American Psychological Association claims merit-based hiring is UNFAIR in new study

Most employers hire people based on their qualifications, but a new study has claimed the process can be unfair.

Researchers at the American Psychological Association now argue that socioeconomic differences should be a focus when looking for potential employees.

The team conducted five experiments in which participants were given background information on the two types of candidates, showing that those who learned about merit-based hiring perceived it as less fair.

Researchers concluded that merit-based hiring exacerbates racial inequality because “members of marginalized racial groups are more likely to experience socioeconomic disadvantages than members of advantaged racial groups.”

Merit-based hiring occurs when an employer hires a candidate solely based on his or her resume, achievements, including higher education, and past career development.

People who suffer from socio-economic disparities include those who come from low-income areas, did not have access to higher education and were therefore unable to advance their careers.

Researchers conducted five experiments, and in the first two experiments, the groups read about merit-based hiring, but one group received no additional information about the candidates.

In the second group, researchers informed participants about the socio-economic disadvantages of the candidate and the advantages of another candidate.

Researchers said the second group found that merit-based hiring or promotion is less fair and provides less equal opportunity for candidates.

The study included examples of two employees being considered for a job promotion – both employees attended college, but one was a high performer while the other struggled to demonstrate his inability to handle more responsibilities.

The study found that the first employee’s high performance was likely due to his extensive extracurricular activities in college, while the second employee’s poor performance was “likely a result of him having less work-related experience,” because he did not do any internships. or extracurricular activities before joining the company.

In this example, participants were asked to assess whether it was fair that the harder-working candidate got the job and whether the employees had an equal opportunity to compete for the promotion.

The study found that candidates who received additional information about the background of the lower-performing candidates perceived significantly less equal opportunity than the group that received no background information.

The study found that participants who did not receive additional information about a candidate’s socioeconomic background were more likely to believe the hiring process was fair. Meanwhile, those who received background information changed their stance, saying the hiring process was less fair.

“Socioeconomic disadvantages at a young age can undermine educational achievement, test scores and work experiences. In this way, inequality can undermine equal opportunities’ said principal investigator Daniela Goya-Tocchetto, PhD, assistant professor of organization and human resources at the University at Buffalo-State University of New York.

“But when we evaluate the fairness of merit-based processes, people tend to ignore this broader context and the effects of inequality.”

Goya-Tocchetto advises employers to focus on the disadvantages a potential candidate has faced, rather than on another candidate who has achieved more in their field and has a more appropriate resume.

“Hiring managers should learn about the effects of socioeconomic inequality on access to opportunities and consider a broader range of work experience when evaluating different candidates,” Goya-Tocchetto said.

Regardless of their political affiliation, the study found that participants at both ends of the spectrum changed their perceptions of hiring fairness after receiving additional information about a candidate’s socioeconomic background.

The study comes as some Republican leaders push back against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at public universities and in state government.

Governor Spencer Cox (R-UT) this week signed a bill banning diversity training, hiring and inclusion programs, making it the latest state to join the anti-diversity movement.

Other states that have canceled or proposed EDI programs include Florida, Missouri, Iowa and South Carolina.

“We are concerned about some DEI programs and policies, especially hiring practices, and this bill provides a balanced solution,” Cox said. said.

However, the American Psychological Association survey found that despite Republicans’ latest stance on DEI programs, conservative participants said they believe merit-based hiring and promotion is generally fair, but they have changed their perceptions of fairness after hearing about the socio-economic differences between candidates.

“Members of marginalized racial groups tend to experience socioeconomic disadvantages more often than members of privileged racial groups, and the negative consequences of these disadvantages can be even worse for racial minorities,” says Goya-Tocchetto.

She added: “Focusing on socio-economic considerations could generate greater support and still help address racial inequality.”

Dailymail.com has contacted Goya-Tocchetto for comment.