What does it mean to see the world as a competition, where someone else’s win inevitably means our loss?
In new research published today, Dr. Patricia Andrews Fearon, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Dr. Friedrich Götz, assistant professor at UBC Psychology, explore the “zero-sum mindset”—a general worldview in which one person’s gain must come at the expense of another person.
Drawing on data from over 10,000 participants across six countries, their research shows this mindset stifles cooperation, even when working together would benefit everyone involved.
Using a mix of cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental methods, the research team found that zero-sum mindset is not only distinct from existing concepts but also remains stable over time. Importantly, it shapes how people think and act in various situations, influencing decisions across cultures and contexts.
In a Q&A, Dr. Andrews Fearon and Dr. Götz shares their research and discuss how breaking free from this mindset could lead to better collaboration and collective success.
To start with, can you explain what zero-sum mindset is?
Götz: In its broadest sense, a mindset can be understood as a mental model or lens that we use to interpret the world around us and guide our responses to our experiences. Put differently, a mindset is a specific way of seeing the world and of understanding the rules of “the game of life”. The zero-sum mindset, in particular, is characterised by the core belief that life in general works such that anything one person gains – money or status, for instance – must come at the expense of another person.
Andrews Fearon: As a generalized belief about success, this kind of belief can permeate our thinking across a wide variety of situations. For example, when I sit down to play a card game, knowing which game I’m playing also means knowing a set of rules for how the game works and likely a set of strategies for how to be successful in that particular game. In other words, our beliefs about what kind of game we’re playing change the meaning of everything – the meaning of the cards we’ve been dealt – the meaning of the cards on the table or what we think others might be holding, and importantly, it shapes what I think I should do next to be successful.
We propose that something similar is happening in the real world. That we have a set of assumptions about “what kind of game” we’re playing in a particular situation, or even more broadly, what kind of game life is.
In other words, whether consciously or not, you have a set of interlocking beliefs and assumptions that shape the strategies you will use to try to be successful. These mental models or implicit beliefs about strategic interactions we call lay game theory. That is, the way we lay people (as opposed to game theorists) think about the kinds of games we are playing and how we can be successful in them directly influences how we engage with the world and people around us. According to the zero-sum mindset, life, or success in general, is a zero-sum game where if someone else is winning, it means that I am losing and vice versa.
How does zero-sum mindset differ from other ways of thinking about success and competition?
Andrews Fearon: We often get the question ‘Isn’t this just another way of saying someone is really competitive?’ And the answer is actually no. And we know this both theoretically and empirically.
Theoretically, there’s a difference between the beliefs one might have about the nature of success or competitions and one’s orientation towards success or competitions.
The zero-sum mindset is a belief about the nature of success – a belief about how the world works – how the game of life works. It describes a belief about the structure of rewards or incentives – namely, they exist in fixed, limited amount that makes one person’s success incompatible with another’s. In contrast, competitiveness is a motivational force – it’s an orientation towards being successful, a striving towards success, whether against or alongside others.
There is a tendency to bake zero-sum-ness into the definition of competition. But competitions can actually be both zero-sum or non-zero-sum. For example, you might say someone is a “competitive candidate” for a job or position to say that you think they’d be well qualified, or likely to be successful in their application. But there could be more than one job available – meaning that one candidate’s success may be perfectly compatible with the success of others (i.e. non-zero-sum competition).
So, if you see a competition as zero-sum you will also likely assume that others will be structurally motivated to harm you (or that you will anticipate the need to be similarly “cut-throat” in your approach to success). For some, this might look like an embrace of hyper-competitive strategies – a “win-at-all-costs” approach, but for others, the same belief may manifest as a desire to avoid the competition altogether. And this is what we see in our data as well. For those with a zero-sum mindset we see both a higher willingness to use “cut-throat” competitive strategies (which would be very typical for a person that is competitive), and a tendency to avoid competitions (which would be very atypical for a person that is competitive): attitudes that would normally be negatively associated with each other, but may both be a logical extension of a zero-sum view of competitions.
Götz: I think another aspect that’s also relevant here is the all-encompassing nature of a zero-sum mindset versus an isolated zero-sum belief. As Patricia said, the zero-sum mindset is a generalised belief about success. Holding a zero-sum mindset means that one is convinced that success in any and all domains of life can only be achieved at the cost of someone else’s failure. By definition – win-win situations don’t exist in such a world. That is very different from more specific beliefs that people can hold about success in concrete situations, and relationships, or with regard to concrete resources, which may capture different beliefs about the nature of success depending on the context. For example, in the context of foreign policy I may believe that one country’s economic success can only be achieved through the economic losses of another (i.e., zero-sum belief), but at the same time, in the context of my household economics I might also believe that a promotion for my spouse at work does not threaten my standing in the household, but rather, is great for both of us (i.e., non-zero-sum belief). This is largely how zero-sum thinking has been studied in the past—as isolated, contextualized beliefs. What we are showing here is that such beliefs may also cut across life domains and coalesce into a generalised mindset that powerfully shapes how we respond to – and interact with – others across many different kinds of situations.
Can you provide examples of how zero-sum mindset manifests in people’s behaviours, both in personal and professional contexts?
Götz: Absolutely! Interestingly, while the manifestations of a zero-sum mindset can take on very different forms across personal and professional contexts, the psychological mechanism that underlies them is pretty much always the same: people with a zero-sum mindset neglect or deny win-win possibilities, and instead assume that it will always be you-versus-me or us-versus-them. Thus, they seek to control the threat to their own advancement that they perceive in others by dominating them, rather than cooperating with them. In this view, getting ahead and getting along are diametrically opposed. In a personal context this might mean that I would be reluctant to introduce you to any of my friends because I think that you will steal them from me, instead of us both being friends with them. It could also mean that I will not share my study notes with a classmate because I reckon that them getting excellent grades will directly devalue my own academic success.
Andrews Fearon: Following the same principle, in professional contexts zero-sum mindsets could manifest in the refusal to work together with a colleague on a project, because you think that whatever you are working for (a title promotion, your boss’ praise, your peers’ respect and admiration), is limited and so any part of it that your colleague gets cannot go to you. People or organizations with a zero-sum mindset may be less willing to collaborate, less willing to share ideas, more suspicious of others’ intentions and therefore less likely to enjoy all the benefits that accrue to such cooperation like innovation and growth.
What were some of the most significant findings of your study?
Andrews Fearon: Something that was really striking was how often the zero-sum mindset becomes self-sabotaging.
Life is full of strategic choices and interactions. At some point, we all formed our lay game theories, our implicit mental models of strategic relationships and how to navigate them, because we want to be successful. And in our attempts to be more successful we try to form beliefs and expectations that inform our strategic choices – that is, the behaviors we adopt to maximize our success.
Unfortunately, these models do not always correspond to reality – leading those with stronger zero-sum mindsets to perceive hostility where it may not be present, and to form unwarranted distrust that erodes their quality of life and undermines what would otherwise be important opportunities for cooperation and connection
Götz: That’s right! For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic people with a strong zero-sum mindset demonstrated lower solidarity and cooperation with collective efforts to contain the virus by violating sheltering-in-places mandates and social-distancing norms as well as refusing to get vaccinated – thus increasing the burden placed on everybody.
Importantly, the self-sabotaging nature of the zero-sum mindset also holds true for people’s personal success. Indeed, we consistently find that people with stronger zero-sum mindsets experience lower subject wellbeing and lower economic growth. We see this both in economic games with real financial incentives, as well as when observing real-world income development over time, regardless of baseline income.
What inspired you to explore the concept of zero-sum mindset?
Andrews Fearon: I came to this work through my prior research on intergroup conflict interventions. Conflicts and the question of how to resolve them fairly, effectively, and lastingly have long fascinated (and frustrated) me – in my role as a social psychologist and academic, but also in my role as a member of society and as a certified conflict mediator. One theme that I have seen pop up time and time again is how people’s perceptions of threat or hostility often matter more for a conflict and its outcomes than whether that threat or hostility is actually there. It’s easy to dismiss people acting in such destructive ways amid conflict as simply “blinded by hate” or “crazy.” But I wanted to see if we could “swim upstream” a bit to try to understand how and why some people might be feeling (perhaps unnecessarily) threatened. I wondered if we might find psychological opportunities to intervene before the downward spirals of and threat and hostility take hold. Looking more closely at these patterns, it struck me that these of attitudes and behaviors appeared to be the logical conclusion of zero-sum beliefs.
It also struck me that for a non-trivial number of people this zero-sum lens didn’t appear to be constrained to the conflict at hand, but rather, a general to approach life. And now, many years later, here we are with the first comprehensive evidence for the existence of zero-sum mindsets.
Götz: As a personality psychologist I was immediately drawn to the idea of capturing zero-sum mindsets as a relatively stable psychological construct and, in turn, a helpful way for us to understand an important individual difference between people better. I still remember, when Patricia first pitched the idea to me (in a coffeeshop in Southern England) and it intuitively rang true to me. It felt like she was on to something then and I have really just been lucky to tag along for the ride.
What methodology did you use in your research, particularly in how you gathered data from over 10,000 participants across six countries?
Andrews Fearon: It took a village to pull this off and it would have been impossible without the incredible support of our many wonderful partners. Working in partnership with government institutions, non-profits and interdisciplinary research groups across continents and languages was an essential part of reaching this large, diverse sample – and a truly humbling and inspiring experience. In keeping with the non-zero-sum spirt of this research, these collaborations emerged from recognizing our shared interests and desire to learn together.
Götz: We also asked quite a lot of our research partners and participants, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for bearing with us. For example, in several instances, we collected longitudinal data so that we could actually observe – rather than assume – how stable zero-sum-mindsets are in the long run, or how they affect people’s social distancing behaviour and willingness to get vaccinated during the Covid-19 pandemic, several months into the future. In other cases, we designed experiments in which our participants were faced with four different kinds of competitive situations (politics, athletics, academics, and the job market) and we manipulated whether or not these situations were objectively zero-sum and measured their reactions to it. It was quite the production to get this all up and running, but we are very glad we did it and believe that it really helped to flesh out what zero-sum-mindsets are and how they manifest in everyday life.
Did you find any notable differences in the zero-sum mindset across the countries included in your research?
Andrews Fearon: Yes, there certainly appear to be cultural differences in this tendency to see success as zero-sum. Although it’s not always in the way you’d expect.
For example, whenever I describe the idea of the zero-sum mindset to people, one of the first things I tend to hear is – “Oh so Americans must be off the charts in zero-sum mindset. They’re so individualist, competitive, capitalistic etc.” – But it’s not quite as simple as this.
Both individualism and collectivism can manifest in zero-sum and non-zero-sum ways. (And as describe earlier, competitions and capitalism can also manifest in zero-sum and non-zero-sum ways). For example, strident individualism may not necessarily embrace a positive-sum view of interdependence (where people are more likely to trust and cooperate with one another based on a belief in their shared goals or shared success). But at the same time, individualism also doesn’t necessarily embrace an antagonistic view of interdependence either – an interdependence where others’ success is seen as threatening.
Individualism can manifest in cut-throat, win-at-all-costs orientation to success or simply as a self-improvement orientation to success. In other words, individualism itself doesn’t make people particularly generous nor particularly hostile towards others. Instead, it tends to manifest as relative indifference to others – for better or worse.
So, perhaps surprisingly, individualistic countries are often somewhat lower in zero-sum mindset compared to collectivistic countries where social status and social structures tend to be more rigid and hierarchical, where people are more likely see their identities, status and success as more intimately interrelated (again for better or worse).
Lastly, how can increasing awareness of the zero-sum mindset change individual or societal behaviors?
Andrews Fearon: For one, it gives us a shared vocabulary to identify, describe, and discuss the phenomenon. But more than that, I think that when we make these implicit assumptions that pervade our lives more explicit, we can question them and interrogate them more openly. I have rarely (if ever) found a zero-sum belief in the real-world (not in theoretical game world) that couldn’t be re-appraised as non-zero-sum when re-examined within its broader, more complex reality.
Since doing this research I am more likely to notice my own false zero-sum assumptions. Often when I feel threatened by something, whether it’s a person’s behavior or a sense of scarcity, I look for whether there might be a zero-sum belief hiding in my thinking. And when I start question my own zero-sum beliefs, I often find more space for compassion and creative solutions than I previously thought possible.
Götz: Recognizing others’ mindsets can also be really helpful. For example, knowing whether somebody holds insular, individual zero-sum beliefs or a zero-sum mindset can inform how you choose to engage with them. For example, if I know that my neighbours hold zero-sum beliefs about some aspects of our relationship (e.g., any growth of my yard can only be accomplished through the diminishment of theirs), but not others (e.g., if I hire someone to clean my windows and they do too, then we can split the costs and it will be cheaper than if we each hired two different people on two different days and both separately paid for their gas and commuting time), then that means that I will try to look for potential synergies and win-win-situations that I can pitch to them. However, if I begin to realise that my neighbours hold a zero-sum mindset (zero-sum beliefs across nearly all domains) then I will need to adjust my approach – recognizing that they may tend to be hyper-vigilant and skeptical of my offers.
Similar dynamics likely apply at the societal level. Though this work is in its infancy, we strongly suspect that holding a zero-sum mindset is harmful to both those people who hold it as well as those around them – and for societies at large. So, I think here the more important question is actually: how can increasing awareness of the zero-sum-mindset in society concretely be used to combat it? An important step would be to incorporate exercises into our curricula that teach people how to clearly distinguish situations that are zero-sum from those that are not, rather than falling prey to the cognitively easier, but very costly, temptation of seeing each and every situation in life as zero-sum.
The paper, The zero-sum mindset, was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition.
