Background

This is a preregistered replication of our main effect: Class Zero-Sum Beliefs -> Support for progressive policy.

Procedure

Participants answered two randomly-ordered blocks: (1) Worldviews; and (2) Policy support.

In the Worldviews block, the following measures were randomly-ordered: (1) class-based zero-sum beliefs; (2) general zero-sum mindset; (3) class solidarity; (4) linked fate; and (5) social dominance orientation.

In the policy support block, they read about one of six policy proposals, and then indicated, in random order: (1) support for that policy; and (2) perceived impact on upper class and working class people.

Analysis plan

Linear Model 1: Support for policy as the outcome variable; Class Zero-Sum Beliefs as the primary predictor.
Linear Model 2: Support for policy as the outcome variable; Class Zero-Sum Beliefs as the primary predictor; general zero-sum mindset as a control variable.
Linear Model 3: Support for policy as the outcome variable; Class Zero-Sum Beliefs as the primary predictor; general zero-sum mindset, conservatism, and social dominance orientation.
Linear Model 4: Support for policy as the outcome variable; Class Zero-Sum Beliefs as the primary predictor; general zero-sum mindset, conservatism, social dominance orientation, income, education, age, race, gender, and self-reported social class control variables.

Exploratory analyses

Same models as the ones in the analysis plan, but with class solidarity as the outcome instead of policy support.
Same models as the ones in the analysis plan, but for each individual policy separately.
Mediation model: Class-based zero-sum beliefs as the predictor; class solidarity as the mediator; support for policy as the outcome.
Mediation model: Class-based zero-sum beliefs as the predictor; perceived impact on class groups as the mediator; support for policy as the outcome.
Parallel mediation model: Class-based zero-sum beliefs as the predictor; class solidarity (M1) and perceived impact on class groups (M2) as parallel mediators; support for policy as the outcome.

Attention Check

But first, let’s exclude participants who failed a very simple attention check.

att_1	N	Perc
0	13	2.15
1	590	97.68
NA	1	0.17

Alright, that leaves us with 590. Cool.

Demographics

Race

race	N	Perc
American Indian or Alaska Native	3	0.51
Asian	39	6.61
Black or African American	69	11.69
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin	32	5.42
Middle Eastern or North African	2	0.34
White	401	67.97
multiracial	44	7.46

Gender

gender	N	Perc
man	296	50.17
other	4	0.68
woman	290	49.15

Age

age_mean	age_sd
38.2	11.84

Education

edu	N	Perc
noHS	2	0.34
GED	157	26.61
2yearColl	66	11.19
4yearColl	260	44.07
MA	85	14.41
PHD	17	2.88
NA	3	0.51

Class

class	N	Perc
Lower Class	36	6.10
Working Class	133	22.54
Lower Middle Class	121	20.51
Middle Class	208	35.25
Upper Middle Class	88	14.92
Upper Class	4	0.68

Income

Politics

Ideology

Participants were asked about the extent to which they subscribe to the following ideologies on a scale of 1-7 (select NA if unfamiliar): Conservatism, Liberalism, Democratic Socialism, Libertarianism, Progressivism.

Party ID

party_id	N	Perc
Democrat	287	48.64
Independent	174	29.49
Republican	129	21.86

Vote in 2020

vote_2020	N	Perc
Joe Biden	329	55.76
Donald Trump	149	25.25
I did not vote	97	16.44
Third-party candidate	15	2.54

Vote in 2024

vote_2024	N	Perc
Joe Biden	266	45.08
Donald Trump	153	25.93
I will not vote	79	13.39
Other	42	7.12
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.	30	5.08
Jill Stein	15	2.54
Cornel West	5	0.85

Measures

Class-based Zero-Sum Beliefs

Adapted from Chinoy et al., 2022: https://nathannunn.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2022/12/Zero_Sum_US_Political_Divides.pdf

If the upper class becomes richer, this comes at the expense of the working class
If the upper class makes more money, then the working class makes less money
If the upper class does better economically, this does NOT come at the expense of the working class [R]

alpha = 0.9

Linked Fate

What happens to working class people in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree)

SDO

An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom
Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups
No one group should dominate in society [R]
Groups at the bottom are just as deserving as groups at the top [R]
Group equality should not be our primary goal
It is unjust to try to make groups equal
We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups [R]
We should work to give all groups an equal chance to succeed [R]

alpha = 0.91

Zero-Sum Mindset

The success of one person is usually the failure of another person
Life is such that when one person gains, someone else has to lose
When someone does much for others, they lose
In most situations, different people’s interests are incompatible
When one person is winning, it does not mean that someone else is losing [R]
Life is like a tennis game - A person wins only when another person loses
One person’s success is not another person’s failure [R]

alpha = 0.89

Class Solidarity

I feel a sense of solidarity with the working class
I support policy that helps the working class
I stand united with the working class
Policies negatively affecting the working class should be changed
More people should know about how the working class are negatively affected by economic issues
It’s important to challenge the power structures that disadvantage the working class

alpha = 0.91

skewed af

Policy Support

Participants saw one of six policy descriptions:

Minimum wage: Congress has not increased the federal minimum wage, currently set at 7.25 dollars, since 2009. Some Congresspeople are proposing a policy that would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour by 2025. After 2025, the minimum wage would be adjusted each year to keep pace with growth in the median wage, a measure of wages for typical workers.
Student debt: Some Congresspeople are proposing a policy that would help to address the student loan debt crisis by forgiving up to 50,000 dollars in loans per borrower. Approximately 42 million Americans, or about 1 in 6 American adults, owe a cumulative 1.6 trillion dollars in student loans. Student loans are now the second-largest slice of household debt after mortgages, bigger than credit card debt.
Housing: Some Congresspeople are proposing a housing affordability policy that would help ensure that every American has a place to live. The policy would allow for smaller, lower cost homes like duplexes, townhouses, and garden apartments to be built in middle- and upper-class neighborhoods, and would build new nonprofit homes.
Climate: Some Congresspeople are proposing a Green New Deal bill which would phase out the use of fossil fuels, with the government providing clean energy jobs for people who can’t find employment in the private sector. All jobs would pay at least 15 dollars an hour, and include healthcare benefits and collective bargaining rights. This would be paid for by raising taxes on incomes over 200,000 dollars a year by 15 percentage points.
Healthcare: Some Congresspeople are proposing a bill which would expand Medicare to every American, with the government providing health insurance to every American citizen. All out of pocket costs such as copays and premiums would be eliminated. This policy would change Americans’ insurance provider but would not prevent them from accessing medical services already available to them under their current plan. Individuals could supplement the public plan with a private option if they wanted.
Marijuana: Some Congresspeople are proposing a bill which would lead to comprehensive marijuana reform legislation. It would help rebuild communities that have been the most impacted by marijuana criminalization under federal law. It would also remove marijuana from the federal list of banned substances, allowing states to set their own marijuana policies. It would also create pathways to erase previous convictions and prohibit discrimination based on the use or possession of marijuana.

Support

To what extent do you oppose or support this policy? (1 = Strongly Oppose to 7 = Strongly Support)

Perceived impact

In your opinion, what is the impact of this policy on… (-3 = Extremely Harmful to 3 = Extremely Helpful)
impact_wc: The average working class person
impact_uc: The average upper class person

I took the sum score of the two to get an actual zero-sum measure. I’ll show it broken down AND summed below

## `summarise()` has grouped output by 'policy'. You can override using the
## `.groups` argument.

Analysis

Correlation Matrix

Analysis Plan

Model 1

Support for policy as the outcome variable; Class Zero-Sum Beliefs as the primary predictor.

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-26)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	3.04	[2.60, 3.49]	13.44	588	< .001
Zs class	0.48	[0.39, 0.57]	10.35	588	< .001

Model 2

Support for policy as the outcome variable; Class Zero-Sum Beliefs as the primary predictor; general zero-sum mindset as a control variable.

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-27)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	3.48	[2.99, 3.98]	13.76	587	< .001
Zs class	0.54	[0.45, 0.64]	11.10	587	< .001
Zsm	-0.25	[-0.38, -0.12]	-3.73	587	< .001

Model 3

Support for policy as the outcome variable; Class Zero-Sum Beliefs as the primary predictor; general zero-sum mindset, conservatism, and social dominance orientation.

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-28)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	6.23	[5.63, 6.83]	20.37	560	< .001
Zs class	0.24	[0.14, 0.33]	4.81	560	< .001
Zsm	-0.06	[-0.19, 0.06]	-1.01	560	.313
SDO	-0.54	[-0.66, -0.43]	-9.27	560	< .001
Ideo con	-0.19	[-0.27, -0.11]	-4.79	560	< .001

Model 4

Support for policy as the outcome variable; Class Zero-Sum Beliefs as the primary predictor; general zero-sum mindset, conservatism, social dominance orientation, income, education, age, race, gender, and self-reported social class control variables.

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-29)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	6.52	[5.58, 7.46]	13.59	545	< .001
Zs class	0.24	[0.14, 0.33]	4.77	545	< .001
Zsm	-0.07	[-0.20, 0.05]	-1.14	545	.253
SDO	-0.55	[-0.67, -0.44]	-9.21	545	< .001
Ideo con	-0.18	[-0.26, -0.10]	-4.56	545	< .001
Age	-0.01	[-0.02, 0.00]	-1.93	545	.054
Income num	-0.02	[-0.09, 0.04]	-0.70	545	.483
Edu num	0.05	[-0.07, 0.18]	0.86	545	.390
Class num	0.03	[-0.12, 0.17]	0.36	545	.719
White	-0.02	[-0.30, 0.25]	-0.17	545	.864
Man	0.03	[-0.23, 0.28]	0.20	545	.840

Woohoo. Ok. As predicted.

Exploratory Analysis

Class Solidarity as outcome

Model 1

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-30)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	4.76	[4.55, 4.97]	44.17	588	< .001
Zs class	0.25	[0.20, 0.29]	11.34	588	< .001

Model 2

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-31)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	5.02	[4.79, 5.26]	42.01	587	< .001
Zs class	0.29	[0.24, 0.33]	12.48	587	< .001
Zsm	-0.15	[-0.21, -0.09]	-4.76	587	< .001

Model 3

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-32)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	6.19	[5.93, 6.45]	46.37	560	< .001
Zs class	0.16	[0.12, 0.20]	7.59	560	< .001
Zsm	-0.05	[-0.10, 0.01]	-1.69	560	.092
SDO	-0.41	[-0.47, -0.36]	-16.22	560	< .001
Ideo con	0.04	[0.01, 0.08]	2.42	560	.016

Model 4

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-33)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	6.56	[6.15, 6.97]	31.47	545	< .001
Zs class	0.16	[0.12, 0.20]	7.43	545	< .001
Zsm	-0.04	[-0.10, 0.01]	-1.47	545	.143
SDO	-0.40	[-0.45, -0.35]	-15.31	545	< .001
Ideo con	0.04	[0.01, 0.07]	2.30	545	.022
Age	0.00	[-0.01, 0.00]	-0.14	545	.888
Income num	0.00	[-0.03, 0.03]	0.10	545	.919
Edu num	-0.05	[-0.11, 0.00]	-1.97	545	.049
Class num	-0.06	[-0.12, 0.01]	-1.74	545	.082
White	0.00	[-0.12, 0.13]	0.07	545	.943
Man	-0.03	[-0.14, 0.08]	-0.55	545	.585

Separated by policy

Minimum wage

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-34)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	5.90	[3.54, 8.25]	4.98	83	< .001
Zs class	0.29	[0.04, 0.54]	2.35	83	.021
Zsm	-0.08	[-0.40, 0.24]	-0.47	83	.641
SDO	-0.57	[-0.88, -0.27]	-3.78	83	< .001
Ideo con	-0.05	[-0.24, 0.13]	-0.59	83	.558
Age	-0.01	[-0.05, 0.03]	-0.62	83	.539
Income num	0.03	[-0.12, 0.18]	0.37	83	.710
Edu num	0.00	[-0.28, 0.29]	0.03	83	.973
Class num	0.05	[-0.31, 0.41]	0.29	83	.770
White	0.20	[-0.46, 0.85]	0.60	83	.551
Man	-0.02	[-0.64, 0.60]	-0.07	83	.947

Student debt

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-35)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	6.10	[3.68, 8.51]	5.01	83	< .001
Zs class	0.39	[0.17, 0.62]	3.43	83	< .001
Zsm	-0.33	[-0.62, -0.03]	-2.18	83	.032
SDO	-0.55	[-0.84, -0.27]	-3.84	83	< .001
Ideo con	-0.23	[-0.44, -0.02]	-2.19	83	.032
Age	0.00	[-0.03, 0.03]	-0.18	83	.854
Income num	-0.02	[-0.18, 0.15]	-0.22	83	.830
Edu num	0.06	[-0.24, 0.37]	0.41	83	.681
Class num	0.14	[-0.22, 0.50]	0.76	83	.452
White	-0.45	[-1.12, 0.22]	-1.33	83	.186
Man	0.08	[-0.61, 0.76]	0.22	83	.828

Housing

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-36)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	9.24	[6.91, 11.57]	7.90	82	< .001
Zs class	-0.17	[-0.44, 0.09]	-1.30	82	.197
Zsm	0.19	[-0.11, 0.49]	1.28	82	.203
SDO	-0.69	[-1.01, -0.37]	-4.23	82	< .001
Ideo con	-0.15	[-0.33, 0.04]	-1.57	82	.119
Age	-0.03	[-0.05, 0.00]	-1.75	82	.084
Income num	0.01	[-0.14, 0.16]	0.12	82	.908
Edu num	-0.16	[-0.43, 0.12]	-1.15	82	.255
Class num	-0.03	[-0.35, 0.28]	-0.22	82	.826
White	-0.01	[-0.67, 0.66]	-0.02	82	.982
Man	-0.05	[-0.63, 0.53]	-0.17	82	.869

Healthcare

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-37)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	4.54	[1.85, 7.22]	3.37	76	.001
Zs class	0.26	[0.00, 0.52]	2.02	76	.047
Zsm	0.13	[-0.20, 0.46]	0.79	76	.430
SDO	-0.61	[-0.90, -0.32]	-4.21	76	< .001
Ideo con	-0.23	[-0.41, -0.05]	-2.51	76	.014
Age	-0.01	[-0.03, 0.02]	-0.57	76	.568
Income num	-0.10	[-0.26, 0.06]	-1.27	76	.208
Edu num	0.23	[-0.07, 0.52]	1.53	76	.131
Class num	0.35	[-0.05, 0.75]	1.76	76	.083
White	0.20	[-0.50, 0.90]	0.58	76	.565
Man	0.04	[-0.59, 0.67]	0.13	76	.900

Climate

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-38)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	7.35	[4.95, 9.74]	6.10	83	< .001
Zs class	0.32	[0.07, 0.57]	2.55	83	.013
Zsm	-0.08	[-0.45, 0.29]	-0.44	83	.661
SDO	-0.58	[-0.91, -0.26]	-3.56	83	< .001
Ideo con	-0.19	[-0.39, 0.02]	-1.82	83	.072
Age	0.00	[-0.04, 0.03]	-0.26	83	.795
Income num	-0.12	[-0.31, 0.08]	-1.18	83	.242
Edu num	-0.11	[-0.52, 0.29]	-0.57	83	.573
Class num	-0.12	[-0.54, 0.29]	-0.59	83	.557
White	-0.27	[-1.19, 0.64]	-0.59	83	.554
Man	-0.27	[-1.01, 0.46]	-0.74	83	.463

Marijuana

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-39)
Predictor	\(b\)	95% CI	\(t\)	\(\mathit{df}\)	\(p\)
Intercept	6.63	[4.42, 8.83]	5.98	83	< .001
Zs class	0.04	[-0.20, 0.28]	0.36	83	.722
Zsm	-0.20	[-0.50, 0.09]	-1.37	83	.176
SDO	-0.43	[-0.72, -0.14]	-2.92	83	.005
Ideo con	-0.15	[-0.34, 0.04]	-1.53	83	.131
Age	0.00	[-0.03, 0.02]	-0.24	83	.811
Income num	-0.05	[-0.21, 0.11]	-0.64	83	.521
Edu num	0.24	[-0.08, 0.56]	1.47	83	.145
Class num	-0.07	[-0.46, 0.32]	-0.38	83	.706
White	0.51	[-0.17, 1.19]	1.50	83	.138
Man	0.66	[0.05, 1.26]	2.16	83	.034

Mediation Model 1

Class-based zero-sum beliefs as the predictor; class solidarity as the mediator; support for policy as the outcome.

a = 0.25 (p = 0)
b = 0.8 (p = 0)
direct = 0.48 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.28 (p = 0)

Mediation Model 2

Class-based zero-sum beliefs as the predictor; perceived impact on class groups as the mediator; support for policy as the outcome.

Mediation Model 3

Class-based zero-sum beliefs as the predictor; class solidarity (M1) and perceived impact on class groups (M2) as parallel mediators; support for policy as the outcome.

a = 0.25, 0.37 (p = 0)
b = 0.48, 0.5 (p = 0)
direct = 0.48 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.17 (p = 0)

Mediation Model 4

Class-based zero-sum beliefs as the predictor; perceived impact on the working class as the mediator; support for policy as the outcome.

a = 0.28 (p = 0)
b = 0.85 (p = 0)
direct = 0.48 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.24 (p = 0)

Mediation Model 5

Class-based zero-sum beliefs as the predictor; perceived impact on the upper class as the mediator; support for policy as the outcome.

a = 0.09 (p = 0.009)
b = 0.32 (p = 0)
direct = 0.48 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.45 (p = 0)

Mediation Model 6

Class-based zero-sum beliefs as the predictor; class solidarity (M1) and perceived impact on working class (M2) as parallel mediators; support for policy as the outcome.

a = 0.25, 0.28 (p = 0)
b = 0.38, 0.79 (p = 0)
direct = 0.48 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.16 (p = 0)

Class-Based Zero-Sum Beliefs

Feb 24a: Analysis

Background

Procedure

Analysis plan

Exploratory analyses

Attention Check

Demographics

Race

Gender

Age

Education

Class

Income

Politics

Ideology

Party ID

Vote in 2020

Vote in 2024

Measures

Class-based Zero-Sum Beliefs

Linked Fate

SDO

Zero-Sum Mindset

Class Solidarity

Policy Support

Support

Perceived impact

Analysis

Correlation Matrix

Analysis Plan

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Exploratory Analysis

Class Solidarity as outcome

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Separated by policy

Minimum wage

Student debt

Housing

Healthcare

Climate

Marijuana

Mediation Model 1

Mediation Model 2

Mediation Model 3

Mediation Model 4

Mediation Model 5

Mediation Model 6