A new study covering 826 people in the United States and China has found that women who scored higher on a cognitive ability test were more often rated by teammates as hostile, received less help and were undermined more frequently at work. Men with similarly high scores did not face the same penalty; in one group in China, they were treated better. The research examined whether cognitive ability affects how teammates treat one another and whether that pattern differs by gender.
Key Takeaways: The two-part study involved 432 business students at a US public university and 394 full-time employees at a financial company in China. Higher-scoring women were more likely to be seen as hostile and to receive less support, while no comparable penalty was found for men. Researchers point to social role theory but stress that the effects were small and the findings show a link, not proof of causation.
In the first study, 432 business students at a US public university worked in small teams on a consulting project for real organizations. The second surveyed 394 full-time employees working in teams at a financial company in China. Intelligence here meant cognitive ability measured by a standardized test of reasoning and problem-solving that employers use in hiring. Teammates were not told anyone’s scores; they rated one another, and a few weeks later each participant reported how much help they had received and how often they had been undermined, for example by having information withheld.
The researchers cite social role theory, the idea that people expect men and women to fit traditional roles: men as capable and assertive, women as warm and supportive. A woman with high cognitive ability breaks that expectation, and colleagues may assume she lacks warmth. “It’s that automatic, implicit assumption that takes place alongside the presence of intelligence that then drives these more negative interpersonal behaviors,” study author Nitya Chawla told DW. In both groups, higher-scoring women were rated as more hostile; among employees in China, they were also rated as less warm. Women seen as more hostile reported less help both with work and on a personal level, and more undermining.
The team also checked whether higher-scoring women were simply behaving differently. They were rated as somewhat more domineering, but that did not explain why they received less help or more mistreatment. The findings point to colleagues’ assumptions rather than to the women’s actions, Chawla says. The study cautions that the effects were small, that it shows a link rather than proof that perceptions caused the treatment, that help and mistreatment were self-reported, and that race or ethnicity was not examined. In the student group, the difference between women and men was no longer statistically significant when two participants with extremely low scores were included. Among US students, a man’s score made no difference to how teammates rated or treated him; among employees in China, higher-scoring men were rated as less hostile, received more help and were mistreated less often.
Chawla said women had written to her since publication saying the findings matched their own experience at work, with some wondering whether they were to blame for hostility. She rejected the conclusion that women should downplay their intelligence: “That would be really the wrong conclusion to draw.” The authors suggest future work should test cultural differences in gender norms, examine long-term consequences and assess measures that could reduce such bias in teams.
Source: www.dw.com