On Meritocratic Perceptions and Preferences Study 3

Project info

Work package
  • Inclusion
Sustainability threat
  • Feedback Cycles
Challenge
  • Dealing with diversity

Study info

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 believing that rewards should be based on merit lead people to challenge or justify inequality?
Collection provenance
  • Collected during project
  • -
Collection methods
  • Vignette survey
Personal data
Yes
External Source
Source description
File formats
Data types
  • Structured
Languages
Coverage start
Coverage end
Spatial coverage
Collection period start
20/07/2025
Collection period end
21/07/2025

Variables

Unit
Unit description
Sample size
Sampling method
Individuals
British Citizens (25+)
468
Prolific Survey
Hypothesis
Theory
We hypothesized an interaction effect between the endorsement of the desert dimension and type of inequality on (H1a) perceived fairness and (H1b) support for inequalities such that education-based inequalities would be perceived as fairer and will be more supported than ethnic-based inequalities.
Descriptive meritocracy will be positively associated with both (H2a) perceived fairness and (H2b) support for both types of inequalities.
Variable type
Variable name
Variable description
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