Thread by @ptr_andre

Here's a question that always puzzled me.

We don't want to judge others by their *circumstances* (parents, gender, race). But do we hold them responsible for their *choices* even when these choices are strongly shaped by circumstances?

Yes, we do, 100%, my new WP suggests.

🧵

Meritocracy & responsibility are two defining ideas of our Western culture. We aspire to reward effort and hard work, hold others responsible for laziness, but promise not to judge individuals by the circumstances they were born into.

Yet, effort choices (and choices more generally) are often shaped by external circumstances. Indeed, empirical studies have linked effort, career, and schooling choices to gender norms, racial inequality, and the socio-economic environment (for references see WP).

I investigate whether people's merit judgments are sensitive to this *endogeneity* of choices. What's the prevailing notion of meritocratic fairness?

Here are the results in 3⃣ steps.

Step 1⃣: Participants in a rep. US sample judge how much money 💰 two workers deserve for the effort they exerted.

In the treatment condition, unequal circumstances strongly discourage one of the workers from working hard.

Nonetheless, I find that individuals hold the disadvantaged worker fully responsible for his choice.

Step 2⃣: Why?

Lack of knowledge? Nope. Participants ignore the endogeneity of choices even though they understand that it exists!

It turns out that people base their merit judgments on clear and reliable (--> observable) evidence -- even if observed choices result from an unfair environment.

What would have happened under equal circumstances (the counterfactual), is highly uncertain and therefore ignored.

Step 3⃣: A vignette study with real-world scenarios confirms these patterns.

Example: Participants do not compensate a person who shows hardly any effort in his or her life but grew up in a discouraging environment with few opportunities and incentives to work hard.

Let's take stock: Meritocracy promises that circumstances don't matter. In practice, however, people ignore that these circumstances often influence the choices that others make and hold them responsible for these choices.

Unequal choices "launder" unequal circumstances.

In case you wonder, the paper is called "Shallow Meritocracy".

Here's a link. Feel invited to have a look. Comments are very welcome.

The paper contains many more details, and details matter.

👉👉 drive.google.com/file/d/1tcq5-L…