-Jews honored for rescuing Jews that women organizations, and nations at war. Women tend to extend
and men participated approximately equally, although when care to children and elderly relatives, sensitive emotional
married couples were excluded from the analysis, slightly support to spouses and friends, and relational support to
more women were found to have participated (Becker & workplace peers and subordinates.
Eagly, 2004). Has this research answered the question that began this
Community volunteering, which entails giving time and article? That is, are men and women similar or different in
services to benefit another person, group, or organization, their prosocial behavior? To produce an answer consistent
also encompasses varied communal and agentic behaviors with Hydes (2005) gender similarity hypothesis, psycholo-
as well as differing types of social relationships (Wilson, gists could aggregate prosocial behaviors across a wide
2000). In the United States, slightly more women than men range of more communal and more agentic acts. Also, av-
volunteer (e.g., 29% of women and 23% of men, U.S. Bu- eraging across a single domain that mixes agentic and
reau of Labor Statistics, 2008b). Similarly, women have communal behavior yields gender similarity (e.g., Holo-
received 56% of the Caring Canadian Awards (for 2004 caust rescuing). As I have shown, this apparent similarity
2008) given by the Canadian government for exceptional emerges mainly with aggregations across culturally mascu-
unpaid volunteer activity in the form of caring for individ- line and feminine behaviors. Classifying behaviors accord-
uals, families, or groups or supporting community service ing to communion and agency displays the power of gen-
or humanitarian causes (Governor General of Canada, der to shape social behavior.
2009). Also, women are somewhat overrepresented as The magnitudes of femalemale differences are of some
Peace Corp applicants and volunteers and as U.S. medical interest in relation to the meta-analytical baseline of 0.37
volunteers who serve in troubled foreign settings (see for all research on prosocial behavior (Richard et al.,
Becker & Eagly, 2004). 2003). Some of the meta-analyzed findings noted in this
Categorizations of volunteer activities in available data article approximate or exceed these typical findings for
do not allow a sharp division into agentic and communal prosocial behavior (e.g., 0.55 for taking the initiative to
behaviors. Nonetheless, volunteer work is moderately seg- help strangers; 0.74 for helping strangers in the presence of
regated by sex, especially in activities related to children, an audience of bystanders, Eagly & Crowley, 1986; 0.36

for physicians positive talk, Roter et al., 2002). Moreover, The Origins and Consequences of Gender Roles
some natural setting archives yield extremely dispropor-
tionate sex distributions (e.g., 91% men for Carnegie The match between culturally shared gender roles and ac-
Award heroism, W. F. Rutkowsky, executive director of tual sex-related differences is provocative but does not con-
the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission, personal communi- stitute a theory of why men and women differ in their so-
cation, May 27, 2009; 92% female nurses and 95% male cial behavior to varying extents. Explanation is the
firefighters, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). specialty of scientists, who articulate principles and design
empirical tests of their validity. An adequate theory must
As this article has demonstrated, researchers equipped
extend beyond these ideas about male agency and female
with the simple tools of culturally shared gender roles can
communion through a nomological net of related constructs
track this specialization of the sexes in different types of
that reach upward to the ultimate origins of male and fe-
prosocial behavior. Lacking these tools, research psycholo-
male behavior and downward to the processes that instigate
gists often fail to recognize these patterns of sex-related
behavior. In social role theory, the gender role beliefs in-
differences (e.g., Ellis, Field, Hershberger, Wersinger, &
troduced at the beginning of this article exist within a
Geary, 2008). Nevertheless, this identification of differ-
larger nomological net, which I now briefly present (see

ences and similarities does not derive from privileged sci-
Eagly & Wood, in press; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000;

entific knowledge. On the contrary, these insights derive Wood & Eagly, in press).
from the descriptive gender roles that are available to all The gender role beliefs that can order patterns of proso-
who share in a given culture. It is therefore not surprising cial behavior are surely not arbitrary social constructions.
that people are skilled at predicting the sex differences and Instead, their proximal origins reside in peoples observa-
similarities established in psychological research. tions of the everyday activities observed as typical of
There are many demonstrations of this everyday accu- women and men in a society. In a manner consistent with
racy about female and male behavior. For prosocial behav- the social psychological principle of correspondent infer-
iors, students estimates of the likelihood that women ver- ence (D. T. Gilbert, 1998), people infer the traits of each
sus men would engage in each of the behaviors assessed in sex from observations of their behavior. To the extent that
the experiments on helping behavior accurately tracked the people observe men and women engaging in a division of
sex differences and similarities in these studies (Eagly & labor, they regard them as psychologically different.
Crowley, 1986). Even more impressively, in several re- In daily life, people observe more domestic work car-
search projects, student participants beliefs about the di- ried out by women and more paid work carried out by men
rection and magnitude of sex-related differences in a wide (Bianchi, Robinson, & Milkie, 2006; U.S. Bureau of Labor
range of personality traits, abilities, and social behaviors Statistics, 2008a). The social behaviors that typify domestic
proved to be moderately correlated with the findings of the versus wage labor differ in their perceived communal ver-
meta-analyses that had compared the sexes (Briton & Hall, sus agentic emphasis. People thus regard the domestic role
1995; Hall & Carter, 1999; Swim, 1994). Also suggesting as fostering a communal pattern of facilitative behaviors in
accuracy is the finding that gender-stereotypic beliefs cor- close relationships, including the nurturing of children. In
related with mens and womens experiences of the emo- contrast, people regard employment roles as favoring more
tions of anger, fear, love, joy, and sadness (Grossman & agentic behaviors (Eagly & Steffen, 1984).
Wood, 1993). In addition, students successfully estimated Despite this association of employment roles with
the social attitudes held by men versus women on a variety agency, paid jobs are highly variable in their demands.
of topics (Diekman, Eagly, & Kulesa, 2002) as well as the Women and men are regarded as possessing the attributes
distributions of men and women into occupations (Cejka & required by the occupations in which they are most com-
Eagly, 1999). Finally, individual differences in the accu- monly observed (Koenig & Eagly, 2008). Mens roles in
racy of students beliefs about sex differences and similari- the workplace tend to place them in positions of higher
ties related positively to measures of their interpersonal status or power vis-a-vis the women with whom they inter-
sensitivity and self-reported accuracy of social perception act, conveying expectations of dominance and control
(Hall & Carter, 1999). (Ridgeway & Bourg, 2004). Also, as already noted, the
Research has thus shown that people have generally requirements for success in specific occupations are corre-
good descriptive knowledge of female and male behavior, lated with perceived agency to the extent that they are
and this knowledge is more astute for accurate observers of male dominated and with perceived communion to the ex-
social life. Of course, this substantial kernel of truth in tent that they are female dominated (Cejka & Eagly, 1999;
gender stereotypes holds only for group differences be- Glick, 1991).
tween men and women. These beliefs are of limited value If gender role beliefs derive mainly from natural-setting
in predicting the behavior of individuals, who may or may observations of women and men in their family and occu-
not be typical of their sex. pational roles (see Fiedler & Walther, 2004), it is impor-

tant to understand the origins of these differing roles. As mented the power of others expectations and culturally
Wood and Eagly (2002, in press) argued in their biosocial shared norms to shape behavior in directions consistent
origin theory, the ultimate origins of male and female roles with gender roles. Examples include experiments on the
follow mainly from physical differences between the sexes, debilitating effects of stereotype threat on womens math
especially womens reproductive activities and mens performance and interest in leadership and on mens social
greater size and strength, as these factors interact with the sensitivity, emotional intelligence, and affective informa-
demands of the social structure. tion processing (see review by Wood & Eagly, in press).
In most societies, considerable biosocial constraint on More obvious examples include discrimination against
roles has followed from womens reproductive activities, women and men in relation to occupations and opportuni-
which include the energy-intensive and time-consuming ties inconsistent with their gender roles, which thus fosters
activities of gestating, nursing, and caring for infants (Hu- sex-segregated occupations (Heilman & Eagly, 2008).
ber, 2007). In traditional societies, women were bound to Gender role beliefs also influence peoples self-concepts
long-term lactation for lack of other safe methods to feed and thereby become gender identitiesindividuals sense
infants, and contraceptive technologies were absent. Preg- of themselves as female or male (see Wood & Eagly,
nancies and infant care made it difficult for women to par- 2009, in press). One reason that individuals of the same
ticipate as much as men did in tasks that demanded speed sex differ in their prosocial behavior is that they internalize
of locomotion, uninterrupted activity, extended training, or agency or communion (or other aspects of gender) to vary-
long-distance travel away from home. In addition, mens ing degrees. Evidence of this internalization is that the self-
greater size and strength equipped them for strength-inten- descriptions of men and women differ on gender identity
sive tasks. In foraging, horticultural, and agricultural soci- measures, with men describing themselves more agentically
eties, these tasks included activities such as hunting large (d 0.60) and women more communally (d 0.73, J. M.
animals, plowing, and conducting warfare. The resulting Twenge, personal communication, April 1, 2009, averaged
division of labor thus reflects the specialization of each sex across Twenge, 1997, data sets). Replicating these trends
in activities for which they are physically better suited in are personality tests that yield self-reported tendencies to-
the circumstances presented by their society. This division ward greater male assertiveness (d 0.50, Feingold, 1994;
of labor in turn typically yields expectations about female see also Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001) and greater
communion and male agency. female tender-mindedness and nurturance (ds 0.97, 0.75,
How do these expectations produce sex differences in Feingold, 1994) as well as greater emotional intelligence
behavior? As Wood and Eagly (in press) have explained, a (d 0.28, Whitman, 2009) and empathy and sympathy
trio of biosocial mechanisms enables behavior. Biological (for a review of relevant meta-analyses, see Eisenberg,
processes involving hormonal changes interact with socio- Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006).
cultural factors of others stereotypic expectations and indi- Gender identities exert trait-like influences on behavior
viduals gender identities to yield sex differences and simi- by serving as standards against which people regulate their
larities. behavior (Witt & Wood, in press; Wood, Christensen,
Men and women selectively recruit hormones and other Hebl, & Rothgerber, 1997). These identities, which reflect
neurochemical processes to facilitate their role behavior. the segregation of male and female roles, in turn act to
Higher levels of oxytocin (as well as reduced cortisol and recreate such segregation as men and women select into
testosterone) are associated with behaviors that produce social roles that offer opportunities for meeting their self-
parental bonding, nurturance, and intimacy (Campbell, standards (Corrigall & Konrad, 2006; Evans & Diekman,
2008; Taylor et al., 2000). Also important to bonding and 2009).
affiliation are the neurochemical processes associated with Gender identities thus join with social pressures deriving
rewards and learning of affiliation, which supplement or from others expectations and with hormonal influences to
even supplant the influence of oxytocin (Broad, Curley, & foster prosocial behavior that tends to be more agentic in
Keverne, 2006). In contrast, testosterone is recruited for men and communal in women. These influences are facili-
distinctively masculine roles involving dominance and tated by socialization that enables boys and girls to recog-
competition (Archer, 2006, in press). These activities nize and channel hormonal signals, others expectations,
would include prosocial behaviors such as rescuing in and their own gender identities in the service of performing
emergencies and defending ones family, tribe, or nation in their everyday social roles (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum,
the face of external threat. 2006).
Gender roles also affect behavior through their embed-
Change in Sex Differences in Prosocial Behavior
ding in other peoples expectations: Behavior consistent
with these roles usually garners approval, and inconsistent Are the patterns of female and male prosocial behavior
behavior is often negatively sanctioned (Diekman & Eagly, noted in this article likely to disappear over time? The an-
2008). Extensive social psychological research has docu- swer to this question is not simple. According to the causal

flows emphasized in social role theory (Eagly, Wood, & pacity to promote social expectations of womens increased
Diekman, 2000), even moderately segregated social roles agency.
act through mediational processes to yield sex-related pat- Equal participation in communally demanding roles so
terns of prosocial behavior. Individual mens greater deliv- far has proven difficult to achieve. Impediments to men
ery of agentically oriented prosocial behavior thus follows taking on such roles include the lower wages of occupa-
from the social fact of mens predominance in social roles tions that emphasize caring (England, 2006; England et al.,
perceived as demanding considerable agency. Yet, it is pre- 2002), mens lack of self-efficacy in relation to such activ-
cisely this aspect of role occupancy that has shown sub- ity (Giles & Rea, 1999), social expectations that men are
stantial change. Women have not only increased their labor deficient in communal skills (Cejka & Eagly, 1999), and
force participation but have moved into many white-collar, stigma associated with nontraditional male roles such as
traditionally male-dominated occupations; they now consti- stay-at-home dads (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2005).
tute 51% of individuals in management, professional, and There are in addition impediments to women lowering
related occupations. In sharp contrast, few women have their participation in child care. The energetic demands of
shifted into male-dominated blue-collar occupations; they bearing children and the health benefits of some months of
constitute only 3% of those in construction and extraction breast-feeding can influence mothers with sufficient finan-
occupations; 4% of those in installation, maintenance, and cial resources to reduce their commitment to paid work in
repair occupations; and 15% of those in transportation and favor of child care, given the limited accommodation of
material moving occupations (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis- workplaces to infant care. Lowering paid work hours or
tics, 2009; see Webb, 2009, for cross-national compari- eliminating them altogether can be congruent with many
sons). Yet, women have gained broader responsibilities and mothers gender identities and the expectations of others,
considerable status by becoming managers and profession- including husbands and partners. Hormonal processes also
als. As a consequence, they have come to view themselves may encourage mothers child care, as the cascading hor-
as more agentic than in the past (Twenge, 1997, 2001; see mones of pregnancy and lactation support womens tending
also Kasen, Chen, Sneed, Crawford, & Cohen, 2006). Even (Campbell, 2008; Feldman, Weller, Zagoory-Sharon, &
though men are still higher in self-reported agency in many Levine, 2007; Taylor et al., 2000). Yet, fathering can be
supported by parallel hormonal accommodation (Berg &
comparisons (e.g., Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, & Lueptow,
Wynne-Edwards, 2001, 2002). In both sexes, caretaking of
2001), the changes in womens roles suggest considerable
infants and young children is also supported by neuro-
potential for women to undertake agentically oriented
chemical mechanisms of reward learning (Broad et al.,
prosocial behavior.
2006; Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005). Fathering is
So far there is less reason to expect changes in commu- additionally facilitated by changing attitudes in the United
nally oriented prosocial behavior. Female-dominated occu- States, especially among younger adults (e.g., Milkie, Bian-
pations, generally perceived as communally demanding chi, Mattingly, & Robinson, 2002). Considerable potential
(Cejka & Eagly, 1999), have not changed much in sex thus exists for fathers to share child care more fully with
composition (England, 2005; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis- mothers and consequently to deliver more caring, support-
tics, 2009). Also, women continue to take primary respon- ive prosocial behavior.
sibility for child care and household service work, despite There is less reason to predict much change in mens
some increase in mens contributions (Aguiar & Hurst, greater enactment of highly strength-intensive behaviors,
2007; Bianchi et al., 2006). For example, in 20032006, including heroic rescuing. Even though women may be
even among men and women filling the same roles as mar- increasing their physical prowess through athletics and con-
ried parents with full-time employment, women devoted ditioning, biological sex differences in size and strength
1.5 hours to child care for every hour devoted by men as remain substantial (see review by Archer, 2009). Nonethe-
well as 1.5 hours to other household service work for ev- less, many occupations that were once highly strength in-
ery hour devoted by men (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, tensive (e.g., warrior) are now more reliant on technology
2008a). Therefore, it is not surprising that self-reported that lessens the importance of strength, thus becoming
communal tendencies in women and men have appeared to more accessible to women (e.g., Simon, 2001). Still, physi-
be relatively stable over time (Twenge, 1997). Also, this cal differences foster categorical thinking about mens
lingering specialization of women in family caring and ser- greater capacity for behaviors requiring brief bursts of
vice activity hinders gender equality because it tends to strength and speed and thereby give men privileged access
reduce many womens commitment to continuous, full-time to the status-enhancing designation as heroic, at least for
employment. This reduction occurs even among women in the types of actions that yield Carnegie medals. Yet, hero-
the occupational roles that yield maximum status, author- ism is not accorded only to rescuers. Extraordinary caring
ity, and wages (e.g., Bertrand, Goldin, & Katz, 2009; Herr in close relationships is sometimes acknowledged as he-
& Wolfram, 2009) and that therefore have the greatest ca- roic. For example, when a community sample of respon-

dents named heroes known to them personally, they often Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
listed family guardians who had consistently cared and pro- dressed to Alice H. Eagly, Department of Psychology, 2029
vided for family members despite encountering serious Sheridan Road, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
challenges. Women and men were equally represented 60208. E-mail: [email protected]
among these personal heroes (Rankin & Eagly, 2008).
Change in male and female social roles does not flow References
easily because resistance counters pressures toward change.
Opposition to some changes is intense, such as opposition Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox:
to women in military combat roles (e.g., Browne, 2007). When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129 133.
Societal ideologies legitimize inequalities between men and
women (Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Ridgeway, 2006). Aguiar, M., & Hurst, E. (2007). Measuring trends in lei-
To some extent, even women accept ideologies that subor- sure: The allocation of time over five decades. Quarterly
dinate women (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003) Journal of Economics, 122, 969 1006.
and endorse paternalistic ideas (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Nev-
ertheless, womens attitudes and ideologies are more pro- Archer, J. (2006). Testosterone and human aggression: An
gressive than mens (e.g., Eagly, Diekman, Johannesen- evaluation of the challenge hypothesis. Neuroscience and
Schmidt, & Koenig, 2004; Seguino, 2007), and their Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 319 345.
political commitments can speed social change (e.g., Dod-
son, 2006). Gradual movement toward less segregated so- Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex
cial roles is thus a reasonable expectation (Jackson, 2006), differences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
as is gradual weakening of the majority of the sex differ- 32, 249 311.
ences in prosocial behavior.
In summary, research on prosocial behavior yields pat- Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isola-
terns of gender specialization that are well known in daily tion and communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon
life. Although it is incorrect to claim that there is a more Press.
helpful sex, a persistent pattern emerges of female emo-
tionally supportive and sensitive behavior, especially in Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In
close relationships, and male agentic behavior, often di- D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The hand-
rected to strangers and to the support of social collectives. book of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 282316).
In relevant data, these differences range from small to Boston: McGraw-Hill.
large in magnitude, depending on the behaviors themselves,
their social context, individuals dispositions, studies Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men
methods, and the presence of competing influences on the want? Gender differences and two spheres of belonging-
behaviors. ness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychologi-
Despite the considerable information available in exist- cal Bulletin, 122, 38 44.
ing reports, many aspects of prosocial behavior remain rel-
atively unexplored, including the ways in which social Becker, S. W., & Eagly, A. H. (2004). The heroism of
class, race, ethnicity, and religious commitments may mod- women and men. American Psychologist, 59, 163178.
erate gender effects (Cole, 2009). Also deserving attention
are the interactions between the three processes that serve Berg, S. J., & Wynne-Edwards, K. E. (2001). Changes in
as proximal determinants of male and female behavior: testosterone, cortisol, and estradiol levels in men becoming
hormonal processes, socially shared expectations, and indi- fathers. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 76, 582592.
vidual dispositions that include gender identity. Further
expansion of knowledge about the rich mosaic of prosocial Berg, S. J., & Wynne-Edwards, K. E. (2002). Salivary hor-
behavior will allow psychologists to refine theories that mone concentrations in mothers and fathers becoming par-
disentangle the conditions under which men and women ents are not correlated. Hormones and Behavior, 42, 424
are similar or different and the implications of these find- 436.
ings for progress toward gender equality in society.
Bertrand, M., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2009). Dynamics
Authors Note of the gender gap for young professionals in the financial
Wendy Wood, Amanda Diekman, Paul Eastwick, Anne and corporate sectors (National Bureau of Economic Re-
Koenig, and Seymour Becker provided helpful comments search Working Paper No. 14681). Retrieved June 1, 2009,
on a draft of this article. from http://www.nber.org/papers/w14681

Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psy-
Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: chology. American Psychologist, 64, 170 180.
Russell Sage Foundation.
Corrigall, E. A., & Konrad, A. M. (2006). The relationship
Biller-Andorno, N. (2002). Gender imbalance in living or- of job attribute preferences to employment, hours of paid
gan donation. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 5, work, and family responsibilities: An analysis comparing
199 204. women and men. Sex Roles, 54, 95111.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Roth- Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001).
stein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chiches- Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Ro-
ter, England: Wiley. bust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 322331.
Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2005). Attitudes toward
traditional and non-traditional parents. Psychology of Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self:
Women Quarterly, 29, 436 445. Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122,
537.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this we?
Levels of collective identity and self representations. Jour- Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 8393. as a resource in times of stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention
and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32, 79 90. in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 8, 377383.
Broad, K. D., Curley, J. P., & Keverne, E. B. (2006).
Motherinfant bonding and the evolution of mammalian
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into con-
social relationships. Philosophical Transactions of the
text: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psy-
Royal Society, 361, 2199 2214.
chological Review, 94, 369 389.
Browne, K. (2007). Co-ed combat: The new evidence that
women shouldnt fight the nations wars. New York: Senti- Depue, R. A., & Morrone-Strupinsky, J. V. (2005). A neu-
nel (Penguin Group). robehavioral model of affiliative bonding: Implications for
conceptualizing a human trait of affiliation. Behavioral and
Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A. W. (2006). Revisiting the Brain Sciences, 28, 313395.
different cultures thesis: An assessment of sex differences
and similarities in supportive communication. In K. Dindia Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). On men, women,
& D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah &
communication (2nd ed., pp. 137159). Mahwah, NJ: Erl- W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp.
baum. 434 447). New York: Guilford Press.
Campbell, A. (2008). Attachment, aggression and affilia- Diekman, A. B., Eagly, A. H., & Kulesa, P. (2002). Accu-
tion: The role of oxytocin in female social behavior. Bio- racy and bias in stereotypes about the social and political
logical Psychology, 77, 110. attitudes of women and men. Journal of Experimental So-
cial Psychology, 38, 268 282.
Cancian, F. M., & Oliker, S. J. (2000). Caring and gender.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with
the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms.
Carnegie Hero Fund Commission. (2009). Requirements Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 369 383.
for a Carnegie medal. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from
http://www.carnegiehero.org/nominate.php Dodson, D. L. (2006). The impact of women in Congress.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic
images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner,
employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, L. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior.
25, 413 423. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A England, P. (2005). Gender inequality in labor markets:
social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. The role of motherhood and segregation. Social Politics,
12, 264 288.
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping
behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychologi- England, P. (2006). Toward gender equality: Progress and
cal literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283308. bottlenecks. In F. D. Blau, M. C. Brinton, & D. B. Grusky
(Eds.), The declining significance of gender? (pp. 245
Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., 264). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
& Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender gaps in sociopolitical
attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Per- England, P., Budig, M., & Folbre, N. (2002). Wages of
sonality and Social Psychology, 87, 796 816. virtue: The relative pay of care work. Social Problems, 49,
455 473.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen,
M. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: II. Implica-
leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and tions for psychological research. American Psychologist,
men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569 591. 35, 790 806.
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people preju- Evans, C. D., & Diekman, A. B. (2009). On motivated role
diced against women? Some answers from research on atti- selection: Gender beliefs, distant goals, and career interest.
tudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. In Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 235249.
W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of
social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 135). New York: Wiley. Farrell, S. K., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2007). Organizational
citizenship behavior and gender: Expectations and attribu-
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes tions for performance. North American Journal of Psychol-
stem from the distribution of women and men into social ogy, 9, 8195.
roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
735754. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429 456.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (in press). Social role theory: A
biosocial analysis of sex differences and similarities. In P. van Feldman, R., Weller, A., Zagoory-Sharon, O., & Levine,
Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of A. (2007). Evidence for a neuroendocrinological foundation
theories in social psychology. London: Sage. of human affiliation: Plasma oxytocin levels across preg-
nancy and the postpartum period predict motherinfant
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. (2000). Social bonding. Psychological Science, 18, 965970.
role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current
appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The devel- Fiedler, K., & Walther, E. (2004). Stereotyping as induc-
opmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123174). Mah- tive hypothesis testing. New York: Psychology Press.
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Fishbaugh, L. (1981). Sex dif- model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence
ferences in conformity: Surveillance by the group as a de- and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and
terminant of male nonconformity. Journal of Personality competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
and Social Psychology, 40, 384 394. 82, 878 902.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power,
Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & and relational practice at work. Cambridge, MA: MIT
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: So- Press.
cial, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., Vol.
3, pp. 646 718). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Gardner, W. L., & Gabriel, S. (2004). Gender differences
in relational and collective interdependence: Implications
Ellis, L., Field, E., Hershberger, S., Wersinger, S., & for self-views, social behavior, and subjective well-being.
Geary, D. (2008). Sex differences: Summarizing more than In A. H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The
a century of scientific research. New York: Psychology psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 169 191). New York:
Press. Guilford Press.

Gilbert, D. T. (1998). Ordinary personology. In D. T. Gil- Huber, J. (2007). On the origins of gender inequality.
bert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 89 150). Boston:
McGraw-Hill. Huston, T. L., Ruggiero, M., Conner, R., & Geis, G.
(1981). Bystander intervention into crime: A study based
Gilbert, M. (2003). The righteous: The unsung heroes of on naturally-occurring episodes. Social Psychology Quar-
the holocaust. New York: Henry Holt. terly, 44, 14 23.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis.

Giles, M., & Rea, A. (1999). Career self-efficacy: An applica- American Psychologist, 60, 581592.
tion of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 72, 393398. Jackson, R. M. (2006). Opposing forces: How, why, and
when will gender inequality disappear? In F. D. Blau,
Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural M. C. Brinton, & D. B. Grusky (Eds.), The declining sig-
concepts of masculinity. New Haven, CT: Yale University
nificance of gender? (pp. 215244). New York: Russell

Press. Sage Foundation.
Glick, P. (1991). Trait-based and sex-based discrimination Johnson, R. C., Danko, G. P., Darvill, T. J., Bochner, S.,
in occupational prestige, occupational salary, and hiring. Bowers, J. K., Huang, Y.-H., et al. (1989). Cross-cultural
Sex Roles, 25, 351378. assessment of altruism and its correlates. Personality and
Individual Differences, 10, 855 868.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance:
Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifica- Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. N.
tions for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological
109 118. dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced
system justification among the disadvantaged. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1336.
Governor General of Canada. (2009). Honours. Retrieved
March 15, 2009, from http://www.gg.ca/honours/index_e.asp Kasen, S., Chen, H., Sneed, J., Crawford, T., & Cohen, P.
(2006). Social role and birth cohort influences on gender-
Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Sex differences in linked personality traits in women: A 20-year longitudinal
intensity of emotional experience: A social role interpreta- analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 944 958.
1010 1022.
Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the per-
Hall, J. A., & Carter, J. D. (1999). Gender-stereotype accu- formance of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
racy as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Management, 28, 629 648.
Social Psychology, 77, 350 359.
Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Haines, E. L. (2007). Gender
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, dif- stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psy-
ferent consequences: Reactions to mens and womens al- chology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (2nd
truistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychol- ed., pp. 205236). Westport, CT: Praeger.
ogy, 90, 431 441.
Koenig, A., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Role occupancies as
determinants of stereotypes of social groups. Unpublished
Heilman, M., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes manuscript, University of San Diego.
are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimina-
tion. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspec- Kunkel, A. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1999). Assessing expla-
tives on Science and Practice, 1, 393398. nations for sex differences in emotional support: A test of
the different cultures and skill specialization accounts. Hu-
Herr, J. L., & Wolfram, C. (2009). Opt-out rates at man Communication Research, 25, 307340.
motherhood across high-education career paths: Selection
versus work environment (National Bureau of Economic Langford, T., & MacKinnon, N. J. (2000). The affective bases
Research Working Paper No. 14717). Retrieved June 1, for the gendering of traits: Comparing the United States and
2009, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w14717 Canada. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 3448.

Leary, M. R., & Hoyle, R. H. (2009). Situations, disposi- Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social domi-
tions, and the study of social behavior. In M. R. Leary & nance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations:
R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of
social behavior (pp. 311). New York: Guilford Press. Social Psychology, 17, 271320.
Lueptow, L. B., Garovich-Szabo, L., & Lueptow, M. B. Rankin, L. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Is his heroism hailed
(2001). Social change and the persistence of sex-typing: and hers hidden? Women, men, and the social construction
1974 1997. Social Forces, 80, 136. of heroism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 414 422.
Lyons, M. T. (2005). Who are the heroes? Characteristics Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003).
of people who rescue others. Journal of Cultural and Evo- One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively de-
lutionary Psychology, 3, 245254. scribed. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331363.
Milkie, M. A., Bianchi, S. M., Mattingly, M. J., & Robin- Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Gender as an organizing force in
son, J. P. (2002). Gendered division of childrearing: Ideals, social relations: Implications for the future of inequality. In
realities, and the relationship to parental well-being. Sex F. D. Blau, M. C. Brinton, & D. B. Grusky (Eds.), The
Roles, 47, 2138. declining significance of gender? (pp. 265287). New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Moscovici, S., & Nemeth, C. (1974). Social influence: II.
Minority influence. In C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social psychology: Ridgeway, C. L., & Bourg, C. (2004). Gender as status:
Classic and contemporary integrations (pp. 217249). Chi- An expectation states theory approach. In A. H. Eagly,
cago: Rand McNally. A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of
gender (2nd ed., pp. 217241). New York: Guilford Press.
Moskowitz, D. S., Suh, E. J., & Desaulniers, J. (1994).
Situational influences on gender differences in agency and Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (2004). Childrens strategies and
communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, goals in response to help-giving and help-seeking tasks within
66, 753761. a friendship. Child Development, 75, 749763.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in
social support: A question of skill or responsiveness? Jour- Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 79 90. differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-
offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls
and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98 131.
Newport, F. (2001, February 21). Americans see women as
emotional and affectionate, men as more aggressive: Gen-
der specific stereotypes persist in recent Gallup poll. Re- Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychol-
trieved September 13, 2008, from Gallup Brain website, ogy? American Psychologist, 45, 775777.
http://brain.gallup.com
Roter, D. L., Hall, J. A., & Aoki, Y. (2002). Physician
Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic per- gender effects in medical communication: A meta-analytic
sonality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York: review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288,
Free Press. 756 764.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: Rotolo, T., & Wilson, J. (2007). Sex segregation in volun-
The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington teer work. Sociological Quarterly, 48, 555585.
Books/D. C. Heath.
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006).
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review Gender development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, &
of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775 802. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.,
pp. 858 932). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Piliavin, J. A., & Unger, R. K. (1985). The helpful but
helpless female: Myth or reality? In V. E. OLeary, R. K. Seguino, S. (2007). Plus ca change? Evidence on global
Unger, & B. S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and so- trends in gender norms and stereotypes. Feminist Econom-
cial psychology (pp. 149 189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ics, 13, 128.

Shackelford, S., Wood, W., & Worchel, S. (1996). Behav- U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration.
ioral styles and the influence of women in mixed-sex (2005). Womens health USA 2005. Rockville, MD: U.S.
groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 284 293. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved
March 30, 2009, from http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa_05/
Simmons, R. G., Klein, S. D., & Simmons, R. L. (1977). pages/0303hcwc.htm
Gift of life: The social and psychological impact of organ
transplantation. New York: Wiley. U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.
(2009). Data: National data. Retrieved March 20, 2009,
Simon, R. J. (2001). Women in the military. New Bruns-
from http://www.optn.org/latestData/step2.asp
wick, NJ: Transaction.
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and Webb, J. (2009). Gender and occupation in market econo-
expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Psy- mies: Change and restructuring since the 1980s. Social
chology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44 62. Politics, 16, 82110.
Swim, J. K. (1994). Perceived versus meta-analytic effect Whitman, D. S. (2009). Emotional intelligence and leader-
sizes: An assessment of the accuracy of gender stereotypes. ship in organizations: A meta-analytic test of process
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 2136. mechanisms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida
Atlantic University.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald,
T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobe-
havioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex ste-
not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 411 429. reotypes: A multination study (rev. ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Zimmer, C., Stainback, K., Robin-
son, C., Taylor, T., & McTague, T. (2006). Documenting Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociol-
desegregation: Segregation in American workplaces by ogy, 26, 215240.
race, ethnicity, and sex, 1966 2003. American Sociological
Review, 71, 565588. Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (in press). Self-regulation of
gender in daily life. Sex Roles.
Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine
traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305325.
Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber,
Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in womens assertiveness H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the
in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta- self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
analysis, 19311993. Journal of Personality and Social 73, 523535.
Psychology, 81, 133145.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analy-
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008a). NewsMarried sis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the
parents use of time, 200306. Retrieved December 10, origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128,
2008, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus2.pdf 699 727.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008b). Volunteering in Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2009). Gender identity. In
the United States, 2008. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm differences in social behavior (pp. 109 125). New York:
Guilford Press.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Current population
survey: 2008 annual averagesHousehold data (Table 11).
Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.bls.gov/cps/ Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (in press). Gender. In S. T.
cpsaat10.pdf Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of
social psychology (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.
U.S. Department of Defense. (2009). Military personnel
statistics. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://siadapp
.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/Miltop.htm

The His and Hers of Prosocial Behavior - An Examination of The Social Psychology of Gender PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The His and Hers of Prosocial Behavior - An Examination of The Social Psychology of Gender PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The His and Hers of Prosocial Behavior - An Examination of The Social Psychology of Gender PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978).

remember. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 64 89.

The His and Hers of Prosocial Behavior: An

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995).

644 November 2009 American Psychologist

November 2009 American Psychologist 645

646 November 2009 American Psychologist

November 2009 American Psychologist 647

648 November 2009 American Psychologist

November 2009 American Psychologist 649

larger nomological net, which I now briefly present (see

Eagly & Wood, in press; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000;

650 November 2009 American Psychologist

November 2009 American Psychologist 651

652 November 2009 American Psychologist

November 2009 American Psychologist 653

654 November 2009 American Psychologist

men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569 591. 35, 790 806.

November 2009 American Psychologist 655

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis.

nificance of gender? (pp. 215244). New York: Russell

Press. Sage Foundation.

656 November 2009 American Psychologist

November 2009 American Psychologist 657

658 November 2009 American Psychologist

You might also like