Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The psychology of zero-sum beliefs

Nature Reviews Psychology volume 2, pages 472–482 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

People often hold zero-sum beliefs (subjective beliefs that, independent of the actual distribution of resources, one party’s gains are inevitably accrued at other parties’ expense) about interpersonal, intergroup and international relations. In this Review, we synthesize social, cognitive, evolutionary and organizational psychology research on zero-sum beliefs. In doing so, we examine when, why and how such beliefs emerge and what their consequences are for individuals, groups and society. Although zero-sum beliefs have been mostly conceptualized as an individual difference and a generalized mindset, their emergence and expression are sensitive to cognitive, motivational and contextual forces. Specifically, we identify three broad psychological channels that elicit zero-sum beliefs: intrapersonal and situational forces that elicit threat, generate real or imagined resource scarcity, and inhibit deliberation. This systematic study of zero-sum beliefs advances our understanding of how these beliefs arise, how they influence people’s behaviour and, we hope, how they can be mitigated.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Operationalizations of zero-sum beliefs.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. Theory Of Games And Economic Behavior 2nd edn, xviii, 641 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1947).

  2. Schelling, T. C. The strategy of conflict: prospectus for a reorientation of game theory. J. Confl. Resolut. 2, 203–264 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ross, L. & Nisbett, R. E. The Person And The Situation: Perspectives Of Social Psychology (Pinter & Martin, 2011).

  4. Meegan, D. V. Zero-sum bias: perceived competition despite unlimited resources. Front. Psychol. 1, 191 (2010). In this research, participants exhibited a persistent zero-sum bias, expecting a zero-sum resource distribution even in an explicitly non-zero-sum context.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Foster, G. M. Peasant society and the image of limited good. Am. Anthropol. 67, 293–315 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bazerman, M. H. & Neale, M. A. Negotiating Rationally (Simon and Schuster, 1993).

  7. Bazerman, M. H., Magliozzi, T. & Neale, M. A. Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 35, 294–313 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Różycka-Tran, J., Boski, P. & Wojciszke, B. Belief in a zero-sum game as a social axiom: a 37-nation study. J. Cross Cultural Psychol. 46, 525–548 (2015). This article constructs and validates a measure of general zero-sum beliefs and examines their prevalence and correlates across 37 different countries.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Roczniewska, M. & Wojciszke, B. Reducing hindering job demands: the role of belief in life as a zero-sum game and workload. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 18, 10036 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Boyer, P. & Petersen, M. B. Folk-economic beliefs: an evolutionary cognitive model. Behav. Brain Sci. 41, e188 (2018). This article puts forth a theoretical framework for the evolution of zero-sum beliefs (operationalized as a specific instance of ‘folk economic beliefs’) as a cognitive heuristic.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Andrews-Fearon, P., Götz, F. M., Serapio-García, G. & Good, D. Zero-sum Mindset and its Discontents https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/zero-sum-mindset-and-its-discontents (Social Macroeconomics Working Paper, Blavatnik School Of Government, 2021).

  12. Barnes, L. Taxing the rich: public preferences and public understanding. J. Eur. Public Policy 29, 787–804 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rubin, P. H. Folk economics. South. Econ. J. 70, 157–171 (2003). This article examines lay conceptions about the economy and identifies domain-specific zero-sum beliefs about the economy as the basis for people’s folk economic beliefs.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Leiser, D. & Shemesh, Y. How We Misunderstand Economics And Why It Matters: The Psychology Of Bias, Distortion And Conspiracy (Routledge, 2018).

  15. Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M. & Armstrong, T. L. Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: an instrumental model of group conflict. J. Soc. Issues 54, 699–724 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Louis, W. R., Esses, V. M. & Lalonde, R. N. National identification, perceived threat, and dehumanization as antecedents of negative attitudes toward immigrants in Australia and Canada. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43, E156–E165 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Roberts, R. & Davidai, S. The psychology of asymmetric zero-sum beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 123, 559–575 (2022). This paper examines how the experience of threat leads people to view others’ gains as coming at their expense but not vice versa.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Norton, M. I. & Sommers, S. R. Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 215–218 (2011). This research finds that white Americans believe that the drop in anti-Black prejudice over the past seven decades has been offset by a rise in anti-white prejudice.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuchynka, S. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A. & Puryear, C. Zero-sum thinking and the masculinity contest: perceived intergroup competition and workplace gender bias. J. Soc. Issues 74, 529–550 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ruthig, J. C., Kehn, A., Gamblin, B. W., Vanderzanden, K. & Jones, K. When women’s gains equal men’s losses: predicting a zero-sum perspective of gender status. Sex Roles 76, 17–26 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sicard, A. & Martinot, D. School as a zero-sum game between boys and girls: gender differences in perceptions. Int. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 31, 18 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wong, Y. J., Klann, E., Bijelić, N. & Aguayo, F. F. The link between men’s zero-sum gender beliefs and mental health: findings from Chile and Croatia. Psychol. Men. Masc. 18, 12–19 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Smithson, M., Sopeña, A. & Platow, M. J. When is group membership zero-sum? Effects of ethnicity, threat, and social identity on dual national identity. PLoS One 10, e0130539 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilkins, C. L. et al. Is LGBT progress seen as an attack on Christians? Examining Christian/sexual orientation zero-sum beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 122, 73–101 (2021).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bhattacharjee, A., Dana, J. & Baron, J. Anti-profit beliefs: how people neglect the societal benefits of profit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 113, 671–696 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Davidai, S. & Ongis, M. The politics of zero-sum thinking: the relationship between political ideology and the belief that life is a zero-sum game. Sci. Adv. 5, eaay3761 (2019). This article uses correlational, experimental and archival research to examine the prevalence of domain-specific zero-sum beliefs about immigration, race and economic success among liberal and conservative Americans.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson, S. G. B., Zhang, J. & Keil, F. C. Win–win denial: the psychological underpinnings of zero-sum thinking. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 151, 455–474 (2022). This article presents a series of experimental studies that examine people’s zero-sum beliefs about simple economic transactions between buyers and sellers.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Newman, G. E., Gorlin, M. & Dhar, R. When going green backfires: how firm intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. J. Consum. Res. 41, 823–839 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Brown, N. D. & Jacoby-Senghor, D. S. Majority members misperceive even “win-win” diversity policies as unbeneficial to them. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 122, 1075–1097 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Maoz, I. & McCauley, C. Psychological correlates of support for compromise: a polling study of Jewish–Israeli attitudes toward solutions to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Polit. Psychol. 26, 791–808 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Andrews-Fearon, P. & Davidai, S. Is status a zero-sum game? Zero-sum beliefs increase people’s preference for dominance but not prestige. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 152, 389–409 (2022). This article presents a series of correlational and experimental studies that examine the causal effect of domain-specific zero-sum beliefs about status on people’s willingness to use dominance and aggression to rise in social rank.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pilditch, T. D., Fenton, N. & Lagnado, D. The zero-sum fallacy in evidence evaluation. Psychol. Sci. 30, 250–260 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hasson, Y., Amir, E., Sobol-Sarag, D., Tamir, M. & Halperin, E. Using performance art to promote intergroup prosociality by cultivating the belief that empathy is unlimited. Nat. Commun. 13, 7786 (2022).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Burleigh, T. J., Rubel, A. N. & Meegan, D. V. Wanting ‘the whole loaf’: zero-sum thinking about love is associated with prejudice against consensual non-monogamists. Psychol. Sex. 8, 24–40 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cunningham, N. C., Mitchell, R. C. & Mogilski, J. K. Which styles of moral reasoning predict apprehension toward consensual non-monogamy? Pers. Individ. Differ. 196, 111732 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chinoy, S., Nunn, N., Sequeira, S. & Stantcheva, S. Zero-sum thinking and the roots of U.S. political divides. Preprint at https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantcheva/files/zero_sum_us_political_divides.pdf (2023).

  37. Marshburn, C. K., Reinkensmeyer, B. A. & Knowles, E. D. Dominance motivated delusions: whites with high social dominance orientation perceive equal amounts of institutional racism between Blacks and whites. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221103984 (2022).

  38. Wilkins, C. L., Wellman, J. D., Babbitt, L. G., Toosi, N. R. & Schad, K. D. You can win but I can’t lose: bias against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs about discrimination. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1–14 (2015). This research finds that members of high-status groups (men and white people) express greater zero-sum beliefs when considering the threatening proposition of increasing bias against their own group.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wright, R. Nonzero: The Logic Of Human Destiny (Vintage Books, 2000).

  40. Ruisch, B. C., Anderson, R. A. & Pizarro, D. A. The challenge of accounting for individual differences in folk-economic beliefs. Behav. Brain Sci. 41, e186 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tappin, B. M., Ross, R. & McKay, R. T. Do the folk actually hold folk-economic beliefs? Behav. Brain Sci. 41, e190 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jones, J. M. US views of foreign trade nearly back to pre-Trump levels. Gallup https://news.gallup.com/poll/390614/views-foreign-trade-nearly-back-pre-trump-levels.aspx (10 March 2022).

  43. Buss, D. M. Evolutionary psychology: a new paradigm for psychological science. Psychol. Inq. 6, 1–30 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Demoulin, S. & Teixeira, C. P. Social categorization in interpersonal negotiation: how social structural factors shape negotiations. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13, 765–777 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kakkar, H. & Sivanathan, N. The impact of leader dominance on employees’ zero-sum mindset and helping behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 107, 1706–1724 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Smithson, M. & Shou, Y. Asymmetries in responses to attitude statements: the example of “zero-sum” beliefs. Front. Psychol. 7, 984 (2016). This article demonstrates consistent framing effects in people’s responses to zero-sum propositions, based on beliefs about asymmetries in resource flows and distributions of power between parties.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Wilkins, C. L. & Kaiser, C. R. Racial progress as threat to the status hierarchy: implications for perceptions of anti-white bias. Psychol. Sci. 25, 439–446 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wilkins, C. L., Hirsch, A. A., Kaiser, C. R. & Inkles, M. P. The threat of racial progress and the self-protective nature of perceiving anti-White bias. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 20, 801–812 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M. & Armstrong, T. L. The immigration dilemma: the role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. J. Soc. Issues 57, 389–412 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Craig, M. A. & Richeson, J. A. Information about the US racial demographic shift triggers concerns about anti-White discrimination among the prospective White “minority”. PLoS One 12, e0185389 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Craig, M. & Richeson, J. A. On the precipice of a “majority–minority” America: perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychol. Sci. 25, 1189–1197 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Stefaniak, A. & Wohl, M. J. A. In time, we will simply disappear: racial demographic shift undermines privileged group members’ support for marginalized social groups via collective angst. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25, NP1–NP23 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y. & Murnighan, J. K. Mind games: the mental representation of conflict. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 132–148 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. ten Brinke, L., Black, P. J., Porter, S. & Carney, D. R. Psychopathic personality traits predict competitive wins and cooperative losses in negotiation. Pers. Individ. Differ. 79, 116–122 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F. & Mitchell, M. In-group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. J. Soc. Psychol. 134, 151–167 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ho, A. K. et al. The nature of social dominance orientation: theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 1003–1028 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Harinck, F., De Dreu, C. K. W. & Van Vianen, A. E. M. The impact of conflict issues on fixed-pie perceptions, problem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 81, 329–358 (2000).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sirola, N. & Pitesa, M. Economic downturns undermine workplace helping by promoting a zero-sum construal of success. Acad. Manag. J. 60, 1339–1359 (2017). This research examines the effect of a macroeconomic factor that signals resource scarcity on zero-sum beliefs about workplace success and their downstream consequences.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Jachimowicz, J. M. et al. Inequality in researchers’ minds: four guiding questions for studying subjective perceptions of economic inequality. J. Econ. Surveys https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12507 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. He, T., Derfler-Rozin, R. & Pitesa, M. Financial vulnerability and the reproduction of disadvantage in economic exchanges. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 80–96 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Krugman, P. Lumps of labor. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/opinion/lumps-of-labor.html (7 October 2003).

  62. Platow, M. J. & Hunter, J. A. in Understanding Prejudice, Racism, and Social Conflict 195–212 (Sage, 2001).

  63. Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7, 117–140 (1954).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L. & Suls, J. A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychol. Bull. 144, 177–197 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Putnam-Farr, E. & Morewedge, C. K. Which social comparisons influence happiness with unequal pay? J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 150, 570–582 (2021).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Davidai, S. & Deri, S. The second pugilist’s plight: why people believe they are above average but are not especially happy about it. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148, 570–587 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Deri, S., Davidai, S. & Gilovich, T. Home alone: why people believe others’ social lives are richer than their own. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 113, 858–877 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Davidai, S., Deri, S. & Gilovich, T. There must be more to life than this: the impact of highly-accessible exemplars on self-evaluation and discontent. Self Identity 20, 72–93 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Weingarten, E., Davidai, S. & Barasch, A. Who’s on first? People asymmetrically attend to higher-ranked (vs. lower-ranked) competitors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 104, 104405 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M. & Bialosiewicz, S. Relative deprivation: a theoretical and meta-analytic review. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16, 203–232 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Ongis, M. & Davidai, S. Personal relative deprivation and the belief that economic success is zero-sum. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 151, 1666–1680 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Kimmel, M. Angry White Men: American Masculinity At The End Of An Era (Bold Type Books, 2013).

  73. Lee, S. W. S. & Schwarz, N. A grounded cognition perspective on folk-economic beliefs. Behav. Brain Sci. 41, e175 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Curhan, J. R., Overbeck, J. R., Cho, Y., Zhang, T. & Yang, Y. Silence is golden: extended silence, deliberative mindset, and value creation in negotiation. J. Appl. Psychol. 107, 78–94 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Chambers, J. R. & De Dreu, C. K. W. Egocentrism drives misunderstanding in conflict and negotiation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 51, 15–26 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Johnson, S., Zhang, J. & Keil, F. Consumers’ beliefs about the effects of trade. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3376248 (2019).

  77. Katz-Navon, T. Y. & Goldschmidt, C. Goal orientations in negotiations: the influence of goal orientations on fixed-pie perceptions and bargaining outcomes. Int. J. Psychol. 44, 60–70 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Caplan, B. What makes people think like economists? Evidence on economic cognition from the “Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy”. J. Law Econ. 44, 395–426 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Blendon, R. J. et al. Bridging the gap between the public’s and economists’ views of the economy. J. Econ. Perspect. 11, 105–118 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Frederick, S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 25–42 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  81. De Dreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L. & Steinel, W. Unfixing the fixed pie: a motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 975–987 (2000).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kern, M. C., Brett, J. M., Weingart, L. R. & Eck, C. S. The “fixed” pie perception and strategy in dyadic versus multiparty negotiations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 157, 143–158 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Hirshleifer, D. Presidential address: social transmission bias in economics and finance. J. Financ. 75, 1779–1831 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Chernyak-Hai, L. & Davidai, S. “Do not teach them how to fish”: the effect of zero-sum beliefs on help giving. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 151, 2466–2480 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Różycka-Tran, J. et al. Belief in a zero-sum game and subjective well-being across 35 countries. Curr. Psychol. 40, 3575–3584 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Jiang, X., Hu, X., Liu, Z., Sun, X. & Xue, G. Greed as an adaptation to anomie: the mediating role of belief in a zero-sum game and the buffering effect of internal locus of control. Pers. Individ. Differ. 152, 109566 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Davidai, S., White, W. M. & Gregorich, V. The fear of conflict leads people to systematically avoid potentially valuable zero-sum situations. Sci. Rep. 12, 17944 (2022).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Shin, J. & Kim, J. K. How a good sleep predicts life satisfaction: the role of zero-sum beliefs about happiness. Front. Psychol. 9, 1589 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Thompson, L. L. Information exchange in negotiation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 27, 161–179 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Dong, Y., Zhang, L., Wang, H.-J. & Jiang, J. Why is crafting the job associated with less prosocial reactions and more social undermining? The role of feelings of relative deprivation and zero-sum mindset. J. Bus. Ethics 184, 175–190 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Adamska, K., Jurek, P. & Różycka-Tran, J. The mediational role of relational psychological contract in belief in a zero-sum game and work input attitude dependency. Pol. Psychol. Bull. 46, 579–586 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Crocker, J., Canevello, A. & Lewis, K. A. Romantic relationships in the ecosystem: compassionate goals, nonzero-sum beliefs, and change in relationship quality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 112, 58–75 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Borawski, D. The loneliness of the zero-sum game loser. the balance of social exchange and belief in a zero-sum game as predictors of loneliness. Pers. Individ. Differ. 135, 270–276 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Zhang, H. & Sun, S. Zero-sum construal of workplace success promotes initial work role behavior by activating prevention focus: evidence from Chinese college and university graduates. Front. Psychol. 11, 1191 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Obaidi, M., Kunst, J., Ozer, S. & Kimel, S. Y. The “Great Replacement” conspiracy: How the perceived ousting of Whites can evoke violent extremism and Islamophobia. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25, 1675–1695 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Berbrier, M. The victim ideology of white supremacists and white separatists in the United States. Sociol. Focus. 33, 175–191 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Williams, T. C. The French origins of “you will not replace us”. The New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/04/the-french-origins-of-you-will-not-replace-us (27 November 2017).

  98. Wilson, A. F. in Secrecy And Society (SJSU Scholarworks, 2018).

  99. Eibach, R. P. & Keegan, T. Free at last? Social dominance, loss aversion, and white and Black Americans’ differing assessments of racial progress. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 453–467 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Kimmel, M. America’s angriest white men: up close with racism, rage and Southern supremacy. Salon https://www.salon.com/2013/11/17/americas_angriest_white_men_up_close_with_racism_rage_and_southern_supremacy/ (2013).

  101. Schreckinger, B. White supremacist groups see Trump bump. POLITICO https://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-white-supremacists-216620 (2015).

  102. Mondon, A. & Winter, A. Reactionary Democracy: How Racism And The Populist Far Right Became Mainstream (Verso Books, 2020).

  103. McGhee, H. The Sum Of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone And How We Can Prosper Together (One World, 2021). This book uses interviews and analyses of archival data to explore how zero-sum beliefs have consistently been used to stifle economic and social progress in the USA throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

  104. Brown, N. D., Jacoby-Senghor, D. S. & Raymundo, I. If you rise, I fall: equality is prevented by the misperception that it harms advantaged groups. Sci. Adv. 8, eabm2385 (2022).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Rasmussen, R. et al. White (but not Black) Americans continue to see racism as a zero-sum game; white conservatives (but not moderates or liberals) see themselves as losing. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1800–1810 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Krosch, A. R. & Amodio, D. M. Economic scarcity alters the perception of race. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 9079–9084 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Stefaniak, A., Mallett, R. K. & Wohl, M. J. A. Zero-sum beliefs shape advantaged allies’ support for collective action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 50, 1259–1275 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Wellman, J. D., Liu, X. & Wilkins, C. L. Priming status-legitimizing beliefs: examining the impact on perceived anti-white bias, zero-sum beliefs, and support for affirmative action among white people. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 55, 426–437 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. King, E. B., Knight, J. L. & Hebl, M. R. The influence of economic conditions on aspects of stigmatization. J. Soc. Issues 66, 446–460 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  110. Jackson, L. M. & Esses, V. M. Effects of perceived economic competition on people’s willingness to help empower immigrants. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 3, 419–435 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  111. Piotrowski, J., Różycka-Tran, J., Baran, T. & Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M. Zero-sum thinking as mediator of the relationship of national attitudes with (un)willingness to host refugees in own country. Int. J. Psychol. 54, 722–730 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Kehn, A. & Ruthig, J. C. Perceptions of gender discrimination across six decades: the moderating roles of gender and age. Sex. Roles 69, 289–296 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  113. Ruthig, J. C., Kehn, A., Fisher, W. N. & Carstens Namie, E. M. Consequences of a zero-sum perspective of gender status: Predicting later discrimination against men and women in collaborative and leadership roles. Sex. Roles 85, 13–24 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Schaube, S. & Strang, L. M. (Not) everyone can be a winner: the role of payoff interdependence for redistribution. ECONtribute https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/ajkajkdps/160.htm (2022).

  115. Różycka-Tran, J., Jurek, P., Olech, M., Piotrowski, J. & Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M. A warrior society: data from 30 countries show that belief in a zero-sum game is related to military expenditure and low civil liberties. Front. Psychol. 9, 2645 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Kelman, H. C. The political psychology of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: how can we overcome the barriers to a negotiated solution? Polit. Psychol. 8, 347–363 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  117. Baron, J., Bazerman, M. H. & Shonk, K. Enlarging the societal pie through wise legislation: a psychological perspective. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 1, 123–132 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Stiglitz, J. Distinguished lecture on economics in government: the private uses of public interests: incentives and institutions. J. Econ. Perspect. 12, 3–22 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Różycka-Tran, J., Alessandri, G., Jurek, P. & Olech, M. A test of construct isomorphism of the Belief in a Zero-Sum Game scale: a multilevel 43-nation study. PLoS One 13, e0203196 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Liu, W., Liu, L. A. & Zhang, J.-D. How to dissolve fixed-pie bias in negotiation? Social antecedents and the mediating effect of mental-model adjustment. J. Organ. Behav. 37, 85–107 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  121. Sloman, S. A. & Vives, M.-L. Is political extremism supported by an illusion of understanding? Cognition 225, 105146 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Vitriol, J. A. & Marsh, J. K. The illusion of explanatory depth and endorsement of conspiracy beliefs. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 48, 955–969 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  123. Black, J. F. & Davidai, S. Do rich people “deserve” to be rich? Charitable giving, internal attributions of wealth, and judgments of economic deservingness. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 90, 104011 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  124. Bobo, L. & Hutchings, V. L. Perceptions of racial group competition: extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context. Am. Sociol. Rev. 61, 951 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  125. Rohrer, J. M. & Murayama, K. These are not the effects you are looking for: causality and the within-/between-person distinction in longitudinal data analysis. SAGE J. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221140842 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank T. Gilovich and members of the Gilovich Laboratory at Cornell University for their helpful feedback on this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Shai Davidai

  2. Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Stephanie J. Tepper

Authors
  1. Shai Davidai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie J. Tepper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article. The authors share first authorship. Author order was determined by rolling two d20 dice.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Shai Davidai or Stephanie J. Tepper.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Samuel Johnson, Joanna Różycka-Tran and Xiaomin Sun for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davidai, S., Tepper, S.J. The psychology of zero-sum beliefs. Nat Rev Psychol 2, 472–482 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00194-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00194-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing