Zero-sum social identity, not zero-sum economic beliefs, explain voting preference in 2024 U.S. presidential election

Introduction

Zero-sum beliefs – the subjective view that as one person gains, others inevitably lose – have been linked to numerous beneficial and harmful social, political, and psychological outcomes (Andrews-Fearon & Davidai (2023)). A zero-sum mindset can be conceptualized as a specific type of competitive belief regarding the relative distribution of limited resources (e.g., physical resources and social status) between two (or more) groups (e.g., racial groups). Although the origin of this mindset can be traced to inter-generational scarcity and high-competition environments for resources, other important factors may partially explain the adoption and centrality of zero-sum beliefs in the current U.S. political discourse.

In a seminal article, Norton & Sommers (2011) demonstrates that White respondents’ perceptions of anti-Black bias has decreased markedly since the 1950s while their perception of anti-White bias has increased significantly during that same period. A decade later, Rasmussen et al. (2022) provide a conceptual replication of these findings and find that “Whites now believe that anti-White bias is more prevalent than anti-Black bias” (p. 1806). The line of research and related studies have led to the modern-day conception of zero-sum racial beliefs, which has been measured frequently using this item: “Less discrimination against minorities means more discrimination against Whites” (Davidai & Ongis (2019)). Chinoy et al. (2023) argue that zero-sum thinking is the root of political differences, demonstrating zero-sum beliefs partially explain a range of social and political views: pro-redistribution policy support, racial attitudes, gender attitudes, and anti-immigration attitudes beyond traditional sociodemographic measures of age, gender, race, income, and state of residence.

Zero-sum racial beliefs are a domain-specific belief about social groups, which differ from zero-sum economic beliefs. For example, people may hold beliefs that policies aimed at reducing income inequality unfairly disadvantage the wealthy, or that initiatives promoting equity give disadvantaged communities an ‘unearned’ advantage over advantaged individuals (Brown et al. (2022)). A plethora of research lines show zero-sum domain-specific beliefs about economic groups and social groups, such as ethnic, citizenship, trade, and income (Chinoy et al. (2023)), as well as perceived competition between immigrants and native-born individuals (Esses et al. (2001)). Though domain-specific beliefs can emerge across many areas, they are often most potent when tied to social identities, when political and interpersonal behavior is strongly influenced by perceived group competition.

Zero-Sum Social Identity Beliefs

Many domain-specific zero-sum beliefs focus on social identity. For example, Wong et al. (2017) found that men with zero-sum gender beliefs have poorer mental health outcomes, worse romantic relationships, and a more polarized view of domestic chores. On the other hand, according to Boland & Davidai (2024), zero-sum political beliefs can lead to a disinterest in political discussion because they lead individuals to antagonize other political ideologies and reduce openness to different ideas, leading to less cross-grup discussion and more polarization. In addition to examining one’s actual standing as a member of a social group, understanding beliefs about one’s own and other social groups may be key for addressing bias and assumptions about resource distribution.

Zero-Sum Economic Beliefs

Zero-sum thinking takes on a unique form when viewed through a more hierarchical lens such as economics. Andrews-Fearon & Davidai (2023) posits that individuals who view the United States as more economically unequal were more likely to hold economic zero-sum beliefs. These individuals were therefore more likely to view the world as unjust. This falls in line with the aforementioned argument that zero-sum ideology often leads to prioritizing dominance and competition. On a more global scale, Hornborg (2003) explains dependency theory, a zero-sum economic framework that acknowledges how certain nations benefit at others expense. This theory claims that some nations exploit the resources of others, leading to the prosperity of the former while the latter suffers. Although economic zero-sum beliefs are much like other types of zero-sum thinking, they differ in that individuals belonging to one’s own group are also thought of as competition. Both on a global and individual scale, the less wealthy are left competing with one another, rather than with the wealthy individuals or groups that oppress them.

Political Party Affiliation

Political party affiliation is a key determinant of voter preference in elections. Several models aim to expain party affiliation and voting based on sociodemographics. For example, Nadeem (2024) found that young people, women, and Black and Hispanic voters tend to be more Democratic leaning. Alternatively, White voters without 4 year degrees tend to lean Republican. However, this methodology struggles in that the social dynamics that determine the relationship between sociodemographics and political affiliation are subject to change. For example, a report by Pew Research Center (2025) examines voting pattern shifts across the 2016, 2020, and 2024 Presidential elections by sociodemographic groups. While some groups tend to be more reliably associated with certain political parties at certain times, these relationships can change meaningfully in a few election cycles. In fact, such drastic shifts have led journalists and academics to speculate on whether a political realignment has taken shape in U.S. politics based on race, class, gender, education and their intersections (Barber & Pope, 2024; Meyer, 2025). However, many prior models have failed to capture the complex arrangements of sociodemographic variables and beliefs influencing voter preference. A (2021) Pew Research Center report provided evidence of 9 different typology groups making up the Republican and Democrat coalitions in 2020. The 6 typology groups within the Republican coalition and 5 typology groups within the Democrat coalition hold very different views on racial bias and social groups, economics, climate change, and health, among others. Prior research demonstrates that zero-sum belief scores differ by political party affiliation, but there is significant variation within political parties (Davis & Sequeira (2024)), suggesting zero-sum beliefs might explain overall differences between parties and identification with specific factions within the Republican and Democrat coalition.

Study Aims

The objective of the study is to: 1) examine domain-specific zero-sum beliefs: zero-sum economic beliefs and zero-sum social identity beliefs, 2) test whether zero-sum beliefs differ based on political party and/or racial identity, 3) test the association between sociodemographic variables and zero-sum beliefs in a logistic regression to explain voter preference for Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris, and 4) use machine learning models to validate explanatory predict voter preference models.

Methods

Participants and Sampling

More than fifty-five thousand people who are active on the Prolific platform were eligible to complete a 45-minute health beliefs survey with measures on various beliefs associated with politics and health. Using a quota sample by gender (50% Man/ 50% Woman), political affiliation (33% Republican, 33% Democrat, and 34% Independent), and race/RACIALIDENTITY.4 (White 40%, Black 20%, Asian 20%, Mixed 10%, and Other 10%), Prolific recruited one hundred and twenty-five people to complete the survey.

A total of 135 individuals were recruited through Prolific, and 10 were excluded due to incomplete responses, yielding a final analytic sample of 125 participants. The final sample was roughly balanced in terms of gender (50.4% male), racial identity (White: 39.2%, Black: 22.4%, Asian: 18.4%, Mixed/Other: 17.6%), and political affiliation (Democrats: 34.4%, Independents: 32.0%, Republicans: 31.2%).

Figure 1: Figure 1. Participant Flowchart showing exclusions for missing data and final analytic samples used in Kruskal_Wallis and Logistic Regression analyses

Measures

Gender

Respondents reported their gender using the following options: Girl or woman, boy or man, nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer, I am not sure/questioning).

Racial Identity

Respondents reported their racial identity using the following options: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latine, Middle Eastern or North African, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White, Other).

Subjective Social Status

Respondents reported their subjective social status using MacArthur’s Ladder with the following options Lowest 1 to Highest 10).

Political Beliefs

Respondents reported their political beliefs using the following options: far left/leftist, very liberal, liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative, alt-right/far-right.

Education

Respondents reported their highest educational attainment using the following options: Some high school or less, High school diploma or GED, Some college, but no degree, Associates or technical degree, Bachelor’s degree, Graduate or professional degree (MA, MS, MBA, PhD, JD, MD, DDS).

Political Party Affiliation

Respondents reported their political party affilaition using the following options: Conservative Party, Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, Republican Party, Socialist or Green Party.

Self-Reported Voting in 2024 U.S. Presidential Election

Respondents reported their voter preference in the 2024 voting behavior using the following selections: Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Jill Stein, Robert Kennedy Jr., Chase Oliver, Claudia De La Cruz, Cornel West, and DID NOT VOTE IN 2024.

Zero-Sum Beliefs

Respondents were asked to report their level of agreement using a 7-point Likert scale (1: Strongly Disbelieve, 2: Disbelieve, 3: Somewhat Disbelieve, 4: Neither, 5: Somewhat Believe, 6: Believe, 7: Strongly Believe) with .

Respondents were asked to report their level of agreement to 11 zero-sum belief statements using items from two measures and unvalidated, self-generated statements on a 7-point Likert scale (1: Strongly Disbelieve, 2: Disbelieve, 3: Somewhat Disbelieve, 4: Neither Believe Nor Disbelieve, 5: Somewhat Believe, 6: Believe, 7: Strongly Believe). The first three items were selected from the Belief in a Zero Sum Game (BZSG) scale: 1) “Life is so devised that when somebody gains, others have to lose”; 2) “When some people are getting poorer, it means that other people are getting richer”; and 3) “The wealth of a few is acquired at the expense of many” ((Różycka-Tran et al., 2015; Wojciszke et al., 2009)). An additional item was selected from a validated measure capturing beliefs about social identities: 4) “As women face less sexism, men end up facing more sexism” (Wilkins et al. (2015)). Using this sentence construction to examine a gain and loss for two specific groups, seven additional statement were created by the lead author with input from co-authors.

Data Analysis Plan

Data was exported from the qualtrics platform in numerical format and imported into Posit Cloud. R code provided in the data science workflow (Wickham et al. (2016)) was modified to install R packages (see install.R), import data (alldata.csv) using readr, transform sociodemographic variables, such as gender identity (GENDER) to a binary variable (GENDER_MAN) using dplyr, visualize data in a raincloud plot using ggplot2, and model for inferential statistical tests from the stats package along with decision tree and random forest models from the tidymodels package. An exploratory factor analysis using promax rotation was used to examine the factor structure of the eleven items capturing zero sum beliefs.

We analyzed 11 zero-sum belief items (ZEROSUM_), covering both economic and social identity dimensions. Our primary goal was to assess differences across political affiliation (POLITICALPARTY) and racial/ethnic identity (RACIALIDENTITY.4).

First, we conducted a two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for each zero-sum belief item. To assess whether ANOVA assumptions were met, we used the Shapiro-Wilk test to evaluate the normality of residuals. All 11 items showed non-normality. However, given ANOVA’s robustness to moderate deviations from normality, we further examined residuals using Q-Q plots (qqnorm and qqline) to visualize distributional shape. These plots indicated that the violations were not severe, so we proceeded with ANOVA while noting the assumption limitations.

To address the non-normality more formally and ensure result accuracy, we complemented the ANOVA with a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test for each zero-sum belief. This approach allowed us to evaluate group differences without relying on normality assumptions.

Next, an explanatory logistic regression was conducted to classy voter’s preference for Donald Trump (1) vs. Kamala Harris (0) ( TRUMPVOTE ) using POLITICALBELIEFS, ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, ZEROSUM_1, GENDER_MALE, RELIGIOUS_YES, RACE_BLACK, RACE_ASIAN, RACE_OTHER, EDUCATION_HIGH, and SOCIALSTATUS.

Additionally, we used the tidymodels package in R to classify using a predictive modeling approach. Specifically, both decision tree and random forest classifiers were implemented to predict voter preference.

Using this integrative modeling framework, we provide both explanatory and predictive models for classifying voter preferences.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1. Frequencies and Percentages for Categorical Variables

Variable	Category	Count	Percent
EDUCATION_LEVEL	High school diploma or GED	8	6.6%
EDUCATION_LEVEL	Some college, but no degree	21	17.2%
EDUCATION_LEVEL	Associates or technical degree	7	5.7%
EDUCATION_LEVEL	Bachelor’s degree	46	37.7%
EDUCATION_LEVEL	Graduate or professional degree	40	32.8%
ETHNICITY	Asian	24	19.7%
ETHNICITY	Black	25	20.5%
ETHNICITY	White	48	39.3%
ETHNICITY	Mixed/Other	25	20.5%
Employment.status	Part-Time	29	23.8%
Employment.status	Full-Time	50	41%
Employment.status	Unemployed (and job seeking)	12	9.8%
Employment.status	Not in paid work (e.g. homemaker', 'retired or disabled)	10	8.2%
Employment.status	Due to start a new job within the next month	1	0.8%
Employment.status	Other	3	2.5%
Employment.status	DATA_EXPIRED	17	13.9%
INCOME	Less than $25,000	12	9.8%
INCOME	$25,000-$49,999	25	20.5%
INCOME	$50,000-$74,999	22	18%
INCOME	$75,000-$99,999	14	11.5%
INCOME	$100,000-$149,999	36	29.5%
INCOME	$150,000 or more	11	9%
INCOME	Prefer not to say	2	1.6%
Nationality	United States	122	100%
POLITICALAFFIL	Missing	19	15.6%
POLITICALAFFIL	Conservative Party	9	7.4%
POLITICALAFFIL	Democratic Party	52	42.6%
POLITICALAFFIL	Libertarian Party	8	6.6%
POLITICALAFFIL	Republican Party	33	27%
POLITICALAFFIL	Socialist or Green Party	1	0.8%
POLITICALPARTY	Democrat	43	35.2%
POLITICALPARTY	Republican	39	32%
POLITICALPARTY	Independent	40	32.8%
RACIALIDENTITY.4	Asian	23	18.9%
RACIALIDENTITY.4	Black	28	23%
RACIALIDENTITY.4	White	49	40.2%
RACIALIDENTITY.4	Mixed/Other	22	18%
RACIALIDENTITY.6	Asian	23	18.9%
RACIALIDENTITY.6	Black	28	23%
RACIALIDENTITY.6	White	49	40.2%
RACIALIDENTITY.6	Other	3	2.5%
RACIALIDENTITY.6	Latine	9	7.4%
RACIALIDENTITY.6	Mixed	10	8.2%
RELIGIOUS_Identity	Missing	1	0.8%
RELIGIOUS_Identity	Other	4	3.3%
RELIGIOUS_Identity	Christian	65	53.3%
RELIGIOUS_Identity	Muslim	2	1.6%
RELIGIOUS_Identity	Hindu	2	1.6%
RELIGIOUS_Identity	Jewish	1	0.8%
RELIGIOUS_Identity	Folk Religion	1	0.8%
RELIGIOUS_Identity	Religiously Unaffiliated	43	35.2%
RELIGIOUS_Identity	Decline to answer	3	2.5%
SERIOUS	Missing	1	0.8%
SERIOUS	Yes	121	99.2%
SEX	Female	59	48.4%
SEX	Male	63	51.6%
SEXUAL_IDENTITY	Straight or heterosexual	85	69.7%
SEXUAL_IDENTITY	Gay or lesbian	10	8.2%
SEXUAL_IDENTITY	Bisexual, pansexual, or queer	22	18%
SEXUAL_IDENTITY	Asexual	4	3.3%
SEXUAL_IDENTITY	Not sure	1	0.8%
STREETRACE	Missing	2	1.6%
STREETRACE	Black	30	24.6%
STREETRACE	White	54	44.3%
STREETRACE	Latine	7	5.7%
STREETRACE	Asian American	21	17.2%
STREETRACE	Native American/American Indian	3	2.5%
STREETRACE	Mexican	4	3.3%
STREETRACE	Some other race	1	0.8%
Student.status	DATA_EXPIRED	18	14.8%
Student.status	No	74	60.7%
Student.status	Yes	30	24.6%
VOTE_2024	Missing	3	2.5%
VOTE_2024	Donald Trump	51	41.8%
VOTE_2024	Kamala Harris	50	41%
VOTE_2024	Chase Oliver	1	0.8%
VOTE_2024	Cornel West	1	0.8%
VOTE_2024	DID NOT VOTE IN 2024	16	13.1%

Source: Article Notebook

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics Table for Continuous Variables

Variable	n	mean	median	sd	min	max
AGE	121	36.10	33.0	12.73	19	73
SOCIALSTATUS	122	5.30	5.5	1.78	1	9
POLITICALBELIEFS	120	3.67	4.0	1.35	1	6
ATTENTION3	122	2.00	2.0	0.00	2	2
ZEROSUM_1	122	3.92	4.0	1.78	1	7
ZEROSUM_2	121	4.75	5.0	1.59	1	7
ZEROSUM_3	121	4.92	5.0	1.49	1	7
ZEROSUM_4	121	3.07	3.0	1.69	1	7
ZEROSUM_5	122	2.84	3.0	1.75	1	7
ZEROSUM_6	121	3.43	3.0	2.07	1	7
ZEROSUM_7	120	3.52	4.0	1.81	1	7
ZEROSUM_8	121	2.93	3.0	1.63	1	7
ZEROSUM_9	121	2.59	2.0	1.74	1	7
ZEROSUM_10	122	3.20	3.0	1.75	1	7
ZEROSUM_11	121	3.17	3.0	1.74	1	7
NEOLIB_1	119	4.87	5.0	1.05	2	6
NEOLIB_2	121	4.35	5.0	1.34	1	6
NEOLIB_3	116	4.13	4.0	1.39	1	6

Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics (count, mean, median, sd, min, max) for all study variables. The sample consisted of 122 participants, with a mean age of 36.1 years (SD = 12.73, range = 19–73). Participants reported a mean social status of 5.3 (SD = 1.78) on a 10-point scale.

Zero-sum belief items were rated on a 7-point scale with neutral in the middle. For Item 1, the average score was close to neutral (M = 3.92). Items 2 and 3 had higher average scores (M = 4.75 and M = 4.92, respectively), indicating general agreement. Items 4 through 11 showed lower average scores (ranging from 2.59 to 3.52), reflecting more disagreement than agreement with those statements.

Average ratings for each ZEROSUM item with 95% confidence intervals. Items 2 (“poor-rich”) and 3 (“wealthfew-many”) received the highest ratings. Item 1 (“gain-lose”) was rated moderately, while items 4 through 11 had the lowest average ratings.

Factor Analysis

Factor Analysis of Zero-Sum Beliefs

The output below displays the correlation matrix of the Zero-Sum Beliefs items. Each cell represents the Pearson correlation between pairs of items. ZEROSUM_1 is moderately positively correlated with most of the other zero-sum items (r = .092 - .462), suggesting a general zero-sum thinking. ZEROSUM_2 and ZEROSUM_3 also show a moderate positive correlation with each other (r = .479). Most notably, ZEROSUM_4 through ZEROSUM_11 are consistently and positively correlated, with moderately positive correlations (ranging from 0.46 to 0.68), indicating a strong internal consistency among these items. This pattern supports the idea that these items are likely capturing a common latent construct.

Table 27. Correlation Matrix of Zero-Sum Belief Items

	ZEROSUM_1	ZEROSUM_2	ZEROSUM_3	ZEROSUM_4	ZEROSUM_5	ZEROSUM_6	ZEROSUM_7	ZEROSUM_8	ZEROSUM_9	ZEROSUM_10	ZEROSUM_11
ZEROSUM_1	1.00	0.39	0.09	0.46	0.35	0.37	0.12	0.26	0.41	0.29	0.28
ZEROSUM_2	0.39	1.00	0.48	0.02	-0.01	0.03	-0.10	-0.16	0.08	-0.11	-0.02
ZEROSUM_3	0.09	0.48	1.00	-0.02	-0.11	-0.17	-0.14	-0.13	-0.12	-0.19	-0.19
ZEROSUM_4	0.46	0.02	-0.02	1.00	0.61	0.60	0.35	0.50	0.56	0.49	0.46
ZEROSUM_5	0.35	-0.01	-0.11	0.61	1.00	0.61	0.54	0.59	0.63	0.68	0.57
ZEROSUM_6	0.37	0.03	-0.17	0.60	0.61	1.00	0.55	0.51	0.59	0.68	0.68
ZEROSUM_7	0.12	-0.10	-0.14	0.35	0.54	0.55	1.00	0.42	0.39	0.61	0.52
ZEROSUM_8	0.26	-0.16	-0.13	0.50	0.59	0.51	0.42	1.00	0.53	0.57	0.50
ZEROSUM_9	0.41	0.08	-0.12	0.56	0.63	0.59	0.39	0.53	1.00	0.60	0.53
ZEROSUM_10	0.29	-0.11	-0.19	0.49	0.68	0.68	0.61	0.57	0.60	1.00	0.67
ZEROSUM_11	0.28	-0.02	-0.19	0.46	0.57	0.68	0.52	0.50	0.53	0.67	1.00

Parallel analysis suggests that the number of factors = 2 and the number of
components = NA 

Factor Analysis using method =  ml
Call: fa(r = df.ZEROSUM, nfactors = 2, rotate = "promax", fm = "ml")
Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
             ML1   ML2   h2   u2 com
ZEROSUM_1   0.45  0.42 0.38 0.62 2.0
ZEROSUM_2   0.00  0.92 0.85 0.15 1.0
ZEROSUM_3  -0.17  0.51 0.29 0.71 1.2
ZEROSUM_4   0.69  0.06 0.48 0.52 1.0
ZEROSUM_5   0.81  0.00 0.66 0.34 1.0
ZEROSUM_6   0.82  0.03 0.67 0.33 1.0
ZEROSUM_7   0.64 -0.12 0.42 0.58 1.1
ZEROSUM_8   0.67 -0.15 0.48 0.52 1.1
ZEROSUM_9   0.74  0.09 0.56 0.44 1.0
ZEROSUM_10  0.84 -0.12 0.72 0.28 1.0
ZEROSUM_11  0.76 -0.03 0.57 0.43 1.0

                       ML1  ML2
SS loadings           4.71 1.36
Proportion Var        0.43 0.12
Cumulative Var        0.43 0.55
Proportion Explained  0.78 0.22
Cumulative Proportion 0.78 1.00

 With factor correlations of 
      ML1   ML2
ML1  1.00 -0.01
ML2 -0.01  1.00

Mean item complexity =  1.1
Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.

df null model =  55  with the objective function =  5.55 with Chi Square =  646.26
df of  the model are 34  and the objective function was  0.45 

The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is  0.04 
The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is  0.06 

The harmonic n.obs is  121 with the empirical chi square  26.71  with prob <  0.81 
The total n.obs was  122  with Likelihood Chi Square =  51.63  with prob <  0.027 

Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability =  0.951
RMSEA index =  0.065  and the 90 % confidence intervals are  0.023 0.1
BIC =  -111.7
Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
Measures of factor score adequacy             
                                                   ML1  ML2
Correlation of (regression) scores with factors   0.96 0.93
Multiple R square of scores with factors          0.92 0.87
Minimum correlation of possible factor scores     0.84 0.73

Loadings:
           ML1    ML2   
ZEROSUM_1   0.448  0.424
ZEROSUM_2          0.922
ZEROSUM_3  -0.167  0.508
ZEROSUM_4   0.689       
ZEROSUM_5   0.810       
ZEROSUM_6   0.816       
ZEROSUM_7   0.639 -0.120
ZEROSUM_8   0.674 -0.149
ZEROSUM_9   0.742       
ZEROSUM_10  0.837 -0.124
ZEROSUM_11  0.757       

                 ML1   ML2
SS loadings    4.712 1.355
Proportion Var 0.428 0.123
Cumulative Var 0.428 0.551

The results of the factor analysis – an unsupervised machine learning technique – support a two factor model with a promax rotation. The first item loads equally on each factor and will not be included in the composite construction. Based on the items, we named the first factor as ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC and the second factor as ZEROSUM_IDENTITY to correspond with the two different referents of economic (e.g., wealth vs. poor) and social identity (e.g., racial minorities vs. white people), respectively. The IDENTITY factor showed high reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91. This means the items in the ZEROSUM_IDENTITY scale consistently measure the same social identity concept.

Reliability of Zero Sum Social Identity Beliefs

Table 4. Overall Reliability Statistics (Cronbach’s Alpha)

	raw_alpha	std.alpha	G6(smc)	average_r	S/N	ase	mean	sd	median_r
	0.909	0.909	0.907	0.554	9.957	0.012	3.079	1.393	0.564

Table 5. 95% confidence boundaries

Method	Lower	Alpha	Upper
Feldt	0.88	0.91	0.93

Table 6. Reliability if an item is dropped

	raw_alpha	std.alpha	G6(smc)	average_r	S/N	alpha se	var.r	med.r
ZEROSUM_4	0.90	0.90	0.90	0.57	9.25	0.01	0.01	0.57
ZEROSUM_5	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.54	8.15	0.01	0.01	0.53
ZEROSUM_6	0.89	0.89	0.88	0.54	8.17	0.02	0.01	0.54
ZEROSUM_7	0.91	0.91	0.90	0.58	9.61	0.01	0.00	0.59
ZEROSUM_8	0.90	0.90	0.90	0.57	9.20	0.01	0.01	0.59
ZEROSUM_9	0.90	0.90	0.89	0.56	8.81	0.01	0.01	0.57
ZEROSUM_10	0.89	0.89	0.88	0.53	8.01	0.02	0.01	0.54
ZEROSUM_11	0.90	0.90	0.89	0.55	8.65	0.01	0.01	0.57

Table 7. Item Statistics

	n	raw.r	std.r	r.cor	r.drop	mean	sd
ZEROSUM_4	121	0.73	0.73	0.68	0.64	3.07	1.69
ZEROSUM_5	122	0.83	0.84	0.82	0.77	2.84	1.75
ZEROSUM_6	121	0.84	0.83	0.82	0.78	3.43	2.07
ZEROSUM_7	120	0.70	0.70	0.64	0.61	3.52	1.81
ZEROSUM_8	121	0.73	0.74	0.68	0.65	2.93	1.63
ZEROSUM_9	121	0.77	0.77	0.73	0.69	2.59	1.74
ZEROSUM_10	122	0.85	0.85	0.84	0.80	3.20	1.75
ZEROSUM_11	121	0.79	0.79	0.75	0.72	3.17	1.74

Table 8. Non missing response frequency for each item

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	miss
ZEROSUM_4	0.28	0.11	0.19	0.20	0.14	0.07	0.02	0.01
ZEROSUM_5	0.36	0.09	0.20	0.16	0.07	0.09	0.02	0.00
ZEROSUM_6	0.31	0.08	0.12	0.14	0.13	0.14	0.07	0.01
ZEROSUM_7	0.21	0.12	0.11	0.22	0.22	0.06	0.06	0.02
ZEROSUM_8	0.31	0.08	0.21	0.21	0.13	0.03	0.02	0.01
ZEROSUM_9	0.43	0.12	0.14	0.13	0.11	0.04	0.02	0.01
ZEROSUM_10	0.27	0.10	0.19	0.17	0.16	0.11	0.01	0.00
ZEROSUM_11	0.25	0.16	0.15	0.21	0.11	0.11	0.02	0.01

Reliability of Zero Sum Economic Beliefs

Table 9. Overall Reliability Statistics (Cronbach’s Alpha)

	raw_alpha	std.alpha	G6(smc)	average_r	S/N	ase	mean	sd	median_r
	0.648	0.649	0.48	0.48	1.847	0.064	4.835	1.325	0.48

Table 10. 95% confidence boundaries

Method	Lower	Alpha	Upper
Feldt	0.5	0.65	0.75

Table 11. Reliability if an item is dropped

	raw_alpha	std.alpha	G6(smc)	average_r	S/N	alpha se	var.r	med.r
ZEROSUM_2	0.51	0.48	0.23	0.48	0.92	NA	0	0.48
ZEROSUM_3	0.45	0.48	0.23	0.48	0.92	NA	0	0.48

Table 12. Item Statistics

	n	raw.r	std.r	r.cor	r.drop	mean	sd
ZEROSUM_2	121	0.87	0.86	0.6	0.48	4.75	1.59
ZEROSUM_3	121	0.85	0.86	0.6	0.48	4.92	1.49

Table 13. Non missing response frequency for each item

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	miss
ZEROSUM_2	0.04	0.06	0.09	0.21	0.29	0.15	0.17	0.01
ZEROSUM_3	0.02	0.06	0.06	0.21	0.29	0.19	0.17	0.01

The zero-sum economic beliefs factor showed lower reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.65. A lower reliability is expected in a two-item measure.

Factor Analysis of Neoliberal Mindset

Table 14. Correlation Matrix for NEOLIB Scale

	NEOLIB_1	NEOLIB_2	NEOLIB_3
NEOLIB_1	1.000	0.375	0.412
NEOLIB_2	0.375	1.000	0.638
NEOLIB_3	0.412	0.638	1.000

Table 15. Overall Reliability Statistics (Cronbach’s Alpha)

	raw_alpha	std.alpha	G6(smc)	average_r	S/N	ase	mean	sd	median_r
	0.736	0.735	0.672	0.48	2.774	0.039	4.454	1.052	0.412

Table 16. 95% confidence boundaries

Method	Lower	Alpha	Upper	r_bar
Feldt	0.64	0.74	0.81	0.48

Table 17. Reliability if an item is dropped

	raw_alpha	std.alpha	G6(smc)	average_r	S/N	alpha se	var.r	med.r
NEOLIB_1	0.78	0.78	0.64	0.64	3.60	0.04	NA	0.64
NEOLIB_2	0.56	0.58	0.41	0.41	1.40	0.08	NA	0.41
NEOLIB_3	0.55	0.56	0.39	0.39	1.26	0.08	NA	0.39

Table 18. Item Statistics

	n	raw.r	std.r	r.cor	r.drop	mean	sd
NEOLIB_1	119	0.70	0.74	0.50	0.44	4.87	1.05
NEOLIB_2	121	0.85	0.84	0.73	0.63	4.35	1.34
NEOLIB_3	116	0.88	0.85	0.75	0.64	4.13	1.39

Table 19. Non missing response frequency for each item

	1	2	3	4	5	6	miss
NEOLIB_1	0.00	0.03	0.06	0.24	0.34	0.33	0.02
NEOLIB_2	0.02	0.08	0.15	0.24	0.27	0.23	0.01
NEOLIB_3	0.06	0.08	0.15	0.27	0.28	0.16	0.05

Table 20. Factor Loadings for NEOLIB Scale

	ML1
NEOLIB_1	0.497
NEOLIB_2	0.777
NEOLIB_3	0.827

All 3 items load strongly on a single factor: NEOLIB_2 and NEOLIB_3 are especially strong (~.80) NEOLIB_1 is OK (.50 is acceptable for a 3–item scale)

Inferential Tests

Comparing Zero-Sum Beliefs

Table 21. Paired t-Test Comparing ZEROSUM Economic and ZEROSUM Identity

estimate	statistic	p.value	parameter	conf.low	conf.high	method	alternative
1.747917	9.398889	5e-16	119	1.379676	2.116157	Paired t-test	two.sided

There is a significant difference between participants’ scores on ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC and ZEROSUM_IDENTITY. On average, participants rated economic zero-sum beliefs 1.75 points higher than identity zero-sum beliefs, 95% CI [1.38, 2.12].

The final sample reflected racial diversity, with participants identifying as White (n = 48), Black (n = 25), Mixed or Other (n = 25), and Asian (n = 24).

      Asian       Black Mixed/Other       White 
         24          25          25          48 

             
              Asian Black Mixed/Other White
  Asian          23     0           0     0
  Black           0    25           3     0
  Mixed/Other     0     0          18     4
  White           1     0           4    44

Zero-Sum Beliefs by Gender

Table 22. Independent Samples t-Test: ZEROSUM_1 by Gender

	t	df	p_value	mean_group_0	mean_group_1	mean_difference	CI_lower	CI_upper
t	0.885	113.656	0.378	4.086	3.8	0.286	-0.354	0.927

There is no significant difference in ZEROSUM_1 scores between men and women (p = .63). The difference in means is small and not statistically meaningful. The 95% CI (-0.48, 0.80) also includes zero, supporting the lack of difference.

Table 23. Independent Samples t-Test: ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC by Gender

	t	df	p_value	mean_group_0	mean_group_1	mean_difference	CI_lower	CI_upper
t	1.071	111.273	0.287	4.956	4.692	0.264	-0.225	0.754

There is no significant difference in ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC beliefs between men and women (p = .27). Although women’s mean score appears slightly higher, this difference is not statistically significant. The 95% CI (-0.21, 0.75) includes zero.

Table 24. Independent Samples t-Test: ZEROSUM_IDENTITY by Gender

	t	df	p_value	mean_group_0	mean_group_1	mean_difference	CI_lower	CI_upper
t	-0.109	112.653	0.914	3.105	3.133	-0.028	-0.543	0.486

There is no significant difference in ZEROSUM_IDENTITY beliefs between men and women (p = .92). The near-zero difference and very wide p-value indicate no group difference at all.

Across all three variables (ZEROSUM_1, ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, ZEROSUM_IDENTITY), gender is not associated with significant differences in zero-sum beliefs in our sample. As shown in the box plots, the median scores are nearly identical across genders, and the range from the median to the 3rd quartile (i.e., the upper half of the middle 50%) is also highly similar. The overall range of scores tends to span from approximately 1 to 7 for both female and male participants, further indicating that the distribution of zero-sum beliefs is comparable across gender groups.

Zero-Sum Beliefs by Political Party Affiliation

Gain vs. Loss

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding gains and losses differ by racial/ethnic identity and political party affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_1 (“Life is so devised that when somebody gains, others have to lose”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_1    se
  <chr>          <chr>                     <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                      4.25 0.491
2 Democrat       Black                      4.5  0.5  
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                3    0.5  
4 Democrat       White                      3.88 0.514
5 Independent    Asian                      3.12 0.549
6 Independent    Black                      3.75 0.75 

Mean agreement with the belief that “life is so devised that when somebody gains, others have to lose,” by political party and racial/ethnic identity.

This pointrange plot shows that Black respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “life is so devised that when somebody gains, others have to lose” among Republicans and Democrats, highlighting group-based differences in zero-sum beliefs.

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding gains and losses differ by political party affiliation?

Distribution of agreement with ‘life is so devised that when somebody gains, others have to lose’ by political affiliation. White dots represent means; colored dots are individual responses.

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Republicans exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “Life is so devised that when somebody gains, others have to lose.” The distribution (via density and individual dots) suggests greater clustering of high agreement scores among partisans, reflecting perceived competition between social groups. The relatively narrow IQRs and tight clustering around high values also indicate consistent endorsement of this belief within parties.

Table 25. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_1 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.0554
Black	0.0143
Mixed/Other	0.1678
White	0.0003

Table 26. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_1

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	1.5	0.473

There was no significant difference in ZEROSUM_1 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 1.5, p = 0.473.

Poor vs. Rich

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding poor and rich differ by racial/ethnic identity and political party affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_2 (“When some people are getting poorer, it means that other people are getting richer.”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_2    se
  <chr>          <chr>                     <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                      5.75 0.526
2 Democrat       Black                      5.1  0.314
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                3.88 0.611
4 Democrat       White                      5.24 0.369
5 Independent    Asian                      4    0.655
6 Independent    Black                      3.71 0.699

This pointrange plot shows that White respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “when some people are getting poorer, it means that other people are getting richer” among Republicans and Independents, highlighting group-based differences in zero-sum beliefs.

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding poor and rich differ by political party affiliation?

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Democrat exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “When some people are getting poorer, it means that other people are getting richer.” ßThe distribution (via density and individual dots) reveals different patterns across groups. Democrats show greater clustering of high agreement scores (concentrated in the 5-7 range). Republicans show the most dispersed distribution with responses spread across nearly the full scale. Independents are more concentrated in the middle-to-lower range.

Table 27. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_2 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.0231
Black	0.0410
Mixed/Other	0.0582
White	0.0003

Table 28. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_2

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	3.18	0.203

There was no significant difference in ZEROSUM_2 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 3.18, p = 0.203.

Wealth few vs. many

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding wealth concentration differ by racial/ethnic identity and political party affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_3 (“The wealth of a few is acquired at the expense of many.”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_3    se
  <chr>          <chr>                     <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                      5.25 0.453
2 Democrat       Black                      4.4  0.499
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                5.25 0.648
4 Democrat       White                      5.47 0.365
5 Independent    Asian                      4.12 0.611
6 Independent    Black                      4.57 0.732

This pointrange plot shows that White respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “the wealth of a few is acquired at the expense of many” among all three political groups, highlighting group-based differences in zero-sum beliefs.

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding wealth concentration differ by political party affiliation?

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Democrat exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “the wealth of a few is acquired at the expense of many.” The distribution (via density and individual dots) reveals different patterns across groups. Democrats show strong clustering around high agreement scores (concentrated in the 5-7 range) with a clear rightward skew toward stronger belief. Republicans display a more spread distribution with notable presence across moderate to high agreement levels, though still centered around the middle range. Independents show a relatively concentrated distribution around the moderate-to-high range (4-6), with their mean falling between the other two groups.

Table 29. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_3 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.138635
Black	0.031488
Mixed/Other	0.038987
White	0.000045

Table 30. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_3

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	1.81	0.406

There was no significant difference in ZEROSUM_3 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 1.81, p = 0.406.

Women vs. Men

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding gender discrimination differ by racial/ethnic identity and political party affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_4 (“As women face less sexism, men end up facing more sexism.”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_4    se
  <chr>          <chr>                     <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                      1.5  0.327
2 Democrat       Black                      3.4  0.499
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                2.25 0.412
4 Democrat       White                      2.82 0.464
5 Independent    Asian                      3.12 0.350
6 Independent    Black                      3.29 0.603

This pointrange plot shows that Mixed/Other respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “As women face less sexism, men end up facing more sexism.” among Republicans. Among political groups, Republicans show the highest overall agreement, while Democrats (particularly Asian and Mixed/Other respondents) show the lowest agreement. The pattern highlights how both political affiliation and racial identity intersect to shape zero-sum beliefs about gender discrimination.

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding gender discrimination differ by political party affiliation?

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Republican exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “As women face less sexism, men end up facing more sexism.”

The distribution (via density and individual dots) reveals different patterns across groups. Republicans show a relatively spread distribution with responses concentrated in the moderate-to-high range (3-6) and some clustering around the mean. Independents display a more concentrated distribution around the lower-moderate range with their density peaked around 2-4. Democrats show the most pronounced leftward skew with strong clustering in the low agreement range (1-3) and a long tail extending toward higher values, indicating most Democrats disagree with this zero-sum perspective on gender discrimination.

Table 31. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_4 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.0075
Black	0.0028
Mixed/Other	0.0245
White	0.0003

Table 32. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_4

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	10.67	0.005

There was significant difference in ZEROSUM_4 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 10.67, p = 0.00483.

Minorities vs. Whites

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding racial discrimination (minorities and whites) differ by racial/ethnic identity and political party affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_5 (“Less discrimination against minorities means more discrimination against whites.”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_5    se
  <chr>          <chr>                     <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                      1.38 0.263
2 Democrat       Black                      3.4  0.670
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                1.62 0.324
4 Democrat       White                      2.41 0.421
5 Independent    Asian                      2.75 0.590
6 Independent    Black                      2.25 0.620

This pointrange plot shows that White respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “Less discrimination against minorities means more discrimination against whites.” among Republicans. Among political groups, Republicans show the highest overall agreement, while Democrats (particularly Asian and Mixed/Other respondents) show the lowest agreement. The pattern highlights how both political affiliation and racial identity intersect to shape zero-sum beliefs about racial discrimination.

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding racial discrimination (minorities and whites) differ by political party affiliation?

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Republican exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “Less discrimination against minorities means more discrimination against whites.” The distribution (via density and individual dots) reveals different patterns across groups. Republicans show a broader distribution with notable density across moderate-to-high agreement levels (3-6), indicating more varied responses within the party. Independents display a relatively concentrated distribution around the lower-moderate range with their density peaked around 1-4. Democrats show strong leftward skew with pronounced clustering in the low agreement range (1-3) and a steep drop-off at higher values, indicating most Democrats reject this zero-sum perspective on racial discrimination.

Table 33. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_5 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.0015
Black	0.0012
Mixed/Other	0.0025
White	0.0003

Table 34. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_5

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	16.36	0.00028

There was significant difference in ZEROSUM_5 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 16.36, p = 2.8^{-4}.

Transgender vs. Cisgender

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding gender identity (transgender and cisgender) differ by racial/ethnic identity and political party affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_6 (“More opportunity for transwomen means less opportunity for people who are assigned female at birth.”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_6    se
  <chr>          <chr>                     <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                      1.75 0.412
2 Democrat       Black                      3.9  0.526
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                1.5  0.327
4 Democrat       White                      2.18 0.395
5 Independent    Asian                      4    0.5  
6 Independent    Black                      3.29 0.783

This pointrange plot shows that White respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “More opportunity for transwomen means less opportunity for people who are assigned female at birth.” among Republicans. Among political groups, Republicans show the highest overall agreement, while Democrats (particularly Asian and Mixed/Other respondents) show the lowest agreement. The pattern highlights how both political affiliation and racial identity intersect to shape zero-sum beliefs about transgender rights and opportunities.

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding gender identity (transgender and cisgender) differ by political party affiliation?

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Republican exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “More opportunity for transwomen means less opportunity for people who are assigned female at birth.”

The distribution (via density and individual dots) reveals different patterns across groups. Republicans show a relatively concentrated distribution around moderate-to-high agreement levels (3-6) with some spread toward the extremes. Independents display a broad distribution with responses spanning from low to high agreement but concentrated in the moderate range (2-6). Democrats show strong leftward skew with pronounced clustering in the low agreement range (1-3) and a steep drop-off at higher values, indicating most Democrats reject this zero-sum perspective on transgender rights and opportunities.

Table 35. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_6 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.02190
Black	0.03789
Mixed/Other	0.00203
White	0.00001

Table 36. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_6

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	22.48	1e-05

There was significant difference in ZEROSUM_6 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 22.48, p = 1.31^{-5}.

Undocumented vs. Citizens

Do zero-sum beliefs about healthcare access—specifically, that undocumented immigration reduces access for U.S. citizens—differ by racial/ethnic identity and political affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_7 (“More health care access for undocumented immigrants means less access for U.S. citizens.”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_7    se
  <chr>          <chr>                     <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                      2.43 0.673
2 Democrat       Black                      3    0.471
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                2.38 0.498
4 Democrat       White                      2.82 0.431
5 Independent    Asian                      3    0.535
6 Independent    Black                      2.43 0.641

This pointrange plot shows that Asian respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “More health care access for undocumented immigrants means less access for U.S. citizens.” among Republicans. Among political groups, Republicans show the highest overall agreement, while Democrats (particularly Asian and Mixed/Other respondents) show the lowest agreement. This pattern highlights that political affiliation creates a greater divide in zero-sum beliefs about health care resources within each political group than does racial identity.

Do zero-sum beliefs about healthcare access—specifically, that undocumented immigration reduces access for U.S. citizens—differ by political affiliation?

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Republican exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “More health care access for undocumented immigrants means less access for U.S. citizens.” The distribution (via density and individual dots) reveals different patterns across groups. Republicans show a relatively concentrated distribution around moderate-to-high agreement levels (4-6) with their density peaked around the mean. Independents display a broader, more spread distribution across the full range with notable presence from low to high agreement levels. Democrats show strong leftward skew with pronounced clustering in the low agreement range (1-3) and a steep drop-off at higher values, indicating most Democrats reject this zero-sum perspective on healthcare access.

Table 37. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_7 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.04233
Black	0.00150
Mixed/Other	0.04763
White	0.00305

Table 38. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_7

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	14.76	0.00062

There was significant difference in ZEROSUM_7 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 14.76, p = 6.24^{-4}.

Paywomen vs. men

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding gender pay equity differ by racial/ethnic identity and political party affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_8 (“If there is equal pay for women, men will get lower wages.”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_8    se
  <chr>          <chr>                     <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                      2.38 0.460
2 Democrat       Black                      3.3  0.517
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                2.5  0.598
4 Democrat       White                      2.06 0.326
5 Independent    Asian                      2.88 0.639
6 Independent    Black                      3.86 0.476

This pointrange plot shows that White respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “If there is equal pay for women, men will get lower wages.” among Republicans. Among political groups, Republicans show the highest overall agreement, while Democrats across all racial groups showed lower levels of agreement (2-3 range), with white respondents showing the lowest agreement. This pattern highlights how political affiliation creates major divisions in zero-sum beliefs about gender pay equality, with racial differences more pronounced among Republicans than other political groups.

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding gender pay equity differ by political party affiliation?

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Republican exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “If there is equal pay for women, men will get lower wages.” Independents and Democrats show similar mean agreement levels at lower values. The distribution (via density and individual dots) reveals different patterns across groups. Republicans show a relatively concentrated distribution around moderate agreement levels (3-5) with their density peaked around the mean. Both independents and Democrats show very similar distributions, ranging widely across low to moderate levels of agreement (1-5). This suggests that both groups have similar overall skepticism about this zero-sum view of gender pay equality.

Table 39. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_8 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.00901
Black	0.01325
Mixed/Other	0.00602
White	0.00003

Table 40. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_8

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	15.17	0.00051

There was significant difference in ZEROSUM_8 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 15.17, p = 5.09^{-4}.

LGBTQ vs. Religious

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom differ by racial/ethnic identity and political party affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_9 (“LGBTQ+ rights mean less freedom for religious groups.”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_9    se
  <chr>          <chr>                     <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                      1.38 0.263
2 Democrat       Black                      3.1  0.567
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                1.25 0.25 
4 Democrat       White                      2.06 0.337
5 Independent    Asian                      2.38 0.375
6 Independent    Black                      2.29 0.567

This pointrange plot shows that Black respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “LGBTQ+ rights mean less freedom for religious groups.” among Republicans. Among political groups, Republicans show the highest overall agreement, while Democrats across all racial groups showed lower levels of agreement (1-2 range), with Mixed/Other and Asian respondents showing the lowest agreement. This pattern captures how political affiliation creates major divisions in zero-sum beliefs about LGBTQ+ and religious rights, with significant racial differences occurring primarily among Republicans.

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom differ by political party affiliation?

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Republican exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “LGBTQ+ rights mean less freedom for religious groups.” The distribution (via density and individual dots) reveals different patterns across groups. Republicans show a broad distribution with responses spanning from low to high agreement (2-7) and notable density across moderate-to-high agreement levels. Independents display leftward skew with clustering in the low agreement range (1-3) and a tail extending toward higher values. Democrats show even stronger leftward skew with pronounced clustering in the very low agreement range (1-3) and a steep drop-off at higher values. This suggests that most Democrats and independents reject this zero-sum view of LGBTQ+ and religious rights, with Democrats showing more extreme opposition.

Table 41. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_9 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.000390
Black	0.043051
Mixed/Other	0.000603
White	0.000001

Table 42. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_9

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	19.64	5e-05

There was significant difference in ZEROSUM_9 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 19.64, p = 5.42^{-5}.

Disabilities vs. Non-disabilities

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding disability and non-disability healthcare time differ by racial/ethnic identity and political party affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_10 (“Accessible healthcare for people with disabilities means longer wait times for non-disabled patients.”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_10    se
  <chr>          <chr>                      <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                       2.38 0.532
2 Democrat       Black                       3.1  0.526
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                 2.38 0.460
4 Democrat       White                       2.24 0.369
5 Independent    Asian                       3.12 0.515
6 Independent    Black                       2.12 0.581

This pointrange plot shows that Black respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “Accessible healthcare for people with disabilities means longer wait times for non-disabled patients.” among Republicans. Among political groups, Republicans show the highest overall agreement, while Democrats across all racial groups showed lower levels of agreement (2-3 range), with relatively small differences between groups. This pattern captures how political affiliation creates major divisions in zero-sum beliefs about disability healthcare access, with racial differences being most pronounced among Republicans.

Do zero-sum beliefs regarding disability and non-disability healthcare time differ by political party affiliation?

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Republican exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “Accessible healthcare for people with disabilities means longer wait times for non-disabled patients.” The distribution (via density and individual dots) reveals different patterns across groups. Republicans show a broad distribution with responses spanning from low to high agreement (1-7) and notable density across moderate-to-high agreement levels. Independents display leftward skew with clustering in the low-to-moderate agreement range (1-4) and their density peaked in the lower range. Democrats show strong leftward skew with pronounced clustering in the low agreement range (1-3) and a steep drop-off at higher values. This suggests that most Democrats reject this zero-sum perspective on disability healthcare access.

Table 43. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_10 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.01969
Black	0.00191
Mixed/Other	0.06915
White	0.00016

Table 44. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_10

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	26.8	0

There was significant difference in ZEROSUM_10 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 26.8, p = 1.51^{-6}.

Healthcare vs. Private

Do zero-sum beliefs about universal healthcare differ by racial/ethnic identity and political party affiliation?

Below we present descriptive statistics and visualizations for ZEROSUM_11 (“Universal healthcare means worse healthcare for those who can afford private insurance.”), examining how responses vary across racial identity and political affiliation.

# A tibble: 6 × 4
  POLITICALPARTY RACIALIDENTITY.4 mean_ZEROSUM_11    se
  <chr>          <chr>                      <dbl> <dbl>
1 Democrat       Asian                       2.12 0.441
2 Democrat       Black                       3.1  0.547
3 Democrat       Mixed/Other                 1.88 0.398
4 Democrat       White                       2.53 0.385
5 Independent    Asian                       3.25 0.526
6 Independent    Black                       2.57 0.607

This pointrange plot shows that White respondents exhibit higher agreement with the belief that “Universal healthcare means worse healthcare for those who can afford private insurance.” among Republicans. Among political groups, Republicans show the highest overall agreement, while Democrats (particularly Asian and Mixed/Other respondents) show the lowest agreement. This pattern captures how political affiliation creates major divisions in zero-sum beliefs about universal healthcare, with racial differences being most pronounced among Republicans.

Do zero-sum beliefs about universal healthcare differ by political party affiliation?

This raincloud plot shows that mean agreement with the zero-sum belief (indicated by white dots) varies by political affiliation. Among the three groups, Republican exhibit higher average agreement with the statement “Universal healthcare means worse healthcare for those who can afford private insurance.” The distribution (via density and individual dots) reveals different patterns across groups. Republicans show a broad distribution with responses spanning from low to high agreement (2-7) and notable density across moderate-to-high agreement levels. Independents display leftward skew with clustering in the low-to-moderate agreement range (1-5) and their density peaked in the lower-moderate range. Democrats show strong leftward skew with pronounced clustering in the low-to-moderate agreement range (1-4) and a steep drop-off at higher values. This suggest that most Democrats reject this zero-sum perspective on universal healthcare policy.

Table 45. Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test for ZEROSUM_11 by Racial Identity

RACIALIDENTITY.4	p
Asian	0.07077
Black	0.04305
Mixed/Other	0.01468
White	0.00019

Table 46. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for ZEROSUM_11

Predictor	df	Chi-squared	p
POLITICALPARTY	2	18.12	0

There was significant difference in ZEROSUM_11 scores across political party groups, Kruskal-Wallis χ²(2) = 18.12, p = 1.16^{-4}.

Explaining Zero-Sum Economic Beliefs (multiple linear regression)

What sociodemographic factors explain zero-sum economic beliefs?

Table 47. Multiple Linear Regression Predicting Economic Zero-Sum Beliefs

Dependent Variable	Predictor	df	b	t	p	sr2	95% CI
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC	GENDER_MALE	109	-0.29	-1.21	0.23	0.01	[-0.76, 0.18]
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC	RELIGIOUS_YES	109	-0.35	-1.37	0.17	0.01	[-0.85, 0.16]
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC	RACE_BLACK	109	-0.73	-2.36	0.02	0.04	[-1.34, -0.12]
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC	RACE_ASIAN	109	-0.85	-2.59	0.01	0.05	[-1.5, -0.2]
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC	RACE_OTHER	109	-0.85	-2.48	0.01	0.05	[-1.52, -0.17]
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC	EDUCATION_HIGH	109	0.36	1.25	0.21	0.01	[-0.21, 0.93]
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC	SOCIALSTATUS	109	-0.15	-2.03	0.04	0.03	[-0.3, 0]

Asian participants reported significantly lower levels of economic zero-sum beliefs compared to White participants (β = -0.90, p = .006), indicating a negative association between identifying as Asian and the belief that economic resources are fixed and must be competed for. This suggests that Asian individuals may be less likely to perceive economic outcomes as a zero-sum competition between groups.

As social status increased, participants reported lower levels of economic zero-sum beliefs (β = -0.15, p = .043), indicating a negative association between perceived social standing and belief in fixed economic resources. Individuals with higher perceived social status may be less likely to view the economy as a zero-sum system.

Explaining Zero-Sum Identity Beliefs (multiple linear regression)

What sociodemographic factors explain zero-sum identity beliefs?

Table 48. Multiple Linear Regression Predicting Identity Zero-Sum Beliefs

Dependent Variable	Predictor	df	b	t	p	sr2	95% CI
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY	GENDER_MALE	108	0.11	0.45	0.65	0.00	[-0.38, 0.61]
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY	RELIGIOUS_YES	108	0.63	2.34	0.02	0.04	[0.1, 1.16]
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY	RACE_BLACK	108	0.20	0.61	0.55	0.00	[-0.45, 0.84]
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY	RACE_ASIAN	108	-0.30	-0.85	0.40	0.01	[-0.99, 0.4]
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY	RACE_OTHER	108	0.13	0.37	0.72	0.00	[-0.58, 0.84]
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY	EDUCATION_HIGH	108	-0.58	-1.88	0.06	0.03	[-1.2, 0.03]
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY	SOCIALSTATUS	108	0.23	2.85	0.01	0.06	[0.07, 0.38]

As social status increased, participants reported higher levels of identity zero-sum beliefs (β = 0.23, p = .003), indicating a positive association between perceived social standing and belief in fixed identity resources. This suggests that individuals who perceive themselves as having higher social status may be more likely to endorse the view that one group’s gain comes at another’s expense.

Predicting Voting Behavior for 2024 Presidential Candidate

Logistic Regression

Table 49. Logistic Regression Predicting Trump Vote

Predictor	B	SE	z	p	CI_lower	CI_upper
(Intercept)	-19.433	6.558	-2.963	0.003	-35.671	-8.790
POLITICALBELIEFS	2.677	0.818	3.272	0.001	1.386	4.735
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC	0.202	0.557	0.364	0.716	-0.874	1.371
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY	1.826	0.599	3.047	0.002	0.829	3.283
ZEROSUM_1	-0.080	0.461	-0.173	0.863	-1.121	0.808
GENDER_MALE	-2.093	1.035	-2.021	0.043	-4.455	-0.229
RELIGIOUS_YES	-0.298	1.224	-0.243	0.808	-3.007	2.062
RACE_BLACK	1.048	1.296	0.809	0.419	-1.470	3.797
RACE_ASIAN	-2.368	1.729	-1.369	0.171	-6.246	0.719
RACE_OTHER	-1.886	1.712	-1.102	0.271	-5.967	1.189
EDUCATION_HIGH	1.119	1.370	0.817	0.414	-1.650	3.975
SOCIALSTATUS	-0.086	0.366	-0.234	0.815	-0.836	0.656
COMPETITION_SCORE	1.095	0.647	1.692	0.091	0.026	2.798

# Create prediction data for one variable (holding others at mean)
pred_data <- with(select_data, 
  data.frame(
    POLITICALBELIEFS = seq(min(POLITICALBELIEFS, na.rm = TRUE), 
                          max(POLITICALBELIEFS, na.rm = TRUE), length = 100),
    SOCIALSTATUS = mean(SOCIALSTATUS, na.rm = TRUE),
    ZEROSUM_IDENTITY = mean(ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, na.rm = TRUE),
    ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC = mean(ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, na.rm = TRUE),
    ZEROSUM_1 = mean(ZEROSUM_1, na.rm = TRUE),
    GENDER_MALE = mean(GENDER_MALE, na.rm = TRUE),
    RELIGIOUS_YES = mean(RELIGIOUS_YES, na.rm = TRUE),
    RACE_BLACK = mean(RACE_BLACK, na.rm = TRUE),
    RACE_ASIAN = mean(RACE_ASIAN, na.rm = TRUE),
    RACE_OTHER = mean(RACE_OTHER, na.rm = TRUE),
    EDUCATION_HIGH = mean(EDUCATION_HIGH, na.rm = TRUE),
    COMPETITION_SCORE = mean(COMPETITION_SCORE, na.rm = TRUE)
  ))

# Get predictions with standard errors
predictions <- predict(logregmodel.v1, pred_data, type = "link", se.fit = TRUE)

# Convert to probabilities and calculate confidence intervals
pred_data$predicted_prob <- plogis(predictions$fit)
pred_data$lower_ci <- plogis(predictions$fit - 1.96 * predictions$se.fit)
pred_data$upper_ci <- plogis(predictions$fit + 1.96 * predictions$se.fit)

# Plot with confidence intervals and proper labels
plot.TRUMPVOTE.POLITICIALBELIEFS <- ggplot(pred_data, 
  aes(x = POLITICALBELIEFS, y = predicted_prob)) +
  geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = lower_ci, ymax = upper_ci), alpha = 0.3, fill = "purple") +
  geom_line(color = "purple", size = 1) +
  scale_x_continuous(
    breaks = 1:7,
    labels = c("Far Left /\nLeftist", "Very Liberal", "Liberal", "Moderate", 
               "Conservative", "Very\nConservative", "Alt-Right /\nFar-Right")
  ) +
  labs(title = "Predicted Probability of Trump Vote by Political Beliefs",
       subtitle = "With 95% Confidence Intervals",
       x = "Political Beliefs", y = "Predicted Probability") +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(axis.text.x = element_text(angle = 45, hjust = 1, size = 9))

# Print and save the plots
print(plot.TRUMPVOTE.POLITICIALBELIEFS)

Predicted Probability of Trump Vote by Political Beliefs.

ggsave("plots/plot14:TRUMPVOTE.POLITICIALBELIEFS.png", 
       plot = plot.TRUMPVOTE.POLITICIALBELIEFS, 
       width = 10, 
       height = 8, 
       dpi = 300)

This figure shows the relationship between self-reported political ideology (ranging from “far left/leftist” to “very conservative”) and the predicted probability of voting for Trump in the 2024 election. The purple curve exhibits a strong S-shaped relationship with a 95% confidence interval. This indicates a sharp increase in the probability of voting for Trump, from near zero among far left voters to almost certainty among very conservative voters, with the largest increase among liberal and moderate voters. The statistical model shows a highly significant positive correlation coefficient (β = 2.39, p < .001, 95% CI: [1.29, 4.06]), confirming that political beliefs are the strongest predictor.

# Create prediction data for ZEROSUM_IDENTITY (holding others at mean)
pred_data_identity <- with(select_data, 
  data.frame(
    ZEROSUM_IDENTITY = seq(min(ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, na.rm = TRUE), 
                          max(ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, na.rm = TRUE), length = 100),
    POLITICALBELIEFS = mean(POLITICALBELIEFS, na.rm = TRUE),
    SOCIALSTATUS = mean(SOCIALSTATUS, na.rm = TRUE),
    ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC = mean(ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, na.rm = TRUE),
    ZEROSUM_1 = mean(ZEROSUM_1, na.rm = TRUE),
    GENDER_MALE = mean(GENDER_MALE, na.rm = TRUE),
    RELIGIOUS_YES = mean(RELIGIOUS_YES, na.rm = TRUE),
    RACE_BLACK = mean(RACE_BLACK, na.rm = TRUE),
    RACE_ASIAN = mean(RACE_ASIAN, na.rm = TRUE),
    RACE_OTHER = mean(RACE_OTHER, na.rm = TRUE),
    EDUCATION_HIGH = mean(EDUCATION_HIGH, na.rm = TRUE),
    COMPETITION_SCORE = mean(COMPETITION_SCORE, na.rm = TRUE)
  ))

# Get predictions with standard errors
predictions_identity <- predict(logregmodel.v1, pred_data_identity, type = "link", se.fit = TRUE)

# Convert to probabilities and calculate confidence intervals
pred_data_identity$predicted_prob <- plogis(predictions_identity$fit)
pred_data_identity$lower_ci <- plogis(predictions_identity$fit - 1.96 * predictions_identity$se.fit)
pred_data_identity$upper_ci <- plogis(predictions_identity$fit + 1.96 * predictions_identity$se.fit)

# Plot with confidence intervals and proper labels
plot.TRUMPVOTE.ZEROSUM_IDENTITY <- ggplot(pred_data_identity, 
  aes(x = ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, y = predicted_prob)) +
  geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = lower_ci, ymax = upper_ci), alpha = 0.3, fill = "red") +
  geom_line(color = "red", size = 1) +
  scale_x_continuous(
    breaks = 1:7,
    labels = c("Strongly\nDisbelieve", "Disbelieve", "Somewhat\nDisbelieve", 
               "Neither\nDisbelieve\nnor Believe", "Somewhat\nBelieve", 
               "Believe", "Strongly\nBelieve")
  ) +
  labs(title = "Predicted Probability of Trump Vote by Zero-Sum IDENTITY Beliefs",
       subtitle = "With 95% Confidence Intervals",
       x = "Zero-Sum IDENTITY Beliefs", y = "Predicted Probability") +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(axis.text.x = element_text(angle = 45, hjust = 1, size = 9))

# Print and save the plots
print(plot.TRUMPVOTE.ZEROSUM_IDENTITY)

Predicted Probability of Trump Vote by Zero-Sum Identity Beliefs.

ggsave("plots/plot15:TRUMPVOTE.ZEROSUM_IDENTITY.png", 
       plot = plot.TRUMPVOTE.ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, 
       width = 10, 
       height = 8, 
       dpi = 300)

This figure shows the relationship between zero-sum thinking about identity issues (ranging from “strongly disbelieve” to “believe”) and the predicted probability of voting for Trump in the 2024 election. The red curve exhibits a steady upward trend with a 95% confidence interval. This indicates a consistent increase in the probability of voting for Trump, from approximately 5% among those who strongly disbelieve zero-sum identity concepts to around 95% among those who believe in them. The statistical model shows a significant positive correlation coefficient (β = 1.43, p = .002, 95% CI: [0.63, 2.51]), confirming that zero-sum identity beliefs are a meaningful predictor of Trump support beyond traditional political ideology.

# Create prediction data for ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC (holding others at mean)
pred_data_econ <- with(select_data, 
  data.frame(
    ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC = seq(min(ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, na.rm = TRUE), 
                          max(ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, na.rm = TRUE), length = 100),
    POLITICALBELIEFS = mean(POLITICALBELIEFS, na.rm = TRUE),
    SOCIALSTATUS = mean(SOCIALSTATUS, na.rm = TRUE),
    ZEROSUM_IDENTITY = mean(ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, na.rm = TRUE),
    ZEROSUM_1 = mean(ZEROSUM_1, na.rm = TRUE),
    GENDER_MALE = mean(GENDER_MALE, na.rm = TRUE),
    RELIGIOUS_YES = mean(RELIGIOUS_YES, na.rm = TRUE),
    RACE_BLACK = mean(RACE_BLACK, na.rm = TRUE),
    RACE_ASIAN = mean(RACE_ASIAN, na.rm = TRUE),
    RACE_OTHER = mean(RACE_OTHER, na.rm = TRUE),
    EDUCATION_HIGH = mean(EDUCATION_HIGH, na.rm = TRUE),
    COMPETITION_SCORE = mean(COMPETITION_SCORE, na.rm = TRUE)
  ))

# Get predictions with standard errors
predictions_econ <- predict(logregmodel.v1, pred_data_econ, type = "link", se.fit = TRUE)

# Convert to probabilities and calculate confidence intervals
pred_data_econ$predicted_prob <- plogis(predictions_econ$fit)
pred_data_econ$lower_ci <- plogis(predictions_econ$fit - 1.96 * predictions_econ$se.fit)
pred_data_econ$upper_ci <- plogis(predictions_econ$fit + 1.96 * predictions_econ$se.fit)

# Plot with confidence intervals and proper labels
plot.TRUMPVOTE.ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC <- ggplot(pred_data_econ, 
  aes(x = ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, y = predicted_prob)) +
  geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = lower_ci, ymax = upper_ci), alpha = 0.3, fill = "blue") +
  geom_line(color = "blue", size = 1) +
  scale_x_continuous(
    breaks = 1:7,
    labels = c("Strongly\nDisbelieve", "Disbelieve", "Somewhat\nDisbelieve", 
               "Neither\nDisbelieve\nnor Believe", "Somewhat\nBelieve", 
               "Believe", "Strongly\nBelieve")
  ) +
  labs(title = "Predicted Probability of Trump Vote by Zero-Sum Economic Beliefs",
       subtitle = "With 95% Confidence Intervals",
       x = "Zero-Sum Economic Beliefs", y = "Predicted Probability") +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(axis.text.x = element_text(angle = 45, hjust = 1, size = 9))

# Print and save the plots
print(plot.TRUMPVOTE.ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC)

Predicted Probability of Trump Vote by Zero-Sum Economic Beliefs.

ggsave("plots/plot16:TRUMPVOTE.ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC.png", 
       plot = plot.TRUMPVOTE.ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, 
       width = 10, 
       height = 8, 
       dpi = 300)

This figure shows the relationship between zero-sum thinking about economic issues (ranging from “strongly disbelieve” to “strongly believe”) and the predicted probability of voting for Trump in the 2024 election. The blue curve exhibits an interesting U-shaped pattern with a 95% confidence interval. This indicates higher Trump support at both extremes: around 70-75% among those who strongly disbelieve or strongly believe in zero-sum economic thinking, while those with neutral positions show the lowest support at around 40-45%. However, the statistical model shows this relationship is not significant (`β` = -0.24, p = .582, 95% CI: [-1.12, 0.63]), indicating that zero-sum economic beliefs do not reliably predict Trump’s voting outcome when accounting for statistical uncertainty.

\[ \begin{aligned} \log\left(\frac{\hat{P}(\text{TRUMPVOTE})}{1 - \hat{P}(\text{TRUMPVOTE})}\right) &= \beta_0 + \beta_1 \cdot \text{POLITICALBELIEFS} + \beta_2 \cdot \text{AGE} \\ &\quad + \beta_3 \cdot \text{SOCIALSTATUS} + \beta_4 \cdot \text{ZEROSUM\_ECONOMIC} \\ &\quad + \beta_5 \cdot \text{ZEROSUM\_IDENTITY} + \beta_6 \cdot \text{ZEROSUM\_1} \end{aligned} \tag{1}\]

library(corrplot)

# Select the variables for correlation matrix
cor_vars <- select_data %>%
  select(TRUMPVOTE, ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, ZEROSUM_1:ZEROSUM_11, 
         POLITICALBELIEFS, COMPETITION_SCORE)

# Create correlation matrix (using complete observations)
cor_matrix <- cor(cor_vars, use = "complete.obs")

# Print the correlation matrix
print(cor_matrix)

                   TRUMPVOTE ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC ZEROSUM_IDENTITY  ZEROSUM_1
TRUMPVOTE          1.0000000      -0.24891082        0.6593794 0.21432725
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC  -0.2489108       1.00000000       -0.2154607 0.28196398
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY   0.6593794      -0.21546069        1.0000000 0.36400859
ZEROSUM_1          0.2143273       0.28196398        0.3640086 1.00000000
ZEROSUM_2         -0.1404926       0.83840757       -0.1260497 0.44509259
ZEROSUM_3         -0.2756087       0.81839800       -0.2338924 0.01073028
ZEROSUM_4          0.5067871      -0.07765063        0.7791220 0.42375317
ZEROSUM_5          0.6030942      -0.17807536        0.8566276 0.37205659
ZEROSUM_6          0.6041703      -0.22489501        0.8693650 0.32370773
ZEROSUM_7          0.4519818      -0.28977990        0.7275694 0.03378922
ZEROSUM_8          0.5181470      -0.09598423        0.7735684 0.29948131
ZEROSUM_9          0.5354005      -0.07293562        0.7714541 0.33874467
ZEROSUM_10         0.6054040      -0.25584156        0.8854505 0.25326976
ZEROSUM_11         0.4414549      -0.18395915        0.8115577 0.32040454
POLITICALBELIEFS   0.6769656      -0.35678004        0.5689400 0.11750034
COMPETITION_SCORE  0.3550616      -0.10777476        0.2998525 0.29461214
                    ZEROSUM_2   ZEROSUM_3   ZEROSUM_4  ZEROSUM_5  ZEROSUM_6
TRUMPVOTE         -0.14049264 -0.27560875  0.50678705  0.6030942  0.6041703
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC   0.83840757  0.81839800 -0.07765063 -0.1780754 -0.2248950
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY  -0.12604972 -0.23389242  0.77912200  0.8566276  0.8693650
ZEROSUM_1          0.44509259  0.01073028  0.42375317  0.3720566  0.3237077
ZEROSUM_2          1.00000000  0.37294066 -0.02957973 -0.1310787 -0.1106528
ZEROSUM_3          0.37294066  1.00000000 -0.10100196 -0.1649474 -0.2661862
ZEROSUM_4         -0.02957973 -0.10100196  1.00000000  0.6565129  0.6458139
ZEROSUM_5         -0.13107867 -0.16494739  0.65651291  1.0000000  0.6654700
ZEROSUM_6         -0.11065282 -0.26618624  0.64581392  0.6654700  1.0000000
ZEROSUM_7         -0.21230106 -0.26947301  0.34897724  0.5211612  0.6567235
ZEROSUM_8         -0.09862355 -0.05941772  0.60036522  0.6432626  0.5713442
ZEROSUM_9          0.02238502 -0.14776297  0.62705661  0.6541248  0.5887421
ZEROSUM_10        -0.20319828 -0.22129534  0.61080198  0.7951118  0.7271687
ZEROSUM_11        -0.05091902 -0.25947777  0.57413595  0.6224272  0.7274820
POLITICALBELIEFS  -0.27240564 -0.32016109  0.48114696  0.4652421  0.5340607
COMPETITION_SCORE  0.05800577 -0.24462712  0.31735907  0.2023682  0.3217707
                    ZEROSUM_7   ZEROSUM_8   ZEROSUM_9 ZEROSUM_10  ZEROSUM_11
TRUMPVOTE          0.45198176  0.51814701  0.53540046  0.6054040  0.44145492
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC  -0.28977990 -0.09598423 -0.07293562 -0.2558416 -0.18395915
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY   0.72756941  0.77356842  0.77145415  0.8854505  0.81155770
ZEROSUM_1          0.03378922  0.29948131  0.33874467  0.2532698  0.32040454
ZEROSUM_2         -0.21230106 -0.09862355  0.02238502 -0.2031983 -0.05091902
ZEROSUM_3         -0.26947301 -0.05941772 -0.14776297 -0.2212953 -0.25947777
ZEROSUM_4          0.34897724  0.60036522  0.62705661  0.6108020  0.57413595
ZEROSUM_5          0.52116121  0.64326261  0.65412479  0.7951118  0.62242718
ZEROSUM_6          0.65672349  0.57134423  0.58874208  0.7271687  0.72748203
ZEROSUM_7          1.00000000  0.48355156  0.41551050  0.6679289  0.58941893
ZEROSUM_8          0.48355156  1.00000000  0.59831616  0.6425807  0.52323707
ZEROSUM_9          0.41551050  0.59831616  1.00000000  0.6070445  0.51601792
ZEROSUM_10         0.66792888  0.64258072  0.60704454  1.0000000  0.68717973
ZEROSUM_11         0.58941893  0.52323707  0.51601792  0.6871797  1.00000000
POLITICALBELIEFS   0.45810407  0.41464019  0.44869238  0.4835849  0.38969613
COMPETITION_SCORE  0.11518016  0.27083566  0.24752802  0.2313099  0.23449812
                  POLITICALBELIEFS COMPETITION_SCORE
TRUMPVOTE                0.6769656        0.35506165
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC        -0.3567800       -0.10777476
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY         0.5689400        0.29985249
ZEROSUM_1                0.1175003        0.29461214
ZEROSUM_2               -0.2724056        0.05800577
ZEROSUM_3               -0.3201611       -0.24462712
ZEROSUM_4                0.4811470        0.31735907
ZEROSUM_5                0.4652421        0.20236815
ZEROSUM_6                0.5340607        0.32177066
ZEROSUM_7                0.4581041        0.11518016
ZEROSUM_8                0.4146402        0.27083566
ZEROSUM_9                0.4486924        0.24752802
ZEROSUM_10               0.4835849        0.23130986
ZEROSUM_11               0.3896961        0.23449812
POLITICALBELIEFS         1.0000000        0.36842715
COMPETITION_SCORE        0.3684272        1.00000000

# Visualize with corrplot
corrplot(cor_matrix, 
         method = "color",
         type = "upper",
         order = "hclust",
         tl.cex = 0.8,
         tl.col = "black",
         tl.srt = 45,
         addCoef.col = "black",
         number.cex = 0.7)

Correlation Matrix of All Variables.

# Alternative visualization with different style
corrplot(cor_matrix, 
         method = "circle",
         type = "full",
         order = "original",
         tl.cex = 0.8,
         tl.col = "black",
         tl.srt = 45,
         col = colorRampPalette(c("blue", "white", "red"))(100))

Correlation Matrix of All Variables.

This heat map illustrates the correlation structure between voting for Trump, zero-sum beliefs (including economic and identity beliefs), individual zero-sum items (ZEROSUM_1 through ZEROSUM_11), and overall political beliefs. Red circles indicate positive correlations, blue circles indicate negative correlations, and the size of the circles represents the strength of the correlation. The matrix shows that voting for Trump is strongly positively correlated with both zero-sum identity beliefs and political beliefs.

Decision Tree and Random Forest Analysis

To further validate these findings and examine the predictive power of our variables using a different analytical approach, we employed a series of machine learning techniques. Our analysis proceeded in three stages:

• Stage 1: Initial Decision Tree: We first constructed a simple decision tree to identify the primary predictors and their splitting thresholds for Trump voting behavior. This provided an interpretable baseline model showing how the algorithm naturally segments voters.

• Stage 2: Extended Decision Tree with Cross-Validation: We then built a more complex decision tree incorporating additional demographic variables and used cross-validation to determine the optimal model complexity. Through this process, we found that the best performing tree is the 2-split model, which achieved a cross-validation error of 0.24. This suggests that despite having access to multiple demographic and ideological variables, the most predictive model requires only two key splits to effectively classify voters.

• Stage 3: Random Forest Analysis: Finally, we employed a Random Forest ensemble method to capture potential non-linear relationships and interactions while providing robust variable importance measures. This approach confirmed our regression findings by identifying ZEROSUM_IDENTITY and POLITICALBELIEFS as the most important predictors, with substantially higher importance scores than all other variables.

This machine learning approach serves as an independent validation of our regression based findings, using fundamentally different algorithms to examine the same relationships and providing additional confidence in our substantive conclusions about voting behavior predictors.

library(rpart)
library(rpart.plot)

dt_model <- rpart(TRUMPVOTE ~ POLITICALBELIEFS + ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC + 
    ZEROSUM_IDENTITY + ZEROSUM_1 + GENDER_MALE + RELIGIOUS_YES + 
    RACE_BLACK + RACE_ASIAN + RACE_OTHER + EDUCATION_HIGH + SOCIALSTATUS + COMPETITION_SCORE,
                  data = select_data,
                  method = "class")

rpart.plot(dt_model, extra = 104)

Decision Tree Analysis of Voting Predictors.

The only variable the tree uses is zero-sum social identity beliefs (ZEROSUM_IDENTITY), suggesting it is the most important predictor in our model. If a respondent scores below 3.3 on ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, they are much more likely to be classified as not voting for Donald Trump in 2024 (84%). Participants who scored 3.3 or higher are much more likely to be classified as voting for Donald Trump (TRUMPVOTE)(87%).

dt_model <- rpart(TRUMPVOTE ~ POLITICALBELIEFS + ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC + 
    ZEROSUM_IDENTITY + ZEROSUM_1 + GENDER_MALE + RELIGIOUS_YES + 
    RACE_BLACK + RACE_ASIAN + RACE_OTHER + EDUCATION_HIGH + SOCIALSTATUS + COMPETITION_SCORE,
  data = select_data,
  method = "class",
  control = rpart.control(
    cp = 0.001,         # smaller = deeper tree
    minsplit = 10,      # smaller = allows more splits
    maxdepth = 5        # allow up to 5 levels deep
  )
)

rpart.plot(dt_model, extra = 104)

Extended Decision Tree with Demographic Variables.

This expanded decision tree incorporates demographic variables (gender and race) alongside the core predictors. The tree shows how demographic factors interact with ideological variables to refine predictions, with male respondents and those from “other” racial categories showing higher Trump support within similar ideological profiles.

Table 50. Decision Tree Cross-Validation Results

CP	nsplit	rel error	xerror	xstd
0.720	0	1.00	1.30	0.0963
0.040	1	0.28	0.36	0.0769
0.001	2	0.24	0.24	0.0650

The best tree is the 2-split model with Cross-validation error (0.24)

library(randomForest)
library(tidyr)

# need to drop NA to get accuracy
select_data <- select_data %>%
  drop_na(TRUMPVOTE, POLITICALBELIEFS, ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, ZEROSUM_1,
          GENDER_MALE, RELIGIOUS_YES, RACE_BLACK, RACE_ASIAN, RACE_OTHER, 
          EDUCATION_HIGH, SOCIALSTATUS, COMPETITION_SCORE)

# split into training and testing sets
set.seed(123)
train_idx <- sample(seq_len(nrow(select_data)), size = 0.7 * nrow(select_data))
train <- select_data[train_idx, ]
test  <- select_data[-train_idx, ]

# Fit random forest model
rf_model <- randomForest(
  TRUMPVOTE ~ POLITICALBELIEFS + ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC + ZEROSUM_IDENTITY + ZEROSUM_1 + 
  GENDER_MALE + RELIGIOUS_YES + RACE_BLACK + RACE_ASIAN + RACE_OTHER + 
  EDUCATION_HIGH + SOCIALSTATUS + COMPETITION_SCORE,
  data = train,
  na.action = na.roughfix,
  ntree = 500
)

# Variable importance
varImpPlot(rf_model)

Variable Importance in Random Forest Model.

pred <- predict(rf_model, newdata = test)

conf_matrix <- table(Predicted = pred, Actual = test$TRUMPVOTE)

# Convert to data frame for kable
conf_matrix_df <- as.data.frame.matrix(conf_matrix) %>%
  rownames_to_column(var = "Predicted")

kable(
  conf_matrix,
  caption = "Table 51. Random Forest Confusion Matrix",
  digits = 3,
  booktabs = TRUE
)

Table 51. Random Forest Confusion Matrix

	0	1
0	9	3
1	1	14

Variable Importance in Random Forest Model.

accuracy <- mean(predict(rf_model, newdata = test) == test$TRUMPVOTE)
accuracy_df <- data.frame(Metric = "Accuracy", Value = round(accuracy, 3))

kable(
  accuracy_df,
  caption = "Table 52. Random Forest Model Accuracy",
  digits = 7,
  booktabs = TRUE
)

Table 52. Random Forest Model Accuracy

Metric	Value
Accuracy	0.852

Variable Importance in Random Forest Model.

Zero-sum identity beliefs and political beliefs emerge as the most important predictors, with Mean Decrease Gini values around 9-12, substantially higher than other variables. This ranking confirms our regression results that these two variables are the main drivers of Trump’s voting behavior, while demographic and other ideological variables play a secondary role.

library(yardstick)
library(ggplot2)
library(dplyr)

# Create data frame for predictions and actual values
conf_df <- data.frame(
  truth = test$TRUMPVOTE,
  prediction = pred
)

# Create confusion matrix object
conf_mat_obj <- conf_mat(conf_df, truth = truth, estimate = prediction)

# Visualize it
autoplot(conf_mat_obj, type = "heatmap") +
  scale_fill_gradient(low = "white", high = "steelblue") +
  labs(title = "Confusion Matrix: Random Forest",
       x = "Predicted",
       y = "Actual")

Random Forest Model Performance.

The confusion matrix shows the random forest model’s prediction accuracy on the test data. The model achieved an overall accuracy of 83.33%, correctly classifying 13 of 16 non-Trump voters and 12 of 14 Trump voters. The model experienced two false negatives (predicting Trump voters as non-Trump voters) and three false positives (predicting non-Trump voters as Trump voters), indicating strong but not perfect prediction performance.

Participant FlowChart

library(consort)

# Sample sizes
total_start <- nrow(alldata)
after_select <- 122
excluded_count <- total_start - after_select

# Attention check exclusions
attention_fail <- sum(select_data$ATTENTION3 != 2 | select_data$SERIOUS != "Yes", na.rm = TRUE)
after_attention <- after_select - attention_fail

# Logistic regression sample size
log_regression <- nobs(logregmodel.v1)
excluded_log_reg <- after_select - log_regression

# Build flowchart
consort_plot <- add_box(NULL, txt = paste0("Imported CSV\nN = ", total_start)) %>%
  add_side_box(txt = paste0("Excluded due to missing data\nn = ", excluded_count)) %>%
  
  add_box(txt = paste0("Selected Variables\nN = ", after_select)) %>%

  add_side_box(txt = paste0("Excluded for failing attention checks\nn = ", attention_fail)) %>%
  
  add_box(txt = paste0("Kruskal-Wallis Analyses\nN = ", after_select)) %>%
  
  add_side_box(txt = paste0("Excluded due to missing data\nn = ", excluded_log_reg)) %>%
  
  add_box(txt = paste0("Logistic Regression Analyses\nN = ", log_regression))

# Save flowchart as an object
plot(consort_plot)

Participant Flowchart showing exclusions for missing data and final analytic samples used in Kruskal-Wallis and Logistic Regression analyses.

Logistic Regression for White vs. Color

Are explanatory variables for voter preference different for White people compared to People of Color?

Table 53. Logistic Regression for White Participants

term	estimate	std.error	statistic	p.value	conf.low	conf.high
(Intercept)	0.031	2.860	-1.218	0.223	0.000	6.224
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY	3.343	0.400	3.021	0.003	1.703	8.604
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC	0.925	0.436	-0.178	0.858	0.379	2.215

Table 54. Logistic Regression for POC Participants

term	estimate	std.error	statistic	p.value	conf.low	conf.high
(Intercept)	0.299	1.867	-0.647	0.518	0.006	11.441
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY	4.156	0.396	3.595	0.000	2.130	10.432
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC	0.511	0.421	-1.595	0.111	0.202	1.080

ZEROSUM_IDENTITY is positively associated with TRUMPVOTE for both groups. The coefficients are numerically similar (1.3 vs 1.59). ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC is significant only for POC and negative (-0.9002), meaning higher economic zero-sum beliefs reduce the likelihood of voting Trump for POC. For White participants, this effect is near zero (-0.09855).

Discussion

In the modern era, political scientists and mainstream media have pointed to a racial realignment and class dealignment to explain the shifting political landscape, particularly the significant changes in voter behavior based on racial identity, social class, and educational attainment. The current study extends this literature by emphasizing the importance of social identities in influencing voter preference in the 2024 U.S. Presidential election. However, in contrast to decades of existing research demonstrating that social identities explain voter behavior and preference, our findings suggest that a person’s beliefs about social identity groups—specifically zero-sum social identity beliefs—may matter more than a person’s social identity. Results of a logistic regression classifying self-reported voting behavior in the 2024 U.S. Presidential election indicate that the newly developed measure of zero-sum social identity beliefs (ZEROSUM_IDENTITY) produced the second largest coefficient estimate, trailing only political ideology and exceeding other sociodemographic variables including gender (GENDER_MALE) and racial identity (RI_Else). Decision tree and random forest models also emphasize the importance zero-sum social identity beliefs for classifying voter preference. Also, an item-by-item analysis of all zero sum social identity beliefs showed significantly group differences for political party affiliation (POLITICALPARTY): democrat, republican, and independent.

The current study also advances the domain-specific conceptualization of zero-sum beliefs. An exploratory factor analysis of zero-sum belief items revealed a three-factor solution comprising general, economic, and social identity dimensions. Furthermore, a paired t-test demonstrated that zero-sum economic beliefs (ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC) and zero-sum social identity beliefs (ZEROSUM_IDENTITY) differed significantly from one another and functioned as distinct predictors of voter preference in the 2024 election. While several prior studies have examined gender and racial attitudes in relation to voting behavior, this may be the first study to demonstrate that zero-sum social identity beliefs are significant explanatory variables of Donald Trump preference over Kamala Harris in the 2024 U.S. Presidential election, independent of traditional demographic predictors.

Exploratory Analyses

Explaining Zero-Sum Economic Beliefs (multiple linear regression)

Call:
lm(formula = ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC ~ GENDER_MALE + RELIGIOUS_YES + 
    RACE_BLACK + RACE_ASIAN + RACE_OTHER + EDUCATION_HIGH + SOCIALSTATUS, 
    data = select_data)

Residuals:
    Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
-3.7427 -0.7523 -0.0788  0.9432  2.2239 

Coefficients:
               Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)     5.74992    0.49803  11.545   <2e-16 ***
GENDER_MALE    -0.09309    0.26223  -0.355   0.7235    
RELIGIOUS_YES  -0.20145    0.28117  -0.716   0.4758    
RACE_BLACK     -0.36202    0.34110  -1.061   0.2918    
RACE_ASIAN     -0.47064    0.38050  -1.237   0.2198    
RACE_OTHER     -0.78924    0.35361  -2.232   0.0285 *  
EDUCATION_HIGH  0.28534    0.34734   0.822   0.4138    
SOCIALSTATUS   -0.11742    0.08006  -1.467   0.1465    
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Residual standard error: 1.186 on 79 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.09585,   Adjusted R-squared:  0.01574 
F-statistic: 1.196 on 7 and 79 DF,  p-value: 0.3146

Explaining Zero-Sum Identity Beliefs (multiple linear regression)

Call:
lm(formula = ZEROSUM_IDENTITY ~ GENDER_MALE + RELIGIOUS_YES + 
    RACE_BLACK + RACE_ASIAN + RACE_OTHER + EDUCATION_HIGH + SOCIALSTATUS, 
    data = select_data)

Residuals:
    Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
-2.2853 -1.1237 -0.1611  0.9614  3.6507 

Coefficients:
               Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)   
(Intercept)     1.60718    0.55523   2.895  0.00491 **
GENDER_MALE     0.09802    0.29235   0.335  0.73831   
RELIGIOUS_YES   0.84587    0.31346   2.698  0.00852 **
RACE_BLACK      0.37579    0.38028   0.988  0.32608   
RACE_ASIAN     -0.20664    0.42421  -0.487  0.62752   
RACE_OTHER      0.01793    0.39422   0.045  0.96384   
EDUCATION_HIGH -0.91112    0.38723  -2.353  0.02112 * 
SOCIALSTATUS    0.28004    0.08926   3.137  0.00240 **
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Residual standard error: 1.322 on 79 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.2301,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.1619 
F-statistic: 3.373 on 7 and 79 DF,  p-value: 0.00336

Predicting Voting Behavior

Logistic Regression

Call:
glm(formula = TRUMPVOTE ~ POLITICALBELIEFS + ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC + 
    ZEROSUM_IDENTITY + ZEROSUM_1 + GENDER_MALE + RACIALIDENTITY.2 + 
    COMPETITION_SCORE, family = binomial, data = select_data)

Coefficients:
                       Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)    
(Intercept)           -16.04846    4.96874  -3.230 0.001238 ** 
POLITICALBELIEFS        2.06706    0.58681   3.523 0.000427 ***
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC        0.14014    0.46117   0.304 0.761224    
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY        1.60308    0.45501   3.523 0.000426 ***
ZEROSUM_1              -0.06653    0.34873  -0.191 0.848696    
GENDER_MALE            -2.26620    0.94203  -2.406 0.016144 *  
RACIALIDENTITY.2White   0.49609    0.91253   0.544 0.586685    
COMPETITION_SCORE       0.95301    0.51516   1.850 0.064321 .  
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

(Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)

    Null deviance: 120.504  on 86  degrees of freedom
Residual deviance:  42.127  on 79  degrees of freedom
AIC: 58.127

Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 7

Call:
glm(formula = TRUMPVOTE ~ POLITICALBELIEFS + ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC + 
    ZEROSUM_IDENTITY + ZEROSUM_1 + COMPETITION_SCORE + GENDER_MALE, 
    family = binomial, data = select_data)

Coefficients:
                  Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)    
(Intercept)       -15.5418     4.8651  -3.195 0.001400 ** 
POLITICALBELIEFS    1.9969     0.5633   3.545 0.000392 ***
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC    0.2013     0.4482   0.449 0.653396    
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY    1.5545     0.4302   3.613 0.000303 ***
ZEROSUM_1          -0.1183     0.3395  -0.348 0.727550    
COMPETITION_SCORE   0.9467     0.5267   1.798 0.072246 .  
GENDER_MALE        -2.2079     0.9159  -2.411 0.015922 *  
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

(Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)

    Null deviance: 120.504  on 86  degrees of freedom
Residual deviance:  42.429  on 80  degrees of freedom
AIC: 56.429

Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 7

Decision Tree and Random Forest Analysis

Classification tree:
rpart(formula = TRUMPVOTE ~ POLITICALBELIEFS + ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC + 
    ZEROSUM_IDENTITY + ZEROSUM_1 + GENDER_MALE + RELIGIOUS_YES + 
    RACE_BLACK + RACE_ASIAN + RACE_OTHER + EDUCATION_HIGH + SOCIALSTATUS + 
    COMPETITION_SCORE, data = select_data, method = "class", 
    control = rpart.control(cp = 0.001))

Variables actually used in tree construction:
[1] POLITICALBELIEFS ZEROSUM_IDENTITY

Root node error: 42/87 = 0.48276

n= 87 

       CP nsplit rel error  xerror     xstd
1 0.69048      0   1.00000 1.21429 0.109377
2 0.02381      1   0.30952 0.50000 0.095033
3 0.00100      2   0.28571 0.38095 0.086036

library(randomForest)
library(tidyr)

# need to drop NA to get accuracy
select_data <- select_data %>%
  drop_na(TRUMPVOTE, POLITICALBELIEFS, ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, ZEROSUM_IDENTITY, ZEROSUM_1,
          GENDER_MALE, RELIGIOUS_YES, RACE_BLACK, RACE_ASIAN, RACE_OTHER, 
          EDUCATION_HIGH, SOCIALSTATUS, COMPETITION_SCORE)

# split into training and testing sets
set.seed(123)
train_idx <- sample(seq_len(nrow(select_data)), size = 0.7 * nrow(select_data))
train <- select_data[train_idx, ]
test  <- select_data[-train_idx, ]

# Fit random forest model
rf_model <- randomForest(
  TRUMPVOTE ~ POLITICALBELIEFS + ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC + ZEROSUM_IDENTITY + ZEROSUM_1 + 
  GENDER_MALE + RELIGIOUS_YES + RACE_BLACK + RACE_ASIAN + RACE_OTHER + 
  EDUCATION_HIGH + SOCIALSTATUS + COMPETITION_SCORE,
  data = train,
  na.action = na.roughfix,
  ntree = 500
)

# Predict on test set
pred <- predict(rf_model, newdata = test)


# Confusion matrix
table(Predicted = pred, Actual = test$TRUMPVOTE)

         Actual
Predicted  0  1
        0  9  3
        1  1 14

# Accuracy
mean(pred == test$TRUMPVOTE)

[1] 0.8518519

# Variable importance
#varImpPlot(rf_model)

Logistic Regression for White vs. Color

Call:
glm(formula = TRUMPVOTE ~ ZEROSUM_IDENTITY + ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, 
    family = binomial, data = white_data)

Coefficients:
                 Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)   
(Intercept)      -3.48311    2.86022  -1.218  0.22331   
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY  1.20700    0.39952   3.021  0.00252 **
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC -0.07775    0.43602  -0.178  0.85848   
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

(Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)

    Null deviance: 49.795  on 35  degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 31.104  on 33  degrees of freedom
AIC: 37.104

Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 5

Call:
glm(formula = TRUMPVOTE ~ ZEROSUM_IDENTITY + ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC, 
    family = binomial, data = poc_data)

Coefficients:
                 Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)    
(Intercept)       -1.2070     1.8668  -0.647 0.517924    
ZEROSUM_IDENTITY   1.4247     0.3963   3.595 0.000324 ***
ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC  -0.6715     0.4209  -1.595 0.110640    
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

(Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)

    Null deviance: 70.210  on 50  degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 42.892  on 48  degrees of freedom
AIC: 48.892

Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 5

Appendix A: Detailed Factor Analysis Output

Factor Analysis of Zero-Sum Beliefs

library(psych)
# create data frame of ZEROSUM variables for factor analysis
df.ZEROSUM <- select_data[, c("ZEROSUM_1", "ZEROSUM_2", "ZEROSUM_3", "ZEROSUM_4", 
                                  "ZEROSUM_5", "ZEROSUM_6", "ZEROSUM_7", "ZEROSUM_8", 
                                  "ZEROSUM_9", "ZEROSUM_10", "ZEROSUM_11")]

# Or using dplyr to select variables
# zerosum_vars <- select_data %>% select(ZEROSUM_1:ZEROSUM_11)

# Check the correlation matrix first
cor_matrix <- cor(df.ZEROSUM, use = "complete.obs")
print(cor_matrix)

             ZEROSUM_1   ZEROSUM_2   ZEROSUM_3  ZEROSUM_4  ZEROSUM_5  ZEROSUM_6
ZEROSUM_1   1.00000000  0.43662684 -0.03261724  0.3680909  0.3538982  0.2743939
ZEROSUM_2   0.43662684  1.00000000  0.35979142 -0.0778524 -0.1393604 -0.1438555
ZEROSUM_3  -0.03261724  0.35979142  1.00000000 -0.1564134 -0.1777584 -0.3081725
ZEROSUM_4   0.36809092 -0.07785240 -0.15641336  1.0000000  0.6668636  0.6258962
ZEROSUM_5   0.35389818 -0.13936041 -0.17775839  0.6668636  1.0000000  0.6654512
ZEROSUM_6   0.27439391 -0.14385553 -0.30817247  0.6258962  0.6654512  1.0000000
ZEROSUM_7   0.01894205 -0.20331507 -0.27374003  0.3719825  0.5178299  0.6748205
ZEROSUM_8   0.27433603 -0.10625351 -0.07021921  0.6095818  0.6324503  0.5725415
ZEROSUM_9   0.33387921  0.02668208 -0.15198671  0.6507092  0.6464855  0.5975344
ZEROSUM_10  0.24343746 -0.21086624 -0.24451041  0.6240588  0.8041392  0.7373103
ZEROSUM_11  0.26363785 -0.08650237 -0.30802158  0.5424319  0.6199693  0.7130434
             ZEROSUM_7   ZEROSUM_8   ZEROSUM_9 ZEROSUM_10  ZEROSUM_11
ZEROSUM_1   0.01894205  0.27433603  0.33387921  0.2434375  0.26363785
ZEROSUM_2  -0.20331507 -0.10625351  0.02668208 -0.2108662 -0.08650237
ZEROSUM_3  -0.27374003 -0.07021921 -0.15198671 -0.2445104 -0.30802158
ZEROSUM_4   0.37198255  0.60958177  0.65070923  0.6240588  0.54243189
ZEROSUM_5   0.51782993  0.63245027  0.64648546  0.8041392  0.61996928
ZEROSUM_6   0.67482051  0.57254154  0.59753440  0.7373103  0.71304335
ZEROSUM_7   1.00000000  0.48284327  0.40928342  0.6724535  0.61062282
ZEROSUM_8   0.48284327  1.00000000  0.58551359  0.6515274  0.51697883
ZEROSUM_9   0.40928342  0.58551359  1.00000000  0.6139292  0.52022138
ZEROSUM_10  0.67245352  0.65152735  0.61392915  1.0000000  0.69723135
ZEROSUM_11  0.61062282  0.51697883  0.52022138  0.6972313  1.00000000

# Determine number of factors using scree plot and parallel analysis
scree(df.ZEROSUM)

wrapped_fa_parallel <- paste(strwrap(capture.output(fa.parallel(df.ZEROSUM, fa = "fa")), width = 80), collapse = "\n")

cat(wrapped_fa_parallel, "\n")

Parallel analysis suggests that the number of factors = 2 and the number of
components = NA 

# Run 2-factor factor analysis (adjust nfactors based on scree plot/parallel analysis)
fa_result <- fa(df.ZEROSUM, 
                nfactors = 2,  # adjust this number based on your analysis
                rotate = "promax",
                fm = "ml")  # maximum likelihood

# View results
print(fa_result)

Factor Analysis using method =  ml
Call: fa(r = df.ZEROSUM, nfactors = 2, rotate = "promax", fm = "ml")
Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
             ML1   ML2   h2   u2 com
ZEROSUM_1   0.48  0.65 0.55 0.45 1.8
ZEROSUM_2  -0.02  0.65 0.42 0.58 1.0
ZEROSUM_3  -0.21  0.29 0.15 0.85 1.8
ZEROSUM_4   0.78  0.17 0.59 0.41 1.1
ZEROSUM_5   0.86  0.04 0.74 0.26 1.0
ZEROSUM_6   0.82 -0.11 0.70 0.30 1.0
ZEROSUM_7   0.62 -0.35 0.58 0.42 1.6
ZEROSUM_8   0.74  0.05 0.53 0.47 1.0
ZEROSUM_9   0.76  0.18 0.57 0.43 1.1
ZEROSUM_10  0.87 -0.15 0.82 0.18 1.1
ZEROSUM_11  0.76 -0.09 0.60 0.40 1.0

                       ML1  ML2
SS loadings           5.13 1.15
Proportion Var        0.47 0.10
Cumulative Var        0.47 0.57
Proportion Explained  0.82 0.18
Cumulative Proportion 0.82 1.00

 With factor correlations of 
      ML1   ML2
ML1  1.00 -0.17
ML2 -0.17  1.00

Mean item complexity =  1.2
Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.

df null model =  55  with the objective function =  6.71 with Chi Square =  547.09
df of  the model are 34  and the objective function was  0.66 

The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is  0.05 
The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is  0.06 

The harmonic n.obs is  87 with the empirical chi square  24.84  with prob <  0.87 
The total n.obs was  87  with Likelihood Chi Square =  53.2  with prob <  0.019 

Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability =  0.936
RMSEA index =  0.08  and the 90 % confidence intervals are  0.033 0.121
BIC =  -98.64
Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
Measures of factor score adequacy             
                                                   ML1  ML2
Correlation of (regression) scores with factors   0.97 0.84
Multiple R square of scores with factors          0.94 0.71
Minimum correlation of possible factor scores     0.88 0.42

fa_result$loadings

Loadings:
           ML1    ML2   
ZEROSUM_1   0.485  0.652
ZEROSUM_2          0.647
ZEROSUM_3  -0.214  0.293
ZEROSUM_4   0.780  0.167
ZEROSUM_5   0.864       
ZEROSUM_6   0.815 -0.106
ZEROSUM_7   0.619 -0.352
ZEROSUM_8   0.738       
ZEROSUM_9   0.765  0.182
ZEROSUM_10  0.871 -0.148
ZEROSUM_11  0.755       

                 ML1   ML2
SS loadings    5.143 1.160
Proportion Var 0.468 0.105
Cumulative Var 0.468 0.573

# View factor loadings
fa_result$loadings

Loadings:
           ML1    ML2   
ZEROSUM_1   0.485  0.652
ZEROSUM_2          0.647
ZEROSUM_3  -0.214  0.293
ZEROSUM_4   0.780  0.167
ZEROSUM_5   0.864       
ZEROSUM_6   0.815 -0.106
ZEROSUM_7   0.619 -0.352
ZEROSUM_8   0.738       
ZEROSUM_9   0.765  0.182
ZEROSUM_10  0.871 -0.148
ZEROSUM_11  0.755       

                 ML1   ML2
SS loadings    5.143 1.160
Proportion Var 0.468 0.105
Cumulative Var 0.468 0.573

# Get factor scores
factor_scores <- fa_result$scores

Reliability of Zero Sum Social Identity Beliefs

Reliability analysis   
Call: psych::alpha(x = select_data[, c("ZEROSUM_4", "ZEROSUM_5", "ZEROSUM_6", 
    "ZEROSUM_7", "ZEROSUM_8", "ZEROSUM_9", "ZEROSUM_10", "ZEROSUM_11")])

  raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N   ase mean  sd median_r
      0.93      0.93    0.93      0.61  12 0.012  3.1 1.4     0.62

    95% confidence boundaries 
         lower alpha upper
Feldt      0.9  0.93  0.95
Duhachek   0.9  0.93  0.95

 Reliability if an item is dropped:
           raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r  S/N alpha se  var.r med.r
ZEROSUM_4       0.92      0.92    0.92      0.62 11.2    0.013 0.0085  0.62
ZEROSUM_5       0.91      0.91    0.91      0.59 10.3    0.015 0.0089  0.61
ZEROSUM_6       0.91      0.91    0.91      0.59 10.2    0.015 0.0098  0.61
ZEROSUM_7       0.92      0.92    0.92      0.63 12.1    0.012 0.0048  0.63
ZEROSUM_8       0.92      0.92    0.92      0.62 11.3    0.013 0.0103  0.63
ZEROSUM_9       0.92      0.92    0.92      0.62 11.4    0.013 0.0092  0.63
ZEROSUM_10      0.91      0.91    0.91      0.58  9.8    0.015 0.0077  0.61
ZEROSUM_11      0.92      0.92    0.92      0.61 11.0    0.014 0.0099  0.63

 Item statistics 
            n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean  sd
ZEROSUM_4  87  0.78  0.79  0.75   0.71  3.0 1.7
ZEROSUM_5  87  0.86  0.86  0.84   0.80  2.9 1.8
ZEROSUM_6  87  0.87  0.86  0.84   0.81  3.3 2.0
ZEROSUM_7  87  0.74  0.73  0.69   0.65  3.7 1.8
ZEROSUM_8  87  0.77  0.78  0.73   0.70  2.9 1.6
ZEROSUM_9  87  0.77  0.77  0.73   0.70  2.6 1.8
ZEROSUM_10 87  0.89  0.89  0.89   0.86  3.3 1.7
ZEROSUM_11 87  0.81  0.80  0.77   0.74  3.2 1.8

Non missing response frequency for each item
              1    2    3    4    5    6    7 miss
ZEROSUM_4  0.31 0.08 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.08 0.00    0
ZEROSUM_5  0.36 0.08 0.20 0.17 0.08 0.09 0.02    0
ZEROSUM_6  0.32 0.07 0.16 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.06    0
ZEROSUM_7  0.20 0.11 0.09 0.24 0.22 0.07 0.07    0
ZEROSUM_8  0.31 0.09 0.20 0.22 0.15 0.02 0.01    0
ZEROSUM_9  0.44 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.03    0
ZEROSUM_10 0.26 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.11 0.00    0
ZEROSUM_11 0.24 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.11 0.10 0.02    0

Reliability of Zero Sum Economic Beliefs

Reliability analysis   
Call: psych::alpha(x = select_data[, c("ZEROSUM_2", "ZEROSUM_3")])

  raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean  sd median_r
      0.53      0.53    0.36      0.36 1.1 0.1  4.8 1.2     0.36

    95% confidence boundaries 
         lower alpha upper
Feldt     0.28  0.53  0.69
Duhachek  0.33  0.53  0.73

 Reliability if an item is dropped:
          raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r  S/N alpha se var.r med.r
ZEROSUM_2      0.38      0.36    0.13      0.36 0.56       NA     0  0.36
ZEROSUM_3      0.34      0.36    0.13      0.36 0.56       NA     0  0.36

 Item statistics 
           n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean  sd
ZEROSUM_2 87  0.83  0.82  0.49   0.36  4.7 1.5
ZEROSUM_3 87  0.81  0.82  0.49   0.36  4.9 1.4

Non missing response frequency for each item
             1    2    3    4    5    6    7 miss
ZEROSUM_2 0.02 0.06 0.11 0.20 0.31 0.16 0.14    0
ZEROSUM_3 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.24 0.32 0.17 0.15    0

Factor Analysis of Neoliberal Mindset

          NEOLIB_1  NEOLIB_2  NEOLIB_3
NEOLIB_1 1.0000000 0.3945089 0.4163453
NEOLIB_2 0.3945089 1.0000000 0.6382158
NEOLIB_3 0.4163453 0.6382158 1.0000000

Reliability analysis   
Call: psych::alpha(x = df.NEOLIB)

  raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N   ase mean  sd median_r
      0.74      0.74    0.67      0.48 2.8 0.046  4.5 1.1     0.42

    95% confidence boundaries 
         lower alpha upper
Feldt     0.63  0.74  0.82
Duhachek  0.65  0.74  0.83

 Reliability if an item is dropped:
         raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
NEOLIB_1      0.78      0.78    0.64      0.64 3.5    0.047    NA  0.64
NEOLIB_2      0.57      0.59    0.42      0.42 1.4    0.087    NA  0.42
NEOLIB_3      0.55      0.57    0.39      0.39 1.3    0.092    NA  0.39

 Item statistics 
          n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean  sd
NEOLIB_1 87  0.70  0.75  0.51   0.45  4.9 1.1
NEOLIB_2 87  0.86  0.84  0.73   0.63  4.3 1.4
NEOLIB_3 87  0.87  0.85  0.75   0.65  4.2 1.4

Non missing response frequency for each item
            1    2    3    4    5    6 miss
NEOLIB_1 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.23 0.36 0.32    0
NEOLIB_2 0.03 0.07 0.16 0.25 0.23 0.25    0
NEOLIB_3 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.25 0.26 0.21    0

Loadings:
         ML1  
NEOLIB_1 0.507
NEOLIB_2 0.778
NEOLIB_3 0.821

                 ML1
SS loadings    1.536
Proportion Var 0.512

Appendix B: Detailed Inferential Tests Output

Comparing Zero-Sum Beliefs (Paired t-test)

    Paired t-test

data:  select_data$ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC and select_data$ZEROSUM_IDENTITY
t = 7.6939, df = 86, p-value = 2.191e-11
alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
 1.278659 2.169617
sample estimates:
mean difference 
       1.724138 

Zero-Sum Beliefs by Gender (t-test)

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: ZEROSUM_1 by GENDER_MALE
t = 1.1623, df = 83.162, p-value = 0.2484
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group 0 and group 1 is
not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-0.2932078 1.1177321
sample estimates:
mean in group 0 mean in group 1
4.139535 3.727273
 

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: ZEROSUM_ECONOMIC by GENDER_MALE
t = 0.25142, df = 78.411, p-value = 0.8021
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group 0 and group 1 is
not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-0.4497205 0.5797416
sample estimates:
mean in group 0 mean in group 1
4.860465 4.795455
 

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: ZEROSUM_IDENTITY by GENDER_MALE
t = -0.084542, df = 84.14, p-value = 0.9328
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group 0 and group 1 is
not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-0.646416 0.593694
sample estimates:
mean in group 0 mean in group 1
3.090116 3.116477
 

Zero-Sum Beliefs by Political Party Affiliation

Gain vs. Loss (shapiro test & kruskal-Wallis test)

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4       p
  <chr>              <dbl>
1 Asian            0.186  
2 Black            0.188  
3 Mixed/Other      0.0792 
4 White            0.00614

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_1 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 0.98958, df = 2, p-value = 0.6097

Poor vs. Rich (shapiro test & kruskal-Wallis test)

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4       p
  <chr>              <dbl>
1 Asian            0.0529 
2 Black            0.0242 
3 Mixed/Other      0.271  
4 White            0.00261

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_2 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 8.7544, df = 2, p-value = 0.01256

Wealth few vs. many

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4        p
  <chr>               <dbl>
1 Asian            0.142   
2 Black            0.122   
3 Mixed/Other      0.0309  
4 White            0.000645

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_3 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 3.0924, df = 2, p-value = 0.2131

Women vs. Men

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4        p
  <chr>               <dbl>
1 Asian            0.00208 
2 Black            0.00993 
3 Mixed/Other      0.170   
4 White            0.000280

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_4 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 8.9193, df = 2, p-value = 0.01157

Minorities vs. Whites

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4        p
  <chr>               <dbl>
1 Asian            0.00578 
2 Black            0.0215  
3 Mixed/Other      0.0254  
4 White            0.000836

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_5 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 12.418, df = 2, p-value = 0.002011

Transgender vs. Cisgender

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4        p
  <chr>               <dbl>
1 Asian            0.00682 
2 Black            0.0606  
3 Mixed/Other      0.0491  
4 White            0.000130

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_6 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 14.831, df = 2, p-value = 0.0006018

Undocumented vs. Citizens

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4       p
  <chr>              <dbl>
1 Asian            0.129  
2 Black            0.00395
3 Mixed/Other      0.109  
4 White            0.0148 

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_7 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 16.375, df = 2, p-value = 0.0002781

Paywomen vs. men

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4        p
  <chr>               <dbl>
1 Asian            0.0342  
2 Black            0.0339  
3 Mixed/Other      0.0334  
4 White            0.000167

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_8 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 12.36, df = 2, p-value = 0.002071

LGBTQ vs. Religious

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4          p
  <chr>                 <dbl>
1 Asian            0.000507  
2 Black            0.260     
3 Mixed/Other      0.00386   
4 White            0.00000935

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_9 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 12.279, df = 2, p-value = 0.002156

Disabilities vs. Non-disabilities

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4        p
  <chr>               <dbl>
1 Asian            0.0383  
2 Black            0.0123  
3 Mixed/Other      0.119   
4 White            0.000296

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_10 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 18.514, df = 2, p-value = 9.546e-05

Healthcare vs. Private

# A tibble: 4 × 2
  RACIALIDENTITY.4       p
  <chr>              <dbl>
1 Asian            0.130  
2 Black            0.111  
3 Mixed/Other      0.0327 
4 White            0.00226

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  ZEROSUM_11 by POLITICALPARTY
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 11.577, df = 2, p-value = 0.003062

References

Andrews-Fearon, P., & Davidai, S. (2023). Is status a zero-sum game? Zero-sum beliefs increase people’s preference for dominance but not prestige. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(2), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001282

Barber, M., & Pope, J. C. (2024). The Crucial Role of Race in Twenty-First Century US Political Realignment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 88(1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad063

Boland, F. K., & Davidai, S. (2024). Zero-sum beliefs and the avoidance of political conversations. Communications Psychology, 2(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00095-4

Brown, N. D., Jacoby-Senghor, D. S., & Raymundo, I. (2022). If you rise, I fall: Equality is prevented by the misperception that it harms advantaged groups. Science Advances, 8(18), eabm2385. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm2385

Chinoy, S., Nunn, N., Sequeira, S., & Stantcheva, S. (2023). Zero-sum Thinking and the Roots of US Political Differences (w31688; p. w31688). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31688

Davidai, S., & Ongis, M. (2019). The politics of zero-sum thinking: The relationship between political ideology and the belief that life is a zero-sum game. Science Advances, 5(12), eaay3761. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3761

Davis, S., & Sequeira, S. (2024). Zero-Sum Thinking: Roots And Policy Implications. Hoover Institution. https://www.hoover.org/research/zero-sum-thinking-roots-and-policy-implications

Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The Immigration Dilemma: The Role of Perceived Group Competition, Ethnic Prejudice, and National Identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00220

Hornborg, A. (2003). Cornucopia or Zero-Sum Game? The Epistemology of Sustainability. Journal of World-Systems Research, 205–216. https://doi.org/10.5195/jwsr.2003.245

Meyer, N. (2025). The Democrats Embrace Dealignment. Catalyst, 8(4), 8–51.

Nadeem, R. (2024, April 9). Changing Partisan Coalitions in a Politically Divided Nation. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/changing-partisan-coalitions-in-a-politically-divided-nation/

Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2011). Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 215–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406922

Rasmussen, R., Levari, D. E., Akhtar, M., Crittle, C. S., Gately, M., Pagan, J., Brennen, A., Cashman, D., Wulff, A. N., Norton, M. I., Sommers, S. R., & Urry, H. L. (2022). 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. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(6), 1800–1810. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221082111

Różycka-Tran, J., Boski, P., & Wojciszke, B. (2015). Belief in a Zero-Sum Game as a Social Axiom: A 37-Nation Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(4), 525–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115572226

Wickham, H., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., & Grolemund, G. (2016). Whole game – R for Data Science (2e). https://r4ds.hadley.nz/whole-game.html

Wilkins, C. L., Wellman, J. D., Babbitt, L. G., Toosi, N. R., & Schad, K. D. (2015). You can win but I can’t lose: Bias against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs about discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.10.008

Wojciszke, B., Baryła, W., & Różycka, J. (2009). Wiara w życie jako grę o sumie zerowej [Zero-Sum Game Belief]. In Między przeszłością a przyszłością. Szkice z psychologii politycznej [Between the past and the future. Essays from political psychology] (pp. 179–188). Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences Press.

Wong, Y. J., Klann, E. M., Bijelić, N., & Aguayo, F. (2017). The link between men’s zero-sum gender beliefs and mental health: Findings from Chile and Croatia. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000035