On Meritocratic Perceptions and Preferences Study 1

Project info

Project name
06.06 Dealing with Disadvantage: Cooperation, Conflict and Resistance
Work package
  • Inclusion
Sustainability threat
  • Feedback Cycles
Challenge
  • Dealing with diversity

Study info

Related studies according to this researcher
When is an Inequality Fair? A Multilevel Integrative Approach to Predicting Inequality Legitimization across Different Hierarchies
Related studies according to other researchers
On Meritocratic Perceptions and Preferences Study 3 On Meritocratic Perceptions and Preferences Study 2
Description of Study
Does believing that rewards should be based on merit lead people to challenge or justify inequality? We argue that the answer depends on which form of meritocratic belief is endorsed and which type of inequality is evaluated. Across three studies, we distinguish between descriptive meritocracy (believing society does reward merit) and prescriptive meritocracy (believing it should), and examine how each relates to acceptance of education-based versus ethnic-based inequalities. Study 1 (N = 258, European sample) showed that descriptive meritocracy was associated with greater acceptance of both inequality types, whereas a prescriptive meritocracy showed no significant associations. In study 2 (N = 300, UK) an exploratory factor analysis of 28 items measuring meritocracy-relevant components identified three factors: equal opportunity, desert, and egalitarian values. Study 3 (N = 498, UK) utilized the factors that emerged in study 2 to re-test the hypotheses of study 1. The results again showed that descriptive meritocracy was associated with perceived fairness of both inequality types. Endorsement of equal opportunity was negatively associated with perceived fairness of education and ethnic-based inequalities, whereas endorsement of the desert principle selectively legitimized education-based but not ethnic-based inequalities. These findings show that meritocracy is not a single belief but a set of distinct commitments. Descriptive meritocracy consistently legitimizes inequality, whereas prescriptive meritocracy contains dimensions with distinct effects. This helps explain why meritocracy is often invoked to challenge unfair practices and to undermine structural inequalities.
Study research question
Does the preference for the merit principle consistently lead people to either challenge or legitimize inequalities? How does preference for meritocracy differ compared to perception of meritocracy in relation to legitimizing education and ethnic-based inequalities.
Collection provenance
  • Collected during project
  • -
Collection methods
  • Vignette survey
Personal data
Yes
External Source
Source description
File formats
  • .xlsx
Data types
  • Structured
Languages
  • English
Coverage start
Coverage end
03/04/2025
16/04/2025
Spatial coverage
Collection period start
03/04/2025
Collection period end
16/04/2025

Variables

Unit
Unit description
Sample size
Sampling method
Individuals
European citizens (18 years or older)
258
Questionnaire (Snowball sampling)
Individuals
—
—
—
Hypothesis
Theory
Preference for meritocracy will be negatively associated with perceived fairness of ethnic-based inequalities, but this relationship will be weaker or absent for education-based inequalities.
—
Variable type
Variable name
Variable description
Independent variable
Prescriptive Meritocracy.
Six-item scale adapted from Zimmerman & Reyna (2013) to fit the European context (α = 0.80). Sample items included: “People who work hard should achieve success”, “Advancement in European societies should be equally possible for all individuals.”
Independent variable
Descriptive Meritocracy
Six-item scale adapted from Zimmerman & Reyna (2013) (α = 0.90). It is identical to the prescriptive meritocracy scale while replacing should with do/is/or are, for example: “People who work hard do achieve success.”
Dependent variable
Perceived Fairness
We used three items adapted from Russo & Mosso (2019) to measure perceived fairness of each type of inequality. Participants were asked “To what extent do you think that the differences in outcomes between [higher and less educated EU-citizens (α = .89)/ EU-citizens from ethnic majority groups and from non-western immigration background (α = .83)] are Fair [(1) Very unfair (7) Very fair], Legitimate [(1) Very illegitimate, (7) Very legitimate], and Justified [(1) Very unjustified, (7) Very justified].
Discipline-specific operationalizations
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest

Data packages

Publications

Documents

Filename
Description
Date

Ethics

Ethical assessment
Yes
Ethical committee
BSS RUG