Acceso usuarios
Evan P. Apfelbaum, Eileen Y. Suh, Yue Wu
Organizations and academic institutions often pursue two goals in their selection processes: They seek to uphold a meritocracy wherein the “best” candidates are selected and to increase the diversity of their workforces and student bodies. Across four large, preregistered experiments (N = 5,805) in laboratory and field settings, we theorize a belief in a diversity–meritocracy trade-off—that efforts to promote diversity in selection processes undermine a meritocracy. Using nationally representative U.S. samples, we find that a majority of Americans endorse this belief, even when (a) selection criteria explicitly prioritize meritocratic principles and (b) diversity-promoting actions are not directly related to candidate evaluations. This belief emerges across varying types of diversity—racial, gender, and general (Study 2)—but is starkly politically polarized: Liberals do not believe efforts to promote diversity subvert a meritocracy, whereas those with more moderate and conservative views do (Studies 1–4). Past research focuses on prejudice to explain political divides regarding diversity in selection. Our evidence highlights an additional dynamic: Diversity-promoting actions are divisive because they produce divergent concerns about how fairly candidates will be evaluated (Studies 1–3). To address these fairness concerns, we test an intervention wherein initial actions to promote diversity are followed by selection decisions made “blind” to candidates’ demographic background. We find that this intervention curbs the belief in a diversity–meritocracy trade-off in two distinct contexts: workplace hiring (Study 3) and graduate admissions (Study 4). Our results carry important implications for formulating selection processes that promote both diversity and meritocracy in the eyes of liberals and conservatives alike. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved)
