Primes and Consequences: A Systematic Review of Meritocracy in Intergroup Relations

Abstract

Psychological interest in Meritocracy as an important social norm regulating most of the western democratic societies has significantly increased over the years. However, the way Meritocracy has been conceptualized and operationalized in experimental studies has advanced in significant ways. As a result, a variety of paradigms arose to understand the social consequences of Meritocracy for intergroup relations; in particular, to understand the adverse consequences of Meritocracy for disadvantaged group members. The present research seeks to understand whether there is strong support for the idea that (manipulated) Meritocracy disproportionally affects members of low status groups, and also to understand which specific components of this norm have been successfully manipulated and to what consequences. And this is particularly important given the recent call for greater transparency in how the success of experimental manipulations is reported. Thus, we carried out a systematic review examining the content of different prime tasks, summarizing prime manipulation checks' effectiveness, and analyzing whether priming Meritocracy leads to less favorable orientations toward low status groups. Results across 33 studies revealed that despite the existing differences in the components highlighted, the salience of any of the Meritocracy dimensions facilitates the use of internal causal attributions, negative evaluations and stereotyping toward low status groups, affecting negatively decisions involving low-status group members, particularly in specific domains, as organizational contexts. These results carry both practical and theoretical implications for future research on the role of Meritocracy in intergroup settings.

Mental illness stigma’s reasons and determinants (MISReaD) among Singapore’s lay public – a qualitative inquiry

“…As there is a strong emphasis on meritocracy in Singapore, stigma towards mental illness may arise due to the fact that many PMI have histories of disrupted academic or vocational careers, both of which happen to be highly valued in a meritocratic society. Furthermore, meritocracy facilitates negative evaluations and stereotyping towards 'low status' groups, as highlighted by a systematic review [58]. A plausible explanation for this is that because meritocratic worldviews are typically associated with the beliefs of a just world (i.e., I get what I deserve), it leads to a perception that PMI are responsible for their own illness and their inability to achieve in life [59].…”

Early release from prison in time of COVID-19: Determinants of unfavourable decisions towards Black prisoners

“…Nevertheless, there is a paradox within Meritocracy [ 45 ] that is seen as deriving from an equity principle but has been associated to the underestimation of inherent inequalities [ 46 ] and to their justification [ 47 ]. A systematic review [ 48 ] has shown that its endorsement negatively affects low-status group members. These results have been described in important fields, such as in organizations [ 49 ], schools [ 50 ] and reparation policies [ 51 ], but only tangentially in decisions within the criminal justice system [ 52 , 53 ].…”

“…These results have been described in important fields, such as in organizations [ 49 ], schools [ 50 ] and reparation policies [ 51 ], but only tangentially in decisions within the criminal justice system [ 52 , 53 ]. We argue that the results are tangential as these studies focused on the Protestant Work Ethic [ 54 ], a norm that shares the dimension of effort-based success with Meritocracy but it is seen only as a component of it [ 48 ] and because it does not differentiate decisions towards racialized groups.…”

Judgments of effort exerted by others are influenced by received rewards

“…However, the strength of the relationship between conservative views and our behavioural effects indicates the robustness of this effect. On the other hand, exposure to a Protestant work ethic could be a factor influencing our behavioural results, making our findings particularly relevant for western societies where the debate on meritocracy is particularly intense 53 .…”