When Meritocracy and Morality Collide: How Values and Social Closeness Shape Wealth Deservingness Judgements

Judgments about who deserves wealth and social rewards are guided by multiple normative principles, most notably meritocracy (effort and responsibility) and morality (benevolent intentions and concern for others). Although these principles often align, they can conflict when information about how wealth was obtained diverges from information about moral character. Deservingness judgments may also be shaped by social closeness, raising questions about whether evaluative standards are applied consistently across relational contexts. In a primary study (N = 305) and a follow-up study (N = 90), we examined how individuals integrate merit-based information, moral value orientations, and social closeness when evaluating economic deservingness. Participants completed within-subject vignette evaluations in which targets varied by wealth source (hard work, luck, or theft) and moral value orientation (benevolence, security, or hedonism), and additionally evaluated a close friend. The follow-up study varied theft motives. Results showed that wealth source was the strongest determinant of deservingness, with hard work rated highest, followed by luck, and theft lowest. Moral character influenced judgments most when merit was ambiguous (luck) and least when merit was clearly violated (theft). Participants also favored close others, allocating more resources to friends than to equivalent targets. In the follow-up study, necessity-based theft was judged more favorably than enjoyment-based theft, with value differences emerging primarily under necessity. These findings indicate that deservingness judgments reflect systematic, context-dependent trade-offs between merit, moral character, and social relationships.