Belief in a diversity-meritocracy trade-off

Area of Science:

• Social Psychology
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Science

Background:

• Organizations and academic institutions aim to balance meritocracy with diversity goals in selection.
• A prevalent belief exists that diversity initiatives undermine meritocratic principles in candidate selection.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the belief in a diversity-meritocracy trade-off across diverse populations.
• To examine the political polarization of this belief and its underlying fairness concerns.
• To test an intervention to mitigate the perceived trade-off.

Main Methods:

• Conducted four large, preregistered experiments (N = 5,805) in laboratory and field settings.
• Utilized nationally representative U.S. samples to assess beliefs about diversity and meritocracy.
• Tested a 'blind' selection intervention following diversity-promoting actions.

Main Results:

• A majority of Americans endorse the diversity-meritocracy trade-off belief, irrespective of explicit meritocratic criteria or direct link to evaluations.
• This belief is politically polarized, with liberals less likely to see a trade-off than conservatives and moderates.
• Divergent fairness concerns, not just prejudice, contribute to political divides on diversity initiatives.
• The 'blind' selection intervention successfully reduced the diversity-meritocracy trade-off belief in workplace hiring and graduate admissions.

Conclusions:

• The perceived conflict between diversity and meritocracy is widespread but politically divided.
• Fairness concerns regarding candidate evaluation are a key driver of this division.
• Implementing blind selection processes can reconcile diversity and meritocracy, appealing to diverse political viewpoints.