ArticleFrontiers in sociology2026
Meritocracy in Brazil, China and USA: identifying inconsistencies in the Preference for the Merit Principle Scale through Exploratory Graph Analysis.
Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The belief that individuals should be rewarded according to merit for their effort and talent has become increasingly widespread, yet efforts to measure it remain contested. Meritocracy has been conceptualized both as an ideology that justifies inequality and as an ideal of distributive justice, with some studies emphasizing its descriptive nature, whether it is perceived as existing in society. Others analyze it as prescriptive, framing it as a desirable social norm. This study focuses on the Preference for the Merit Principle (PMP), the most widely used prescriptive measure of meritocracy. It demonstrates that its assumed unidimensionality, encompassing the principles of equity, equality, and need, is untenable across sociocultural contexts. To that end, we compared the dimensionality and internal consistency of the PMP across three national samples using Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA): a prototypically WEIRD country (United States), a non-WEIRD BRICS country (China), and our own sample of 136 Brazilian university students. Results consistently favored multifactorial over unidimensional structures across all three countries, with greater heterogeneity observed in the non-WEIRD samples. In the Brazilian sample, four unstable dimensions were identified: Need (reverse), Equity, Equality (reverse), and Competitive Equity. Criterion validity analyses revealed divergent and contradictory associations: equity was negatively associated with hierarchical beliefs, whereas denial of Need showed a marginal negative association with support for affirmative action policies. Given the low reliability of some PMP dimensions, these results should be interpreted with caution. These findings urge greater caution in applying the PMP across sociocultural contexts and call for treating prescriptive meritocracy as a multidimensional, contextually embedded belief system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.