The delegitimization of women’s claims of ingroup discrimination: Consequences for women who claim

Abstract

The rectification of gender discrimination largely depends on how people respond to women who claim to have experienced it. This dissertation examines whether people respond more negatively to a woman who claims to have experienced ingroup discrimination, discrimination perpetrated by another woman, than to a woman who claims to have experienced outgroup discrimination and why. In Studies 1, 2, 3, and 4, a woman who claimed ingroup discrimination was perceived to have experienced less bias than a woman who claimed outgroup discrimination. Study 4 additionally demonstrated that the decrease in bias perceived was due to the discrimination violating people’s prototype of discrimination. In Study 2b, however, the type of discrimination claimed (ingroup or outgroup) did not affect how much discrimination was perceived. Additionally, in Studies 1 and 4, a woman was perceived as more of a complainer when she claimed to have experienced ingroup rather than outgroup discrimination, though type of discrimination claimed did not affect how much she was perceived as a complainer in Studies (2, 2b, and 3). A meta-analysis of the effect of type of discrimination claimed (ingroup or outgroup) on perceptions of the woman as a complainer did reveal an effect, indicating that there is a small effect which the individual studies may have lacked the statistical power to detect. Additionally, Study 4 demonstrated that claiming ingroup (vs outgroup) discrimination led a woman to experience other negative outcomes, specifically to be less likely to have her claim investigate and to be perceived as less professionally competent. This work demonstrates that women who experience discrimination at the hands of a female supervisor find themselves in a difficult position because of the harsh consequences they will experience if they claim.