The Merit of Meritocracy

被引:155
作者
Hing, Leanne S. Son [1 ]
Bobocel, D. Ramona [2 ]
Zanna, Mark P. [2 ]
Garcia, Donna M. [1 ]
Gee, Stephanie S. [1 ]
Orazietti, Katie [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Guelph, Dept Psychol, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
[2] Univ Waterloo, Dept Psychol, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
关键词
meritocracy; justice; system justification; affirmative action; diversity initiatives; IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST; SOCIAL-DOMINANCE ORIENTATION; AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION PROGRAMS; COGNITIVE-ABILITY; PRINCIPLED CONSERVATISM; SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION; GENDER-DIFFERENCES; IN-GROUP; ATTITUDES; EQUITY;
D O I
10.1037/a0024618
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
We argue that the preference for the merit principle is a separate construct from hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies (i.e., system justification beliefs, prejudice, social dominance orientation), including descriptive beliefs that meritocracy currently exists in society. Moreover, we hypothesized that prescriptive beliefs about merit should have a stronger influence on reactions to the status quo when hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies are weak (vs. strong). In 4 studies, participants' preference for the merit principle and hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies were assessed; later, the participants evaluated organizational selection practices that support or challenge the status quo. Participants' prescriptive and descriptive beliefs about merit were separate constructs; only the latter predicted other hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies. In addition, as hypothesized, among participants who weakly endorsed hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies, the stronger their preference for the merit principle, the more they opposed selection practices that were perceived to be merit violating but the more they supported practices that were perceived to be merit restoring. In contrast, those who strongly endorsed hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies were always motivated to support the status quo, regardless of their preference for the merit principle.
引用
收藏
页码:433 / 450
页数:18
相关论文
共 100 条
[41]   Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research [J].
Harrison, David A. ;
Kravitz, David A. ;
Mayer, David M. ;
Leslie, Lisa M. ;
Lev-Arey, Dalit .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 91 (05) :1013-1036
[42]   The symbolic racism 2000 scale [J].
Henry, PJ ;
Sears, DO .
POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 23 (02) :253-283
[43]   A two-dimensional model that employs explicit and implicit attitudes to characterize prejudice [J].
Hing, Leanne S. Son ;
Chung-Yan, Greg A. ;
Hamilton, Leah K. ;
Zanna, Mark P. .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2008, 94 (06) :971-987
[44]   Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: Making concessions in the face of discrimination [J].
Hing, LSS ;
Bobocel, DR ;
Zanna, MP .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 83 (03) :493-509
[45]   Processes in racial discrimination: Differential weighting of conflicting information [J].
Hodson, G ;
Dovidio, JF ;
Gaertner, SL .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 2002, 28 (04) :460-471
[46]   Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations [J].
Holmbeck, GN .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 27 (01) :87-96
[47]   EQUITY THEORY AND THE COGNITIVE-ABILITY OF CHILDREN [J].
HOOK, JG ;
COOK, TD .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1979, 86 (03) :429-445
[48]   COGNITIVE-ABILITY, COGNITIVE APTITUDES, JOB KNOWLEDGE, AND JOB-PERFORMANCE [J].
HUNTER, JE .
JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR, 1986, 29 (03) :340-362
[49]   Contemporary sexism and discrimination: The importance of respect for men and women [J].
Jackson, LM ;
Esses, VM ;
Burris, CT .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 2001, 27 (01) :48-61
[50]   The end of the end of ideology [J].
Jost, John T. .
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 2006, 61 (07) :651-670