Refuting misconceptions that gender quotas are unmeritocratic using the Empathetic Refutational Interview

Stronger endorsement of meritocracy often fuels opposition to gender quotas despite evidence that they actually result in meritocratic outcomes. We provided explanations of this evidence to Republicans who endorsed meritocracy and opposed gender quotas in four online experiments (total n = 1,794). We compared explanations using an Empathetic Refutational Interview (ERI) structure (which affirmed people’s beliefs in meritocracy before correcting the “unmeritocratic quota” misconception) with an unrelated control text and explanations without affirming meritocratic beliefs. Corrections significantly reduced opposition to gender quotas relative to the control. When presented in the context of a conversation, participants rated corrections delivered using the ERI as most acknowledging of their perspective. Participants who reported first-hand (bad) experiences with gender quotas were particularly receptive to correction via the ERI. Discussing the benefits of gender quotas, especially for meritocracy, can help reduce opposition to them. The ERI can help structure such conversations to avoid interpersonal conflict.