CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 114Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Zero-Sum Bias: Perceived Competition Despite Unlimited Resources

Open access
Meegan, Daniel V.·2010·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00191PMC PMC3153800
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Zero-sum bias describes intuitively judging a situation to be zero-sum (i.e., resources gained by one party are matched by corresponding losses to another party) when it is actually non-zero-sum. The experimental participants were students at a university where students' grades are determined by how the quality of their work compares to a predetermined standard of quality rather than to the quality of the work produced by other students. This creates a non-zero-sum situation in which high grades are an unlimited resource. In three experiments, participants were shown the grade distribution after a majority of the students in a course had completed an assigned presentation, and asked to predict the grade of the next presenter. When many high grades had already been given, there was a corresponding increase in low grade predictions. This suggests a zero-sum bias, in which people perceive a competition for a limited resource despite unlimited resource availability. Interestingly, when many low grades had already been given, there was not a corresponding increase in high grade predictions. This suggests that a zero-sum heuristic is only applied in response to the allocation of desirable resources. A plausible explanation for the findings is that a zero-sum heuristic evolved as a cognitive adaptation to enable successful intra-group competition for limited resources. Implications for understanding inter-group interaction are also discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00191

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People often default to thinking that someone else's gain, especially someone from a competing group, necessitates a loss to themselves, and vice versa.

    “People often default to thinking that someone else's gain-especially someone from a competing group-necessitates a loss to themselves, and vice versa 166,167 .”

    From Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (2020) · cites this paper as [167]

    The Discussion’s ‘Societal implications’ section describes a zero-sum heuristic in which an outgroup’s gain is perceived as an ingroup loss. But the Experiment 2 Results say the bias was unidirectional: gains prompted expectations of losses, while losses did not prompt expectations of gains. The claim’s ‘vice versa’ is therefore not supported. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Esses V. M. Hodson G. Dovidio J. F. (2003). “Public attitudes towards immigrants and immigration: determinants and policy implications,” in Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century, eds Beach C. M. Green A. G. Reitz J. G. (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press), 507– 535
  2. Gigerenzer G. Todd P. M. the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart (New York: Oxford University Press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Meegan, D. V.
Affiliations
University of Guelph (CA)
Corresponding author
Meegan, Daniel V.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2010
Volume
1
Pages
191-191
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00191
PMC
PMC3153800
OpenAlex
W2030747588
Cited by
114
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
perceived competition, grade prediction, grade distribution, cognitive adaptation, intergroup interaction, resource allocation, social cognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review