Merge branch 'main' into junyu0116

Author: Junyu0707

app.js

@@ -1,35 +1,20 @@
-1. Home (Landing Page for All Users)
-PAGE 1 — HOME 
-Main Title (H1)
-Zero-Sum Thinking and U.S. Political Differences
-Subtitle (H2)
 An interactive explainer, data dashboard, and self-assessment
-________________________________________
-The Concept in Short
+The Concept 
 Zero-sum thinking is the belief that gains for one group necessarily come at the expense of others. This belief shapes how people interpret economic change, social groups, and public policy.
-________________________________________
-Purpose
+Purpose of the Website
 This website translates the empirical findings of the publication “Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Differences” by Sahil Chinoy, Nathan Nunn, Sandra Sequeira, Stefanie Stantcheva into an interactive, public-facing educational platform. It combines conceptual explanation, empirical visualization, and self-assessment, while maintaining academic rigor, transparency, and ethical safeguards.
-________________________________________
 Why Zero-Sum Thinking 
 Beliefs about gains and losses unavoidably play a central role in social and political life. Zero-sum thinking shapes how people interpret conflict and cooperation, evaluate political leaders, respond to election outcomes, and assess policies related to redistribution, immigration, trade, and social inclusion. It helps explain why similar economic or social changes can generate cooperation and trust in some settings, but fear, polarization, or conflict in others.
 Why This Study
 The research used draws on a large-scale, carefully designed survey study by established scholars in political economy and public economics. By systematically measuring zero-sum thinking and linking it to political attitudes, the study provides one of the most comprehensive empirical frameworks to date for understanding how underlying beliefs about gains and losses contribute to political disagreement, policy resistance, and broader patterns of social cohesion and conflict.
-________________________________________
-What You Can Explore on This Site [Primary Actions]
-What Is Zero-Sum Thinking? (Conceptual Explainer)
-Learn what zero-sum thinking means and how it differs from “win-win” perspectives.
-Explore the Data (Interactive Dashboard)
-Examine aggregated charts and maps showing patterns reported in the study.
-Take the Zero-Sum Thinking Test (Self-Assessment)
-Answer a short questionnaire adapted from the research and see how your responses compare with the overall distribution.
-________________________________________
-Explore the Data [Interactive Preview (Clickable)]
-Preview selected aggregated results from the study.
-Click to open the Explore the Data page.
-________________________________________
-Source & Attribution
-All findings and data summarized here are drawn from the authors’ published research and related materials. This site presents those results for educational purposes.
-________________________________________
-Transparency Note (Small Text)
-Educational use only. Aggregated data only. No personal information is stored.
+What You Find on This Site
+What Is Zero-Sum Thinking? (Call to Action) 
+    Learn what zero-sum thinking means and how it differs from “win-win” perspectives.
+Explore the Data (Call to Action)
+    Examine aggregated charts and maps showing patterns reported in the study.
+Take the Zero-Sum Thinking Test (Call to Action)
+    Answer a short questionnaire adapted from the research and see how your responses compare with the overall distribution.
+The Research (Call to Action)
+Brief description of the research the website relies on.
+Methods and Transparency (Call to Action)
+Briefly explains for the professional user about methods employed in the original research.

content/page1-home.md

@@ -1,41 +1,35 @@
-2. What is Zero‑Sum Thinking? (For Ordinary user principally but also for researchers and policy makers)
-PAGE 2 — WHAT IS ZERO-SUM THINKING? 
 The Idea
 Zero-sum thinking is the belief that gains for one person or group must come at the expense of others. In other words, it assumes that there is a fixed amount to be shared, and that if someone gains more, someone else must lose.
 This way of thinking is common in everyday discussions about the economy, politics, and social change.
-________________________________________
 Zero-Sum Thinking vs. Shared Gains
 Not all situations involve unavoidable trade-offs. In many cases, economic growth, cooperation, or new policies can allow multiple groups to benefit at the same time.
-•	Zero-sum thinking views outcomes as a fixed pie: one group’s gain implies another group’s loss.
-•	Shared-gains (or positive-sum) thinking allows for the possibility that the overall pie can grow, so that more than one group can benefit.
+•   Zero-sum thinking views outcomes as a fixed pie: one group’s gain implies another group’s loss.
+•   Shared-gains (or positive-sum) thinking allows for the possibility that the overall pie can grow, so that more than one group can benefit.
 People may apply one or the other way of thinking depending on the issue, the context, or their personal experiences.
-________________________________________
+
 A Simple Example: The Pie/ Pizza
 Imagine a pie shared by two groups.
-•	In zero-sum thinking, the size of the pie never changes.
+•   In zero-sum thinking, the size of the pie never changes.
 If one group gets a larger slice, the other group must get a smaller one.
-•	In shared-gains (positive-sum) thinking, the pie itself can grow.
+•   In shared-gains (positive-sum) thinking, the pie itself can grow.
 Both groups can end up with larger slices, even if the shares are not equal.
 This example shows why zero-sum thinking focuses on competition over fixed resources, while other perspectives allow for cooperation, growth, or mutual benefit.
-________________________________________
 Common Examples
 Zero-sum thinking often appears in debates about:
-•	Jobs: If one group gets more jobs, others must lose out.
-•	Trade: If one country benefits from trade, another country must be harmed.
-•	Immigration: Gains for immigrants reduce opportunities for citizens.
-•	Income and wealth: If some people become richer, others must become poorer.
+•   Jobs: If one group gets more jobs, others must lose out.
+•   Trade: If one country benefits from trade, another country must be harmed.
+•   Immigration: Gains for immigrants reduce opportunities for citizens.
+•   Income and wealth: If some people become richer, others must become poorer.
 These beliefs shape how people interpret social and economic change, even when the actual outcomes may be more complex.
-________________________________________
 Why This Way of Thinking Matters
 How people understand gains and losses affects how they view social groups, political competition, and public policy. Zero-sum thinking can increase feelings of threat, competition, or unfairness between groups, while other perspectives may encourage cooperation or compromise.
 Understanding this mindset helps explain why people can react very differently to the same policies, events, or economic trends.
-________________________________________
 What Next 
-Now you either take the test or dive deeper into the research and see how researchers study and measure zero-sum thinking using survey questions. 
+You either take the test or dive deeper into the research and see how researchers study and measure zero-sum thinking using survey questions. 
 To study zero-sum thinking, researchers have asked people a small number of carefully designed questions about gains and losses in different situations. The answers are combined into a single zero-sum thinking index, which summarizes how strongly a person tends to see outcomes as zero-sum: Higher scores indicate a stronger tendency to believe a group’s gain comes at the expense of another, while lower scores indicate greater openness to the possibility of shared gains. In other words, higher score reflects a stronger “one wins, one loses” view; lower score reflects a stronger ‘both can benefit’ view.
-•	Take the Zero-Sum Thinking Test
-Answer a short questionnaire adapted from the research and see how your responses compare.
-•	Explore the Data
-View charts and maps showing aggregated patterns from the study.
-•	Learn About the Research
-Read a more detailed explanation of how zero-sum thinking is measured and analyzed.
+•   Take the Zero-Sum Thinking Test
+    Answer a short questionnaire adapted from the research and see how your responses compare.
+•   Explore the Data
+    View charts and maps showing aggregated patterns from the study.
+•   Learn About the Research
+    Read a more detailed explanation of how zero-sum thinking is measured and analyzed.

content/page2-concept.md

@@ -1,25 +1,22 @@
-3. Zero‑Sum Thinking of the Research (For researchers and policy makers)
-PAGE 3 — ZERO-SUM THINKING OF THE RESEARCH
 Purpose of the Study
 The study “Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Differences” investigates how beliefs about gains and losses shape political attitudes in the United States. Rather than focusing only on material interests or partisan identities, the research examines a deeper cognitive framework: whether individuals tend to see social and economic outcomes as zero-sum or as allowing for shared gains.
 The central claim is that zero-sum thinking is a measurable mindset that helps explain persistent political disagreement across a wide range of policy areas.
 ________________________________________
 How Zero-Sum Thinking Is Measured
 The study measures zero-sum thinking using survey questions designed to capture respondents’ beliefs about whether gains for one group come at the expense of others.
 Respondents are asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements expressing zero-sum views across different social and economic domains. Higher agreement with these statements indicates a stronger zero-sum orientation.
-Importantly, the questions are framed in general terms and do not require respondents to endorse specific policies or political parties.
 ________________________________________
 Domains Covered
 Zero-sum thinking is measured across multiple domains, including:
-•	Ethnic and social groups
+•   Ethnic and social groups
 Beliefs about whether gains for one group imply losses for others.
-•	International trade
+•   International trade
 Beliefs about whether economic gains from trade are necessarily offset by losses elsewhere.
-•	Income and economic groups
+•   Income and economic groups
 Beliefs about whether increases in wealth for some groups require others to become worse off.
-•	Citizens and non-citizens
+•   Citizens and non-citizens
 Beliefs about competition over economic opportunities and resources.
-Measuring multiple domains allows the researchers to assess whether zero-sum thinking reflects a general mindset rather than issue-specific opinions.
+Measuring multiple domains allowed the researchers to assess whether zero-sum thinking reflects a general mindset rather than issue-specific opinions.
 ________________________________________
 From Survey Responses to an Index
 Individual responses are combined into a standardized zero-sum thinking index, typically scaled from low to high values. Higher scores indicate a stronger tendency to view social and economic outcomes as zero-sum.
@@ -28,16 +25,7 @@ Details on question wording, scaling, and validation are provided in the origina
 ________________________________________
 How to Interpret the Zero-Sum Thinking Index
 The zero-sum thinking index is scaled so that higher values indicate a stronger tendency to view social and economic outcomes as zero-sum, meaning that gains for one group are perceived as coming at the expense of others. Lower values indicate a weaker zero-sum orientation and a greater openness to the possibility of shared gains.
-The index does not measure support for specific policies, political parties, or moral judgments. Instead, it captures a general belief structure about how gains and losses are understood across different contexts.
-
-Why This Approach Matters
-This measurement strategy allows researchers and policy analysts to:
-•	distinguish underlying beliefs from policy preferences,
-•	compare zero-sum thinking across demographic, social, and political groups,
-•	examine how the same mindset relates to attitudes on different policy issues,
-•	move beyond simple partisan explanations of polarization.
-By focusing on beliefs about gains and losses, the study provides a framework for understanding political disagreement that is relevant for policy design, conflict prevention, and communication strategies.
-________________________________________
+_______________________________________
 Data Transparency
 This website presents aggregated results only, based on the published study and its associated materials. Individual-level data are not displayed or stored here.
 For full methodological details, replication materials, and technical discussion, users are encouraged to consult the original publication and its appendices.

content/page3-research.md

@@ -1,53 +1,37 @@
-6. Methods & Transparency (For Researchers and Informed Users)
 PAGE 6 — METHODS & TRANSPARENCY
 Purpose of This Page
 This page explains how the research measures zero-sum thinking and how the results presented on this website are produced. It is intended to support transparency, informed interpretation, and responsible use of the findings.
 ________________________________________
 Research Design
 The study “Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Differences” uses a large-scale survey-based research design to examine how beliefs about gains and losses shape political attitudes in the United States.
-Rather than focusing only on policy positions or partisan identities, the research centers on an underlying belief structure: whether individuals tend to view social and economic outcomes as fixed and competitive (zero-sum) or as allowing for shared gains.
 ________________________________________
 Survey Data
 The analysis is based on a nationally large survey sample comprising more than 20,000 respondents. The survey was designed to capture beliefs, attitudes, and background characteristics across a wide range of social, economic, and political topics.
 In the original study, standard survey weighting procedures are applied to improve representativeness relative to the U.S. adult population.
-This website does not collect new data. It presents an educational summary of results reported in the original publication and its supplementary materials.
 ________________________________________
 Measurement of Zero-Sum Thinking
 Zero-sum thinking is measured using multiple survey questions that ask respondents to indicate their level of agreement with statements about gains and losses across different contexts. These questions are framed in general terms and do not require respondents to endorse specific political parties or policies.
 The survey items cover several domains, including:
-•	relations between social or ethnic groups,
-•	economic outcomes across income groups,
-•	international trade,
-•	competition between citizens and non-citizens.
-Measuring multiple domains allows the researchers to assess whether zero-sum thinking reflects a generalized mindset, rather than issue-specific opinions.
+•   relations between social or ethnic groups,
+•   economic outcomes across income groups,
+•   international trade,
+•   competition between citizens and non-citizens.
 ________________________________________
 Index Construction
 Responses to the zero-sum survey items are combined into a composite zero-sum thinking index. The index is constructed using standard survey research practices:
-•	responses are coded in a consistent direction,
-•	multiple items are aggregated to capture overall orientation,
-•	the resulting index is normalized for interpretability.
+•   responses are coded in a consistent direction,
+•   multiple items are aggregated to capture overall orientation,
+•   the resulting index is normalized for interpretability.
 Higher scores indicate a stronger tendency to view one group’s gains as coming at the expense of others, while lower scores indicate greater openness to the possibility of shared gains.
-The original study includes validation and robustness checks to assess the internal consistency and reliability of the index.
 ________________________________________
 Analytical Methods
 The study relies on descriptive analysis and regression-based methods to examine:
-•	how zero-sum thinking varies across demographic, social, and political groups,
-•	how it is associated with attitudes toward redistribution, immigration, trade, and other policy areas,
-•	how it relates to political polarization beyond standard explanations based on partisanship or material interests.
-Regression models are used to control for observable characteristics and to examine systematic associations between zero-sum thinking and political attitudes.
-________________________________________
-Aggregation and Visualization on This Website
-All charts and maps shown on this website use aggregated data only. Individual survey responses are neither displayed nor identifiable.
-Group averages and geographic summaries are used to illustrate broad patterns. These summaries may reflect the combined influence of many social, economic, historical, and institutional factors.
+•   how zero-sum thinking varies across demographic, social, and political groups,
+•   how it is associated with attitudes toward redistribution, immigration, trade, and other policy areas,
+•   how it relates to political polarization beyond standard explanations based on partisanship or material interests.
 ________________________________________
 Interpretation and Limits
-The findings presented here are descriptive and associational, not causal. The study does not claim that zero-sum thinking directly causes specific political outcomes.
-Differences across groups or locations should not be interpreted as statements about individuals, nor as evidence that one factor alone explains political behavior.
+The findings are descriptive and associational, not causal. The study does not claim that zero-sum thinking directly causes specific political outcomes.
 ________________________________________
 Transparency and Replicability
 The original publication provides detailed documentation of survey questions, index construction, and analytical procedures in its appendices and supplementary materials. These materials allow other researchers to evaluate, replicate, or extend the analysis.
-This website presents a transparent, educational summary of those results and directs interested readers to the original sources for full technical detail.
-________________________________________
-Why This Methodology Matters
-By combining large-scale survey data with a carefully constructed belief index, the study offers a rigorous empirical framework for understanding political disagreement that goes beyond surface-level policy preferences. The methodology allows researchers and policy makers to examine how beliefs about gains and losses relate to polarization, policy debates, and broader patterns of social conflict and cohesion.
-