People are somewhat conflicted in their evaluations of those smarter than they are whereas similarly and less intelligent people presented less of an apparent conflict in evaluations (which was unfavorable)

The potentially conflicted evaluations of others based on their intelligence. Peter K. Jonason, Jamie Hughes. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 168, 1 January 2021, 110299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110299

Highlights
• Manipulated intelligence of targets relative to participants.
• Measured likability in favorable and unfavorable evaluations.
• Generally, more favorable evaluations than unfavorable ones.
• More conflicted (favorable ≈ unfavorable) likeability for smarter targets.
• Less intelligent people were rated least favorably.

Abstract: Individual differences in intelligence are apparent and likely to come with important interpersonal consequences. We examined (N = 476) how (manipulated) individual differences in intelligence affect likability ratings of men and women. We found that (1) ratings were generally more favorable than unfavorable, (2) the difference between favorable and unfavorable ratings of the female target differed more than those same evaluations of the male target, (3) the favorable evaluation tendency was present across relative intelligence but weakest when the target was smarter than the participant, (4) the smarter target was rated more unfavorably, and (5) the equally smart target was rated more favorably than the less intelligent target. Results suggest that people are somewhat conflicted in their evaluations of those smarter than they are whereas similarly and less intelligent people presented less of an apparent conflict in evaluations.

Keywords: IntelligencePerson-perceptionSocial comparisonSex differencesSex roles

4. Discussion

Never have the consequences of individual differences in intelligence been more noticeable. Smarter people are more likely to get hired, make better decisions in relation to dangers (e.g., COVID-19; Williams, 2020), and gain admission to top-tier universities. But these functional benefits stand aside interpersonal benefits. For men being more intelligent can lead to better success at attracting sexual and romantic partners (Jonason et al., 2019; Jonason & Antoon, 2019; Prokosch et al., 2009) and men with less intelligence are judged harshly as counselors (Abramowitz & O'Grady, 1991). In contrast, women who are intelligent may suffer from unfavorable evaluations because they are in violation of traditional sex roles and that such women may threaten people's traditional ideas of what it means to be a woman (Eckes, 2002). This “backlash” can be seen in how the female target who was smarter received less favorable reactions than equally or less intelligent targets. Indeed, being perceived as less intelligent might actually be an asset to women (Abramowitz & O'Grady, 1991). However, these evaluations rarely considered the possibility that favorable and unfavorable evaluations might co-occur and, therefore, present a new view of how people evaluate others who differ in intelligence.

The most striking pattern (see Fig. 1) was that the target with more intelligence had more conflicted evaluations than the target who was less or similarly intelligent. By that we mean the difference between favorably and unfavorable evaluations was weakest in the former than the latter two. Smart men and women (no sex differences or moderation of this effect were detected) may have features that people like (e.g., resourcefulness, income) but simultaneously may have features that people do not like (e.g., arrogance, argumentativeness). This creates a conflicted wholistic evaluation in others which may create an approach-avoidance conflict towards smarter people in interpersonal or professional contexts. Indeed, these are just the kinds of people that may need to compensate for these negative expectations with humility, charm, and generosity. Alternatively, those with similar and less intelligence may not pose the kinds of intellectual and ego threats that smart people create in others leading to conflicted sentiments and less approach-avoidance conflicts.

We have provided a unique glimpse into the role of individual differences in likeability as a function of relative intelligence in men and women. Despite this, our study was limited by its reliance on a W.E.I.R.D. sample of MTurk workers, using a context-free, ultra-brief manipulation of relative intelligence, and a failure to examine potential mechanisms for these effects like personality (Schmitt et al., 2008), sex roles (Bem, 1974), or sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1997). Despite these shortcomings, we have provided insights into how people judge others based on intelligence. We failed to find evidence consistent with stereotype content theory (Eckes, 2002), and, instead, found that greater insights into how people are evaluated may come from a simultaneous examination of favorable and unfavorable axes.