Zero-Sum Thinking
Understanding Economic Mindsets

What is Zero-Sum Thinking?

Core Definition

The belief that gains for one individual or group tend to come at the cost of others.

Why It Matters

This mindset shapes policy views on redistribution, affirmative action, and immigrationโ€”rooted in both personal and ancestral experiences.

An Interactive Explainer, Data Dashboard, and Self-assessment

Purpose of the Website

Ever wondered why people see the same issue so differently? This platform helps you understand zero-sum thinkingโ€”a mindset that shapes how we view politics, policy, and social change. Whether you're a student, educator, policymaker, or curious citizen, this site offers evidence-based insights into one of the most important divides in contemporary society.

About the Research

This website translates the empirical findings of "Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides" (forthcoming in the American Economic Review) by Sahil Chinoy, Nathan Nunn, Sandra Sequeira, and Stefanie Stantcheva into an interactive educational platformโ€”combining conceptual explanation, data visualization, and self-assessment while maintaining academic rigor and transparency.

Explore the Platform

Navigate through different dimensions of zero-sum thinking:

๐Ÿ“š

Basics

Core concepts through interactive mini-games and animated explanations

Start Learning โ†’
๐Ÿ“Š

Visualize

Demographic patterns, policy correlations, and geographic distributions

View Data โ†’
โœ๏ธ

Test Yourself

Answer questions and compare yourself to national benchmarks

Take Test โ†’
โ„น๏ธ

About

Research team, methodology, and academic foundations

Learn More โ†’

The Basics

Learn about zero-sum thinking through examples, gaming, and a video

Understanding the Concept

The belief that gains for one individual or group tend to come at the cost of others.

A Simple Example: The Pie/Pizza

Imagine a pie shared by two groups:

40% 60%

Fixed pie size

๐Ÿ”ด Zero-sum thinking

The size of the pie never changes. If one group gets a larger slice, the other must get a smaller one.

40% 60%

Pie can grow

๐ŸŸข Positive-sum thinking

The pie itself can grow. Both groups can end up with larger slices, even if the shares are not equal.

40% 60%

Pie shrinks

๐ŸŸ  Negative-sum thinking

The pie shrinks through conflict or poor decisions. Both groups end up with less than they started with.

Common Examples in Debate

Zero-sum thinking often appears in debates about:

๐Ÿ’ผ

Jobs

One group gets more jobs โ†’ others lose out

๐ŸŒ

Trade

One country gains โ†’ another is harmed

๐Ÿš€

Immigration

Immigrant gains reduce citizen opportunities

๐Ÿ’ฐ

Income & Wealth

Some get richer โ†’ others must get poorer

๐Ÿ“š

Education

Quality resources for some โ†’ less for others

๐ŸŒ

Climate Action

Environment vs economic development tradeoff

Why do people adopt zero-sum thinking?

  • Visibility bias: Immediate losses are easier to see than gradual gains
  • Group identity: "Us vs. them" framing shifts focus to relative outcomes
  • Uncertainty: People assume fixed resources when the future is unclear
  • Media framing: Conflicts are often presented as zero-sum competitions

Mini game (2-minute intuition demo)

A fixed market with 100 customers. What you gain, your competitor loses. Play as many rounds as you want to experience the zero-sum mindset.

๐ŸŽฏ Game Objective

Capture market share from a fixed pool of 100 customers. Every customer you gain is one they lose.

โšก What You'll Learn

Experience how zero-sum vs. positive-sum mindsets lead to different outcomes and consequences.

โฑ๏ธ Time Required

Play at your own pace. Stop whenever you want.

Starting Position

Both of you start with 50 customers each (50% market share)

๐ŸŽฌ Video

Animated Explanation

Watch this short video to understand the concept of zero-sum thinking and how it affects our everyday decisions.

Choose Your Path

Select the journey that best matches your interests

For Learners
๐Ÿ’ก

Explore & Test Yourself

Perfect for curious minds who want to understand their own thinking patterns and compare with others

Your Journey:
1
Take the Test
Measure your zero-sum thinking
2
Explore Data
See how others think
3
Research (Optional)
Dive deeper if interested
For Researchers
๐Ÿ”ฌ

Deep Dive into Research

Ideal for academics, researchers, and professionals seeking detailed methodology and findings

Your Journey:
1
Study Methodology
Understand the research design
2
Explore Data
Analyze patterns & correlations
3
Test (Optional)
Try it yourself if curious

Want to review the concepts?

The Research

Understanding the methodology behind "Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides"

๐ŸŽฏ

Purpose of the Study

The study investigates how beliefs about gains and losses shape political attitudes in the United States. Rather than focusing only on material interests or partisan identities, the research examines a deeper cognitive framework.

๐Ÿ’ก Central Claim

Zero-sum thinking is a measurable mindset that helps explain persistent political disagreement across a wide range of policy areas.

๐Ÿ“

How Zero-Sum Thinking Is Measured

The study uses survey questions designed to capture respondents' beliefs about whether gains for one group come at the expense of others.

๐Ÿ“‹
Survey Questions
Agreement statements
๐Ÿ“Š
Multiple Domains
Cross-topic consistency
๐ŸŽš๏ธ
Likert Scale
1-5 agreement levels
๐ŸŒ

Domains Covered

Zero-sum thinking is measured across multiple domains to assess whether it reflects a general mindset rather than issue-specific opinions:

๐Ÿ‘ฅ
Ethnic & Social Groups
Beliefs about whether gains for one group imply losses for others
๐ŸŒ
International Trade
Beliefs about whether economic gains from trade are offset by losses elsewhere
๐Ÿ’ฐ
Income & Economic Groups
Beliefs about whether increases in wealth for some require others to become worse off
๐Ÿ›‚
Citizens & Non-citizens
Beliefs about competition over economic opportunities and resources
๐Ÿ”ข

From Survey Responses to an Index

Individual responses are combined into a standardized zero-sum thinking index, following standard practices in survey research.

๐Ÿ“
Survey Responses
โ†’
โš™๏ธ
Standardization
โ†’
๐Ÿ“ˆ
ZST Index (0-1)
๐Ÿ“–

How to Interpret the Index

โ†‘
Higher Values

Stronger tendency to view outcomes as zero-sum โ€” gains for one group are perceived as losses for others.

โ†“
Lower Values

Weaker zero-sum orientation โ€” greater openness to the possibility of shared gains.

๐Ÿ”’

Data Transparency

โœ“

This website presents aggregated results only, based on the published study and its associated materials.

โœ“

Individual-level data are not displayed or stored here.

โœ“

For full methodological details, consult the original publication and appendices.

Want to dive deeper into the research methodology?

Read the Full Paper

Measure Your Zero-Sum Thinking

Answer 4 questions from Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides (Chinoy, Nunn, Sequeira & Stantcheva, AER 2024) and compare your score with ~20,000 U.S. respondents.

Survey Questions

Please indicate how much you agree with each statement.

Q1 If an ethnic group becomes richer, this comes at the expense of other groups.
Q2 In international trade, if one country makes more money, then the other makes less.
Q3 If non-U.S. citizens do better economically, this is at the expense of citizens.
Q4 If one income class becomes wealthier, it is at the expense of others.

Visualization: Explore Zero-Sum Thinking Patterns

Demographic Patterns Viewer

This chart shows average zero-sum thinking scores (0โ€“1 scale) across different demographic groups. Use the dropdown to change variables and the filters on the right to subset the sample.

๐Ÿ“Š Sample: Total survey respondents N = 20,278. All respondents have valid zero-sum thinking scores. Sample sizes shown below may vary when filters are applied.

Zero-Sum Thinking by

Filters

What does the research say about this pattern?

Policy Index Viewer

This page shows how people's views on policy issuesโ€”such as redistribution, immigration, and raceโ€”relate to zero-sum thinking. These indices measure policy attitudes, not zero-sum thinking itself. Use the selector and charts below to explore how policy preferences vary across the zero-sum spectrum.

๐Ÿ“Š Sample: Total survey respondents N = 20,278. Each policy index has a slightly different valid sample size due to missing values: Redistribution (20,230), Race (20,238), Immigration (20,265), Gender (20,266).
View:

Distribution of

Summary Statistics

Mean: โ€”
Median: โ€”
Std Dev: โ€”
Range: โ€”
N: โ€”
How is this index constructed?
How do policy indices differ from the Zero-Sum Index?

The Zero-Sum Thinking Index measures a general mindset โ€” the tendency to view economic and social interactions as win-lose.

Policy indices measure attitudes toward specific issues (redistribution, immigration, race, gender). In the research paper, these are analyzed as outcomes that correlate with zero-sum thinking.

Think of it this way: zero-sum thinking is the lens; policy attitudes are what we observe through that lens.

Zero-Sum Index vs

r: โ€”
Rยฒ: โ€”
N: โ€”
ฮฒ: โ€”

Filters

How to read this chart

โ€ข What this chart shows
This visualization displays the association between zero-sum thinking and policy attitudes. It summarizes patterns in the data but does not establish causality.

โ€ข How the chart is constructed
The X-axis (Zero-Sum Index) is divided into 20 bins. Each dot represents the average policy index value within a bin. The dashed line shows the OLS regression fit.

โ€ข Why binscatter is used
Following Chinoy et al. (2024), binscatter plots are used to highlight systematic relationships in approximately continuous indices without emphasizing individual-level noise.

๐Ÿ“Š Sample note: Total survey respondents N = 20,278. The N shown above may be slightly lower (e.g., 20,230 for Redistribution) because some respondents have missing values for specific policy indices. Each policy index was constructed from different survey questions, so the valid sample size varies by index.

State-Level Zero-Sum Thinking Map

This map shows average zero-sum thinking scores by U.S. state. Use the generation selector below to explore how patterns differ across immigrant generations. Hover over states to see details.

๐Ÿ“Š Sample: Total survey respondents N = 20,278. State-level averages are calculated from individual responses aggregated by state. Sample sizes per state vary based on survey representation.
Zero-Sum Index
0.30 0.70
No data
n<50

Subgroup Statistics

States: โ€”
Mean: โ€”
Median: โ€”
Range: โ€”
Low n: โ€” states
๐Ÿ“ Note:
  • DC = Washington, D.C. (the U.S. capital, not Washington State). It is very small and located on the East Coast between Maryland and Virginia.
  • PR = Puerto Rico (a U.S. territory in the Caribbean Sea, not a state). It is shown as an inset box in the bottom-left corner of the map.
Hover over states for details.
What does the research say about immigration and zero-sum thinking?

Key finding: The study finds that zero-sum thinking is lower among more recent immigrant generations. This pattern โ€” strongest for immigrants themselves, weaker for their children, and largely absent by the third generation โ€” is described in the paper as a "generational gradient."

How do the authors interpret this pattern?

The authors note that these findings are consistent with the idea that direct immigration experience may shape perceptions of economic interactions, in contexts where economic gains occur without detriment to others. This interpretation is observational; the paper does not establish a definitive causal mechanism.

Source: Chinoy, Nunn, Sequeira & Stantcheva (2024), Figure 14

๐Ÿ“–

About This Project

Translating academic research into accessible, interactive educational content

๐ŸŽฏ Project ๐Ÿ‘จโ€๐Ÿ”ฌ Authors ๐Ÿ‘ฅ Team โœ‰๏ธ Contact
๐ŸŽฏ

Project Overview

This educational platform makes academic research on zero-sum thinking accessible to a broader audience. It presents a non-partisan, public-facing summary combining conceptual explanation, data visualization, and self-assessment.

๐Ÿ“Š
Data Visualization
๐ŸŽฎ
Interactive Tools
๐Ÿ“
Self-Assessment
๐Ÿ”ฌ
Research-Based
๐Ÿ‘จโ€๐Ÿ”ฌ

Research Authors

The original research was conducted by leading economists specializing in political economy and development.

๐Ÿ›๏ธ

Harvard Kennedy School Project

Developed as part of Programming and Data for Policy Makers (DPI-691M), a course that introduces computational thinking, data analysis, and digital tools for policy communication.

๐Ÿ‘ Course Instructors
๐Ÿ‘ฅ

Website Team

Developed by graduate students at Harvard Kennedy School. Any errors or interpretations are the team's responsibility alone.

LC

Liyang Chen

Developer

MPA Student at HKS. Passionate about understanding political beliefs and building tools for evidence-based policy dialogue.

JW

Junyu Wang

Developer

HKS graduate student. Interested in technology, public policy, and financial development. Leading website development.

WG

Wondem Goshu

Developer

MC-MPA, Mason Fellow. Interested in African development and leveraging technology for social impact.

๐Ÿ“š

How to Cite

Chinoy, S., Nunn, N., Sequeira, S., & Stantcheva, S. (2024). Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides. American Economic Review (forthcoming).
๐Ÿ“„ Read Full Paper โ†’
โš–๏ธ

Disclaimer

This is an independent educational presentation. It does not represent the views of the original authors, their institutions, Harvard Kennedy School, or any funding bodies.

Non-partisan Educational only Open access
Back to Home