Reasoning about the merits of meritocracy.

Abstract

Tensions between merit-based and egalitarian forms of material distribution underlie some of the most consequential sociopolitical debates in modern history (Starmans et al., 2017). The present research examines how children, adolescents, and adults in the United States (total N = 173) reason about these practices and their implications. Participants were asked to make inferences about two organizations where employees had the same job and total compensation across all employees was matched. In a merit-based organization, this total was divided up based on work completed (a zero-sum system). In an egalitarian organization, everyone received the same level of compensation. Across two studies, there was strong evidence that participants of all age groups thought individuals operating under the merit-based system would work harder. There was also some evidence that they associated the merit-based system with higher levels of interpersonal conflict. These findings indicate that from childhood to adulthood, people recognize that merit-based compensation systems can bring both opportunities and challenges. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).