Imagine a meeting where two people propose a brilliant solution to a complex work problem. One speaks confidently, questions a proposal, and firmly defends their arguments. The other does exactly the same. However, when the meeting ends, someone describes the first as “difficult to work with” and the second as “a proactive leader.” The difference lies not in what they said, but in societal expectations of each.
This helps explain the results of a University of Minnesota study that found a striking difference in workplace relationships: women with higher scores on cognitive ability tests are often perceived as more hostile by their colleagues. They also report more experiences of mistreatment and receive less support. Interestingly, men with similar IQs did not exhibit the same pattern.
When intelligence clashes with expectations
To understand this phenomenon, we must look beyond individual capabilities and examine the expectations that shape our relationships. According to social role theory, however much progress we have made in terms of equality, men and women are still subject to implicit norms about how they should behave.
Men are often associated with characteristics such as independence, competitiveness, determination, and decision-making ability. Women, on the other hand, are expected to possess social qualities such as kindness, sensitivity, cooperation, and attentiveness to the needs of others.
The problem arises when a person possesses characteristics that don’t align with the role others expect of them. A woman who demonstrates a strong ability to solve problems may inspire admiration for her competence and, at the same time, be judged as less approachable, less cooperative, or more difficult to work with.
Researchers study this contradiction through a phenomenon called the “implicit commonality deficit.” The idea is that when a woman excels in her competence, others may assume she lacks the relational qualities traditionally attributed to her. They don’t even check if she’s less kind; it’s enough for them that her intelligence triggers a different expectation.
However, not being perceived as particularly friendly doesn’t automatically equate to being hostile. Even so, in certain circumstances, the absence of expected friendliness can be interpreted as coldness, arrogance, or even aggression, simply because it deviates from what is expected.
Two studies, one pattern that repeats itself
To examine this possibility, the researchers conducted two experiments in different contexts.
The first study involved 432 business students working in teams on a consulting project. Researchers measured their cognitive abilities and subsequently collected peer evaluations of each other, as well as information on the support received and experiences of interpersonal mistreatment.
Among women, higher cognitive scores were associated with a greater perception of hostility from their peers. This perception, in turn, was associated with more experiences of victimization and less help, both when performing tasks and when they needed personal or emotional support. A similar pattern was not observed in men.
The second experiment shifted the analysis to a Chinese financial firm with 394 employees working in small teams. In this case, the researchers used cognitive scores obtained during the recruitment process and analyzed measurements of peer perceptions and each participant’s subsequent experiences over several weeks.
The results were similar for women: higher cognitive ability was associated with being perceived as more hostile and less sociable. Both perceptions were linked to more experiences of victimization, though not in exactly the same way. Being perceived as hostile was associated with receiving less help, while being perceived as less sociable was more closely linked to abusive behavior.
Something different occurred with men. In the business sample, higher cognitive scores were associated with a lower perception of hostility, which in turn was related to less victimization and more helping.
The double standard hidden in everyday life
These results suggest that workplace inequality can also appear in such everyday interactions that they barely attract attention: who receives an explanation when they have a doubt, who is given information, who finds collaboration when they need to solve a problem, or who ends up feeling excluded from the group.
Furthermore, these dynamics often fuel a vicious cycle that’s difficult to break. If a woman is perceived as hostile, her colleagues may be less willing to help or collaborate with her, which will likely sabotage her career. Interestingly, this distance can damage the relationship and generate further negative interpretations, even if the initial perception didn’t reflect her actual behavior.
Obviously, this doesn’t mean this mechanism always occurs, nor that all smart women experience these situations. Even so, the pattern deserves attention because it shows how stereotypes can influence professional relationships without any objective cause.
It is not enough to recognize talent
One of the most important conclusions is that recognizing a person’s ability does not guarantee that they will be treated fairly. An organization may value an employee’s intelligence in a performance review and, at the same time, tolerate colleagues excluding her, withholding information, or providing her with less support.
The question is not whether women should soften their speech to be more agreeable, or whether men should give up firmness to appear less threatening, but why we continue to interpret similar behaviors differently depending on who is performing them.
Because evaluating someone’s work is one thing, but deciding what that person should be like for their competence to be considered acceptable is quite another. As long as we confuse intelligence with a lack of warmth when talking about women, talent may continue to be recognized on paper, but penalized or even punished in practice.
Source:
Chawla, N. et. Al. (2026) Understanding the intersection of gender and cognitive ability on interpersonal outcomes: A multistudy investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 10.1037
Leave a Reply