Zero-Sum Beliefs About the Human–Nature Relationship: The Role of Social Dominance Orientation, Tolerance of Ambiguity, and Need for Cognition

Comment

Response

1. In the introduction, the authors refer to two recent contributions, while it would be appropriate to extend the contextualization of the construct an discuss the relevance of the psychosocial factors that influence these beliefs.

The Zero-sum Beliefs about human-nature relations is a recent construct with relevant implications in social psychology. I think the paper is an interesting contribution as it investigates the influence of psychosocial factors on this cognitive bias. However, I believe it would be useful to explore the topic in greater depth in the theoretical section in order to gain a clearer understanding of the relevance of the results. In the introduction, it might be useful to understand how the construct has been explored so far and on what epistemic assumptions it is based. It would also be useful to specify from a methodological point of view how this construct has been examined.

Thank you for supporting our research.
We have extended the discussion of the ZSB-NH construct in the Introduction, including considering the epistemic assumptions underpinning it. We have included consideration of this in the Introduction, where we highlight that research on zero-sum beliefs has largely been correlational, and that zero-sum beliefs can reflect a cognitive bias characterised by confirmation bias, where individuals choose to engage with information that supports their beliefs, rather than challenging them.

2. The psychosocial factors investigated refer to different levels of analysis and interpretation (see Doise or Bronfenbrenner model). It might be useful to explain these choices in the introduction.

This is a good point, thank you for raising it. We have included a brief explanation of these choices in the Introduction. In particular, we highlight the use of a multilevel framework to examine dispositional traits (need for cognition, tolerance of ambiguity) and ideological predictors (social dominance orientation).

3. I think it would also be useful to explore the subscales of the dimensions and verify whether there are different contributions between subscales and try to discuss che development of the research more anchored to the constructs analysed.

Thank you for this interesting suggestion. We have redone the hierarchical multiple regression, including the two subscales of SDO (Dominance, Egalitarianism). Interestingly, this showed SDO-Egalitarianism, but not SDO-Dominance predict ZSB-NH (in a model including Age, Gender, Need for Cognition, and Tolerance of Ambiguity).

We have included a mention of this in the Results section, and included the write up of this analysis in the Supplementary Materials, as well as integrated supporting discussion into the Introduction and Discussion sections.

4. For the methodology and analysis, I would suggest including information on sampling methods and ethical principles of research in the supplementary material.

We have included this information in the supplementary materials; thank you for recommending this.

5. In both the tables, it would be appropriate to include the full names of the variables in a footnote.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have included this information in the notes to both tables.

6. In the revision, I recommend also checking the bibliographical references, as sometimes a work is cited repeatedly in a few lines (see lines 80-88).

Thank you for noticing this. We have not removed in-text citations in this instance, as APA 7 referencing style specifies to provide a citation when the source differs from the most recently cited source.

7. I recommend revising the opening of the abstract in order to contextualize the contribution.

Thank you for suggesting this improvement. We have revised the opening in the Abstract to incorporate this change.

Comment

Response

1. The introduction presents zero-sum beliefs as a cognitive bias yet treats the human–nature relationship largely descriptively. It would benefit from engaging political psychology frameworks such as system justification theory and social dominance theory to explain why some individuals perceive environmental gains as human losses.

Thank you for raising this important point. We have integrated System Justification Theory (Jost & van der Toorn, 2012) and Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001) to support the discussion of relevant constructs, in particular SDO.

2. The sample derives from a convenience recruitment via social media and snowballing, resulting in an older and highly educated cohort (mean age 52.77, 33.8% postgraduate). This limits external validity and may bias estimates of cognitive style. It is therefore necessary to discuss how these demographics may affect ZSB-NH.

Thank you for highlighting this point. We have made this discussion in the Limitations more explicit. We provide some examples, such as that SDO can differ across populations and contexts, and that age is known to positively relate to our predictor variables.

3. The analytic strategy uses a two-step hierarchical regression controlling for age and gender. It could be better to test for interactions between predictors—particularly whether high need for cognition (or tolerance for ambiguity) buffers the effect of SDO on zero-sum beliefs.

This is an insightful suggestion, thank you. We have conducted these analyses testing, in separate analyses, whether SDOxNeed for Cognition, or SDOxTolerance of Ambiguity account for additional variance (after including age, gender, and SDO). We likewise examined whether there were significant interactions between either SDO subscale (Dominance, Egalitarianism) with either Need for Cognition, or Tolerance of Ambiguity. No significant interactions were found. This has been mentioned in the Results section, reported in the Supplementary Materials, and considered briefly in the Discussion.

4. Interpretation of the results should be more cautious. The finding that only SDO predicts ZSB-NH does not imply that cognitive style is irrelevant; rather, the effect may be indirect or moderated by situational cues. Acknowledge that cross-sectional correlations cannot establish causality and discuss possible reverse relationships. The discussion might also consider whether the older age of participants and the socio-political context in Australia during data collection influenced endorsement of hierarchical ideologies.

Thank you for highlighting this. We have been more careful to highlight these points explicitly in the Limitations section.

5. Given that SDO emerged as the only significant predictor, further theoretical elaboration is needed. Explore how dominance orientation interacts with constructs such as belief in a competitive social world and right-wing authoritarianism, and whether these ideologies mediate the relationship between SDO and zero-sum beliefs. The manuscript could also discuss whether interventions should reduce dominance motives or promote egalitarian values to weaken zero-sum thinking.

Thank you for these insightful suggestions. We have provided further theoretical interpretation in the Discussion, highlighting the important role of SDO-Egalitarianism in predicting ZSB-NH. We have also included some suggestions for future research to examine factors such as belief in a competitive social world and right-wing authoritarianism to more fully understand the relationship between SDO (Egalitarianism) and ZSB-NH.

6. The study is situated within an Australian cultural and temporal context; however, the manuscript treats findings as universally applicable. Discuss cultural differences in environmental worldviews and highlight how socio-economic factors, such as indigenous ecological knowledge or collectivist social norms, might lead to different patterns of ZSB-NH. The fact that participants were predominantly older suggests generational shifts; younger cohorts might display different associations between cognitive style and environmental beliefs.

Thank you for highlighting this important point. We have given this some explicit consideration in the limitations in the discussion; however, we have kept this brief due to work count restrictions.

Comment

Response

The content of the introduction lacks supporting evidence from previous research h. In addition, the authors did not clearly identify the research gap. It should include the existing gap in the literature on this subject and the main motivation that prompted researchers to investigate this subject. It is recommended to address this gap explicitly.

Thank you for highlighting this. We have integrated more relevant research into the Introduction, including more recent research on zero-sum beliefs (e.g., Andrews-Fearon & Gotz, 2024; Davidai & Tepper, 2023, Yoo & Pensini, 2025), to provide supporting rationale for the study. We also ensured to outline the gap the current study is addressing in the Introduction.

Even though hypotheses are included in the text, I believe it's important to ensure that the hypothesis statements are clearly visible. Therefore, they should be indicated as H1, H2, etc. below the relevant paragraphs.

Thank you for this feedback. We have now included hypotheses under the relevant paragraph, as well as at the end of the Introduction.

A visual representation of the research model will also help the reader focus on the manuscript. Therefore, the research model should be included as a figure.

Thank you for this suggestion. A figure has now been included to summarise the research model. This is included at the end of the Introduction.

A more in-depth theoretical discussion should be included as to why NC and TA did not exhibit the expected effects.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have expanded this section of the discussion to highlight the seeming importance of ideological over cognitive style variables.

More concrete recommendations could be made regarding not only cultural diversity but also experimental or longitudinal designs.

This is an interesting suggestion. For reasons of word count, we have kept this brief, but have extended the suggestions around experimental and longitudinal designs in future research in the discussion.

Comment

Response

1.      The abstract requires reorganization. There are several inconsistencies: for example, there is no clear separation between the word “Abstract” , and the first sentence. Additionally, while some parts are written in bold, others are formatted normally. 

Thank you for highlighting this. These formatting errors have been corrected.

2.      Some statements in the abstract are academically not common (in the abstract). For instance, “X was expected to positively predict Y” and “were expected to negatively predict” . Such claims should not be made in the abstract.

Thank you. We have removed mentioning specific predictions in the Abstract.

3.      The inclusion of detailed statistical values (such as, β = .55,  ...) in the abstract is unnecessary. These details should be reserved for the results section .

Thank you. We have removed the statistics from the Abstract.

4.      The abstract uses too many abbreviations, which reduces readability and disrupts the flow. Consider limiting abbreviations to only the most essential ones and use full variable name when possible.

Thank you for highlighting this. We have reduced the use of acronyms in the Abstract, keeping just ZSB-NH and SDO.
ZSB-NH is the most lengthy, and SDO is commonly utilised in the broader literature.

1. In the introduction, more recent and relevant literature (especially from 2025) should be incorporated to ensure that the study has considered the findings of the most recent literature in the filed .

Thank you for highlighting this. We have integrated more relevant research into the Introduction, including more recent research on zero-sum beliefs (e.g., Andrews-Fearon & Gotz, 2024; Davidai & Tepper, 2023, Yoo & Pensini, 2025), to provide supporting rationale for the study.

1. The research gaps and contributions of the study need to be highlighted more explicitly in the introduction. This will clarify the novelty and importance of the research .

Thank you for raising this. We have more clearly specify the research gaps the current study is addressing in the Introduction section.

1. Including a figure (this is missing now)that presents the proposed model can enhance clarity and allow readers to better understand the study design.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have included a figure to visually present the model tested in this study. This is presented at the end of the Introduction.

1. The paper currently lacks a solid theoretical framework. Strengthening this section would provide stronger grounding for the hypotheses and overall research.

Thank you for raising this important point. We have integrated System Justification Theory (Jost & van der Toorn, 2012) and Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001) to support the discussion of relevant constructs, in particular SDO.

1. The hypotheses should be numbered and presented separately (from the preceding text).

Thank you. We have numbered the hypotheses and presented them separately from the preceding text.

1. In the methodology, it is not stated how common method bias was addressed. Please clarify the procedures or statistical tests used .

This is a good point, thank you for highlighting this. We addressed common method bias by counterbalancing the presentation of the scales, and highlighted the anonymous nature of the study on the explanatory statement presented to participants at the beginning of the study. These details are included in the Method (Procedure) and Supplementary Materials (Extra detail relating to sampling method and ethical principles).

See manuscript with my edits (I have added a comment as to where I addressed each part).

1. A table that presents the demographic characteristics of the participants should be included in the result section to allow readers to better understand the sample.

Thank you for highlighting this. We have included a table in the Supplementary Materials detailing demographic information on the sample.

1. The discussion section should be reorganized. It is recommended to first present and discuss the main findings, then compare them with previous literature , and finally provide both theoretical and practical implications.

Thank you for this suggestion; however, we have not majorly reorganised the discussion section. This was because other peer-reviewers did not similarly highlight this as a point of concern, and integrating revisions into the discussion section, in our opinion, worked well within the current structure.

1. The implications of the study should be expanded to better show the contribution of the study, both theoretically and practically. In this version, how the academia can use the results of this study and how practitioners can benefit from the outcomes of this research are not adequately available in the implications section.

Thank you for this suggestion; we have expanded and increased clarity in the implications discussion to consider more clearly the theoretical implications and practical implications.