Organizations and academic institutions often pursue two goals in their selection processes: 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 both laboratory and field settings, we theorize a belief in a diversity-meritocracy tradeoff—that efforts to promote diversity in selection processes undermine a meritocracy. Using nationally representative U.S. samples, we find that the average American endorses this belief, even when selection criteria explicitly prioritize meritocratic principles, and when the diversity action(s) are not directly related to candidate evaluations. Critically, we observe stark political divisions in this belief, such that liberals view efforts to promote diversity as enabling a meritocracy whereas conservatives see them as subverting one (Studies 1-4). Whereas previous work points to prejudice to explain political divides regarding diversity policies, we find that the belief in a diversity-meritocracy tradeoff stems from (conservatives’) concerns about how fairly candidates will be evaluated (Studies 1 to 3). To address these fairness concerns, we then test an “evaluation blinding” intervention wherein initial actions to promote diversity are followed by selection decisions made “blind” to the demographic background of candidates. We find that this intervention eliminates the belief in a diversity-meritocracy tradeoff 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.
