The Rise of Merit-based Inequality Acceptance After Exposure to Competition: Experimental Evidence among Chinese University Students
- 53 Downloads
This laboratory study examines an individual’s acceptance of distributional inequality after exposure to competition and the role of competitive intensity in this relationship among young adults in mainland China. We randomly assigned participants to tournaments with different levels of prize spread and winning selectivity, thereby engendering different levels of competitive intensity. Moreover, the lab experiment measured the participants’ preference for inequality in the distribution of tournament awards–what we call merit-based inequality acceptance. We obtained three main results. (1) Exposure to competition increases the level of inequality acceptance, and the effect of such increase tends to be great among strong performers in a tournament. (2) Exposure to competition with large prizes is positively associated with high level of inequality acceptance, whereas the relationship of winning selectivity to inequality acceptance has an inverted U shape. (3) The main source of inequality acceptance is the difference in the payoffs to strong and poor performers in a tournament. Results suggest that increasing competition intensity for economic rewards may have the unintended consequence of enhancing merit-based inequality acceptance among young Chinese university students.
KeywordsMerit-based inequality acceptance Exposure to competition Distribution China
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding support from the CUHK-CASS Joint Lab on Social Psychology, sponsored by CUHK Research Committee via the Faculty of Social Science Chinese University of Hong Kong, Guangzhou Association of Social Science “Social mentality research in new era: merit-based distribution and sense of acquisition” (No2018GZQN21) and MOE “Trend and Pattern of Chinese Social Mobility: Ethnic minorities’ educational and occupational attainments” (No. 16YJC880104).
- Arrow, K. J., Bowles, S., & Durlauf, S. N. (2000). Meritocracy and economic inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Moss, D. A., Thaker, A., & Rudnick, H. (2013). Inequality and decision making: Imagining a new line of inquiry. Harvard Business School BGIE Unit Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2284341.
- Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York, NY: Basic books.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Sheremeta, R. M. (2016). The pros and cons of workplace tournaments. IZA World of Labor SSRN Working Paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2862456.
- Vojnović, M. (2016). Contest theory: Incentive mechanisms and ranking methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Whyte, M. (2010). Myth of the social volcano: Perceptions of inequality and distributive injustice in contemporary China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Zaman, K., & Shamsuddin, S. (2017). Linear and non-linear relationships between growth, inequality, and poverty in a panel of Latin America and the Caribbean countries: a new evidence of pro-poor growth. Social Indicators Research, 1, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1581-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar