Project info
Work package
- Inclusion
Sustainability threat
- Feedback Cycles
Challenge
- Dealing with diversity
Study info
Related studies according to this researcher
On Meritocratic Perceptions and Preferences Study 1
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
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
We aimed to develop a broader and theoretically grounded measure of prescriptive meritocracy.
Collection provenance
- Collected during project
- -
Collection methods
- Questionaire
Personal data
Yes
External Source
Source description
File formats
Data types
- Structured
Languages
- English
Coverage start
Coverage end
Spatial coverage
Collection period start
03/06/2025
Collection period end
03/02/2026
Variables
Unit
Unit description
Sample size
Sampling method
Individuals
UK residents (25+)
300
Prolific Survey
Hypothesis
Theory
Variable type
Variable name
Variable description
Independent variable
Prescriptive Meritocratic Beliefs
To explore the structure of prescriptive meritocracy beliefs, we began with a pool of 28 items. These items were designed to broadly reflect seven conceptual themes derived from existing scales (Davey et al., 1999; Zimmerman & Reyna 2003; Castillo et al., 2019, Hulle et al., 2017): equal opportunity, social mobility, talent, hard work and effort, internal and external attributions of success, support for inheritance, and endorsement of alternative justice principles (need, equality).
Independent variable
Preference for the Merit Principle.
A 10-item scale from the original 15-item scale by Davey et al., (1999) measured the adoption of the merit principle in an organizational setting (α = 0.71). Sample items included: “In organizations, people who do their job well ought to rise to the top,” and “Sometimes it is appropriate to give a raise to the worker who most needs it, even if he or she is not the most hard-working” (reverse coded).
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