Although North American society has long touted equal rights for all citizens, minority groups including women, ethnic minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA +) people and others continue to face discrimination in subtle forms [1,2,3]. To fight this discrimination, various movements using collective social identity developed over time, including the women’s rights movement, in which members of a social group banded together and fought against the injustices they faced. However, in contradistinction to group identity movements, social psychologists have long recognized a phenomenon called “self-group distancing.” This term describes individuals within minority groups who respond to discrimination by distancing themselves from their stigmatized group to advance their own individual standing [4].

Self-group distancing can affect any minoritized group [5]. Some examples include Hindustanis in the Netherlands who were trying to improve their personal situation by distancing themselves from other Hindustanis and emulating the higher status Dutch people [5]. Research shows that gay men in an environment where being gay is devalued may distance themselves from gay-appearing effeminate characteristics by appearing hyper-masculine and by expressing negative views about effeminate-acting gay men [6,7,8]. Self-group distancing can occur among voluntary identity groups as well, for example, individuals disassociating themselves from losing teams (not wearing team badges or not associating with their fellow fans) as a means of decreasing their association with those who are less successful [9].

Self-group distancing has also been described among female working professionals, especially in environments where women have been at a disadvantage historically. Female-to-female aggression, as we have termed it, describes behavior by a woman with a higher power status, which is intended to degrade, ridicule, or undermine the work of a woman with a lesser power status. This may impede the career development of the junior colleague. Senior women may or may not be aware of their role in perpetuating this behavior. This phenomenon is not new. There are many synonyms for female-to-female aggression. Termed “lateral violence” in the nursing field, it has been documented for at least 25 years [10]. Most infamously, the term “queen bee,” coined in 1974 [11], describes a senior woman who has assimilated in a male-dominated organization by emphasizing how she differs from other women and legitimizing gender inequity in the workplace [11]. Importantly, it is not all women that behave this way; in fact, it is a minority of women who do this. Women who exert this behavior identify weakly with their group (females) and place little value on how the group is perceived by others [12]. Of note, research on the topic to date assumes a binary gender identity, and how or whether non-binary individuals may participate in gender-based self-group distancing remains an open question. Narratives around female equality developed by Staines et al., in 1974, posited that as more women enter the workforce this phenomenon of female rivalry would decrease [13]. Over time, the workforce has included a growing percentage of women, and female enrollment in higher education has increased significantly [14]. Researchers in the 2000s repeated studies from decades earlier, hoping to find a decrease in self-group distancing among women in academia. Sadly, these studies continued to confirm its existence. In 2004, university faculty were asked to rate the commitment of students in their department [15]. When the students themselves were asked about their commitment, males and females reported the same level of commitment to work. While male faculty members thought male and female students were equally committed to their careers, female faculty members reported that the female graduate students were less committed than their male counterparts. When this research was repeated in 2021, the results were no different [16].

Over the years, public discourse and media have selectively reported an interpretation of this literature claiming that these rivalries between women are specific to the nature of women. This idea even presents itself in research where scientific publications began reducing these behaviors to derogatory terms like “cat fights.” Carol Tavris, co-author of the original paper coining the term “queen bee,” said she regretted giving a catchy name to such a complex pattern of behavior [17]. Since then, it has been recognized that these terms promote misinterpretation—inaccurately suggesting that women are the problem [16].

A growing body of evidence shows that this female-to-female aggression is a product of inequality [18] and not a trait inherent in women [18]. Faniko et al. found that women who exhibit this behavior had suffered significant gender bias during their careers. To rise in the ranks, they were forced to make personal sacrifices, such as choosing not to have a family, forfeiting vacation/benefits, or altering personal convictions [19]. Leadership positions offered to women contained less resources, leaving these women with the expectation of delivering the same results but under less favorable circumstances [20]. They had to overcome unfavorable expectations regarding their performance due to the notion that stereotypically female traits are a “poor fit” for leadership success in male-dominated settings [21]. Despite this, they were able to achieve success in their male-dominated organizations by recognizing that embodying masculine traits correlated with career success. They were more likely to highlight how different they were from other women (“self-group distancing”) [22], applied gender stereotypes to their female colleagues, and even denied the existence of gender bias [23]. For some women who have been early pioneers in male-dominated work environments, self-group distancing behavior has been a successful strategy for coping with the gender discrimination they have faced in their own career [24].

There is evidence to suggest that self-group distancing behavior in the workplace is malleable. In one study, researchers asked women to think about how they had personally been judged at work. For women who identified weakly with their gender group at work, being reminded of sexism or gender bias they had to endure triggered self-group distancing behavior. But when they were asked to think about a time when they were judged based on their merit and not on their gender, they did not exhibit this behavior [23]. Being able to eliminate the response supports that these actions are related to the environment rather than to the individual and also suggests a pathway to eliminate this behavior [19]. We are hopeful that as the percentage of women in our profession, especially in leadership positions, is increasing, female-to-female aggression will become less common. Women now represent 47% of pediatric radiologists, with many holding leadership roles locally and nationally [25]. Currently, among the 95 departments within the Society of Chiefs of Radiology at Children’s Hospitals (SCORCH), there are now 39 female chairs/chiefs of pediatric radiology, approximately 50% of the subspecialty committees within the SPR are chaired by women, and the two Managing Editors of the journal Pediatric Radiology are female. Female authorship of radiology journal articles shows an upward trend, with female first authors rising from 8% in 1978 to 32% in 2013 and female senior authors increasing from 7% in 1978 to 22% in 2013 [26]. Although these numbers are promising, research shows us that increasing numbers of women in the field, or even in leadership, is not always enough to combat self-group distancing [25]. A concerted effort must be made to recognize and mitigate this behavior using strategies that have proven successful, such as priming women’s evaluation of other women by reminding them of times they have experienced equitable treatment and recognition themselves. The lack of a recognized and respectful term for this behavior contributes to the problem. In addition, female-to-female aggression, or self-group distancing, may coexist with interpersonal disagreements that are unrelated to social identity or status. Understanding the unique behavior traits that define self-group distancing and recognizing how this type of aggression affects career development of vulnerable populations remain important issues in diversity and equity programs. Although we have focused on self-group distancing among women, the same phenomenon can affect any minority population. As women comprise approximately half of most populations, the challenges of female-to-female aggression may be more prevalent. However, it is important to consider this phenomenon and its roots in the context of changing social norms around the binary concept of gender identity [27]. The literature suggests female-to-female aggression is triggered by (un)conscious gender stereotypes fostered in discriminatory organizational cultures. Therefore, changing organizational conditions that cultivate this type of behavior remains a primary means of alleviating the behavior [12]. Institutions could strive to reward a more sustainable work-life balance. Most academic institutions and societies now have mentoring groups for women, modified tenure clocks, parental leave policies, and opportunities for part-time work to support young women. Although these accommodations were designed to support women in the workplace, individuals of all genders have reaped the benefits. This spread has been described as the “curb cut effect” [28]. Curb cuts in sidewalks were designed in the 1940s to meet the needs of disabled Americans. However, curb cuts quickly worked to the benefit of those pushing strollers, delivery carts, and others not among the disabled population.

On an individual level, joining forces with other women against inequality may demonstrate to women at risk for this behavior that solidarity can improve the work environment for all. Amplifying other women by publicly giving them credit for their work, especially if their accomplishments are being overlooked, can also contribute. Many senior staff may have faced or witnessed these issues in the past and can serve as excellent mentors for junior women who now face similar circumstances.

We hope that this commentary helps us recognize “self-group distancing” behavior when we see it and adopt workplace practices that can help eliminate this behavior. We should help promote conversations that are not necessarily driven by an individual’s misbehavior, but more by how our society can rise to the challenge of a diverse and equal future. We encourage colleagues of all genders and identities to participate in this.