Under which conditions do citizens consider income differences legitimate? A growing literature points to meritocratic ideologies as a cultural factor conducive for inequality acceptance (e.g. Trump 2018). What is sometimes overlooked is that meritocratic discourses can theoretically not only strengthen, but also undermine the legitimacy of income inequality; for example, if the rich are portrayed as undeserving by contrasting them with hard-working but relatively poor people.
The proposed paper therefore asks a) whether neutral merit-based arguments (without implicit criticism or justification) are more likely to lead to inequality criticism or acceptance and b) how different meritocracy frames influence redistributive preferences.
We study these questions in a multi-factorial experiment embedded in a large survey of the German population. The vignette design takes the form of a fictitious expert interview including five statements (dimensions) with two to nine fully randomized levels. Attributes consist of either neutral, critical, or legitimizing statements related to meritocracy. By comparing effects on inequality acceptance and policy preferences, the design allows assessing the relative importance of different frames as well as whether neutral statements trigger associations that are closer to explicitly critical or justifying arguments.
The dimensions comprise 1. the framing of recent inequality trends, 2. justifications for earning a high income, 3. equality of opportunity in Germany, 4. different levels of inequality (as a potential moderator), and 5. structural constraints on just inequality.

References:
Trump, K.-S. (2018). Income Inequality Influences Perceptions of Legitimate Income Differences. British Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 929–952.