Core claim
Eagly (1987) explained sex differences in behavior through the social division of labor rather than biological nature. People observe what a group typically does and infer that the traits required by that work are the group's inherent dispositions. Women, who more often hold caregiving roles, come to be expected to show communal traits such as warmth and concern for others, while men, who more often hold paid and leadership roles, are expected to show agentic traits such as assertiveness and independence. These expectations become norms that steer behavior and skill development in the same direction, a process resembling the self-fulfilling prophecy.
Evidence and evolutionary accounts
Eagly and Steffen (1984) showed that a woman described as an employee was rated as agentic while one described as a homemaker was rated as communal, evidence that stereotypes stem from roles. Eagly and Wood (1999) contrasted the theory with evolved-disposition accounts and argued that sex differences in mate preferences vary with a society's gender equality. Wood and Eagly (2002) compared many cultures and proposed a biosocial model in which physical differences and ecological conditions produce a division of labor, which in turn produces sex differences.
Extensions and critiques
Eagly and Karau (2002) extended the theory into role congruity theory: because the role expected of women clashes with the leader role, female leaders face prejudice. Koenig and Eagly (2014) showed that stereotypes of many groups, not only gender groups, can be explained by the roles they occupy. Eagly and colleagues (2020) reported a meta-analysis showing that competence stereotypes of women in the United States changed markedly as women entered the workforce. Evolutionary psychologists counter that some sex differences are consistent across cultures, so roles alone cannot explain them.
FAQ
- What is social role theory in simple terms?
- People guess a group's character from the work it usually does, and those expectations then shape how people behave.
- What is role congruity theory?
- An extension holding that the warm role expected of women clashes with the assertive role expected of leaders, so female leaders tend to face prejudice.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. The book that first set out social role theory.
- Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–754. Shows gender stereotypes follow roles rather than sex itself.
- Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423. Contrasts evolved-disposition and social-role explanations.
- Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699–727. Cross-cultural evidence on division of labor and sex differences.
- Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. Applies the theory to prejudice against female leaders.
- Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups' roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 371–392. Extends the theory to stereotypes of many social groups.
- Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315. Meta-analysis showing stereotypes shifted as roles changed.