Unrequited: Zero‐sum asymmetry in the political domain fuels affective polarization

Abstract Zero‐sum beliefs about political relationships—the conviction that one party's gains are inevitably offset by another party's losses—have often been cited as drivers of partisan conflicts. However, across five studies with diverse samples of U.S. residents ( n = 1383), four of which were preregistered, we find that overall zero‐sum endorsement shows weak and inconsistent associations with affective polarization. Instead, beliefs are frequently one‐sided: Many individuals endorse the idea that their political opponents' gains are harmful while rejecting the notion that their own gains come at others' expense. We refer to the strength of this outgroup‐ingroup imbalance as zero‐sum asymmetry . Across correlational and experimental studies, higher zero‐sum asymmetry reliably predicts heightened partisan animosity. At the same time, it is associated with higher civic efficacy and, in several samples, greater political participation and democratic commitment. Notably, symmetric zero‐sum endorsement is relatively rare compared to asymmetric patterns. Together, these findings highlight the directional structure of perceived political trade‐offs as a key contributor to affective polarization, with broader implications for how citizens interpret partisan competition and evaluate the health of democratic systems.