High cognitive ability in women predicts workplace victimization

Highly intelligent women face unique social challenges in the workplace, where they often encounter increased hostility and lack of support from their colleagues, according to recent research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. In contrast, men with similarly high cognitive abilities do not face these negative consequences and may even receive better treatment from their peers.

This disparity stems from societal expectations regarding gendered behavior. Traditionally, women are expected to exhibit communal traits, such as being helpful, kind, and attentive to others' needs, while men are expected to display agentic traits, including decisiveness, independence, competitiveness, and high capability.

When women violate these gendered expectations by demonstrating competence and high intelligence, they often receive negative social evaluations. Previous research has shown that women who display dominance, such as being aggressive or forceful, frequently face professional penalties. However, newer studies suggest that high intelligence might actually benefit women when evaluated for leadership roles.

In their studies, researchers investigated whether the benefits of high cognitive ability for women extended to everyday interactions with team members. They suspected that while high intelligence might be advantageous in certain contexts, it could backfire in daily team settings. They employed the implied communality deficit concept, which posits that when women display high competence, their peers unconsciously assume they lack the communal traits expected of women.

This assumption could lead to feelings of hostility from colleagues, resulting in less help received and more victimization experienced by highly competent women.

To test these hypotheses, the researchers conducted two studies. In the first study, 432 undergraduate business students at a U.S. university completed a semester-long consulting project for local organizations. About four weeks into the semester, they took the Wonderlic test to measure general mental ability. Seven weeks later, they evaluated their teammates on hostility and anger, and a few weeks after that, they reported how often they received help and experienced subtle forms of victimization, such as being excluded from information.

The results showed that for women, higher cognitive ability was associated with higher ratings of interpersonal hostility from their teammates. Consequently, these women reported experiencing more victimization and received less help from their peers.

In the second study, the researchers shifted their focus to a corporate environment, recruiting 394 full-time employees working in small teams at a financial company in China. The employees rated each other on interpersonal hostility and communal traits, followed by surveys reporting the frequency of victimization and help received.

Similar to the student study, women with higher cognitive ability scores were perceived as more hostile by their colleagues and were rated as less communal. These negative perceptions predicted worse treatment for the women, including more victimization and less help received from their colleagues. The highly competent women experienced a double bind, being viewed as lacking warmth while simultaneously projecting hostility.

In contrast, men with higher cognitive ability received lower ratings of hostility from their peers, experienced less victimization, and received more help from their teammates.

While the findings are consistent across two different cultures, the studies were limited by small sample sizes and the specific environments in which they were conducted. Additionally, the researchers relied on self-reported surveys to measure victimization and help, which may not fully capture the actual experiences of mistreatment or support.