A recent study published in Sex Roles sheds light on a troubling phenomenon: when women claim sexism from other women in the workplace, their claims are often viewed as less legitimate compared to claims made against men. This delegitimization leads to harsher judgments of women who report such ingroup-directed sexism, with many perceiving these women as complainers. The study suggests that even though sexism from both men and women can be harmful, discrimination from other women is particularly damaging because it tends to be downplayed.
Despite some expectations that women would support each other in male-dominated workplaces, previous studies suggest that women in leadership roles may discriminate against their female subordinates. For example, research has shown that women supervisors may not offer higher salaries or more promotion opportunities to other women, and in some cases, they actively discriminate against them.
This raises the question: when women report sexism by another woman, are they taken as seriously as when they report it against a man?
The study also builds on previous work regarding prototypes of discrimination—the expectations people have about what discrimination looks like and who commits it. Typically, discrimination is imagined as something that happens when a member of a dominant group (like a man) mistreats a member of a lower-status group (like a woman). The study set out to investigate how claims of sexism against other women are perceived when they violate this common stereotype.
The research consisted of three experiments involving different groups of participants.
In the first study, 175 participants were recruited through an online survey platform, with 167 participants remaining after removing those who failed an attention check. The participants were told that the study was about workplace incidents and were presented with a scenario involving an employee named Chelsea, who claimed she was denied a promotion in favor of a less qualified male coworker. The key variable in this study was the gender of the supervisor who made the decision—either Rachel (female) or Steven (male).
After reading the scenario, participants were asked to evaluate the legitimacy of the claim, whether they viewed Chelsea as a complainer, and how likable they found her. The legitimacy of the claim was assessed with statements like “Chelsea was denied the promotion because of sex discrimination,” while perceptions of her as a complainer were gauged using phrases such as “The employee filing the report is hypersensitive.” The likeability of Chelsea was measured with items like “The employee filing the report is friendly.”
The second study was a replication of the first but with a different sample and slightly adjusted methodology. This time, 131 undergraduate students participated, with data from 119 analyzed after removing those who failed attention checks. The procedure followed the same structure: participants read the same scenario involving Chelsea’s discrimination claim, but again, the key variable was whether the supervisor was a man or a woman.
However, in this study, the participants were asked to describe the scenario in their own words after reading it, which provided the researchers with a measure of how participants interpreted the discrimination claim. The same scales were used to assess the legitimacy of the claim, perceptions of Chelsea as a complainer, and her likeability.
In the third study, the researchers aimed to further explore the mechanisms behind the delegitimization of ingroup discrimination claims. A larger sample of 202 undergraduate students was recruited, and data from 181 participants were analyzed. The same discrimination scenario was used, with Chelsea making a claim of sexism by either a male or female supervisor.
In addition to assessing the legitimacy of the claim, perceptions of Chelsea as a complainer, and her likeability, this study introduced new measures to explore whether the claims violated participants’ expectations of what discrimination looks like (the prototype of discrimination).
Participants rated how much they agreed with statements such as “The supervisor wouldn’t discriminate against a woman” to assess whether the claim violated the prototype that discrimination is typically perpetrated by men. They also evaluated whether the supervisor (regardless of gender) violated general expectations of who can be a perpetrator of discrimination, with statements like “The supervisor is capable of being biased.”
Across all three experiments, the researchers found consistent results. When women reported sexism by a woman supervisor, their claims were judged as less legitimate compared to when the same claims were made against a man supervisor. The participants were more likely to see these women as complainers when the perpetrator of discrimination was another woman.
However, there was no significant difference in how likable the employees were perceived to be, regardless of whether they reported discrimination by a woman or a man.
The researchers also found evidence that these judgments were driven by the violation of discrimination prototypes. When the perpetrator of the sexism was a woman, it went against the common expectation that discrimination is typically carried out by men. This led to delegitimization of the claims, which in turn caused the claimants to be seen as complainers.
The study demonstrated that when participants perceived a claim of sexism by a woman as violating the prototype of what discrimination looks like, they were more likely to view the claim as less legitimate. This, in turn, led to harsher judgments of the woman making the claim.
The study sheds light on how ingroup-directed sexism is perceived. But it also has some limitations. One key limitation is the sample size and demographics. Most participants in the study were either White or Asian, and they were primarily recruited from a university undergraduate pool or an online platform. The researchers noted that this limits the generalizability of the findings to broader populations.
Nevertheless, the study highlights the unique challenges women face when they experience sexism from other women. Since discrimination claims are often a crucial first step toward addressing unfair treatment, the fact that women’s claims against other women are often seen as less legitimate could discourage many from speaking up. This, in turn, could allow such discrimination to go unchecked, perpetuating inequality in the workplace.
“Women who experience discrimination at the hands of a woman superior find themselves in a difficult position in which they may experience especially harsh repercussions if they claim discrimination, yet by not claiming they miss out on the potential psychological and economic benefits,” the researchers wrote.
They further noted that studies have shown that after a discrimination lawsuit, companies often become more diverse and inclusive, indicating that reporting discrimination can lead to systemic change.
“Following confrontation, perpetrators of discrimination are less likely to discriminate in the future (Czopp et al., 2006), which benefits both the current and future targets of mistreatment. Conversely, unconfronted discrimination creates norms that this behavior is acceptable (Mallett et al., 2021), which may embolden perpetrators to continue their abuse… Given the legal importance of discrimination claims in changing organizational norms and preventing future discrimination, the costs of unreported ingroup discrimination are high.”
The study, “The Delegitimization of Women’s Claims of Ingroup‑Directed Sexism,” was authored by Kerry E. Spalding, Rebecca Schachtman, and Cheryl R. Kaiser.
