Humans pervasively prefer meritocratic benefit distributions.
Evidence
Experimental evidence confirms this prediction, showing a widespread massive preference for meritocratic distributions: the more valuable your input, the more you get (Konow 2001; Marshall et al. 1999). — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 93
Categorization
- CANDY: A clean conversation fact: people overwhelmingly prefer that payout match input, even against other fairness intuitions.
- ADDENDUM: Directly evidences the meritocratic logic whose destruction the fumi-e ritual inflicts on Rodrigues — public forced apostasy strips his contribution of exchange value.
- XREF: connects to: Talented individuals merit larger shares because their outside options are stronger. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 50; People accept large inequalities they judge as earned or deserved. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 712; Seemingly fair outcomes can arise from self-referent loss aversion rather than fairness preferences. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 312 (+3 more)
Related
- Fairness evolved to distribute payoffs by input, not equally. (similarity 0.86)
- Seemingly fair outcomes can arise from self-referent loss aversion rather than fairness preferences. (similarity 0.84)
- People accept large inequalities they judge as earned or deserved. (similarity 0.84)
- Fairness judgments track each participant’s earned contribution, not just payoff equality. (similarity 0.83)
- Fairness evolved as a psychological device because outside market options constrain benefit distribution. (similarity 0.83)
- Meritocratic fairness norms evolved as adaptations to partner-choice markets (similarity 0.83)
- Talented individuals merit larger shares because their outside options are stronger. (similarity 0.83)
- Human fairness means overriding merit to aid the needy. (similarity 0.82)
- People disagree persistently about what makes inequality fair (similarity 0.82)
- Shared fairness intuitions cannot explain distributive variability when beliefs and situations are held constant. (similarity 0.82)
- Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. (similarity 0.82)
- Morality evolved because fair partners were preferred in cooperative interactions (similarity 0.81)
- Earned entitlements reshape perceived fairness in resource division. (similarity 0.80)
- Equality-as-salient-point cannot explain unequal fair distributions (similarity 0.80)
- Fairness in economic games tracks perceived entitlement rather than raw contribution. (similarity 0.80)
Broader Connections
- Seemingly fair outcomes can arise from self-referent loss aversion rather than fairness preferences.
#complicates(0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 312 - Fairness in economic games tracks perceived entitlement rather than raw contribution.
#qualifies(0.80) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 467 - Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators.
#expands(0.72) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 266 - Fairness evolved as a psychological device because outside market options constrain benefit distribution.
#expands(0.72) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 201