Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Naïve economic beliefs: Empirical evidence on their prevalence
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2026-2-31-51
Abstract
In making decisions, people rely on a wide variety of information — qualitative and quantitative, objective and subjective, accurate and mistaken, scientific and non-scientific. About two decades ago, researchers identified a cluster of beliefs on how the economy works that differed markedly from how it is understood in economics. These beliefs appear to be remarkably consistent across countries and often lead to decisions that may reduce individual welfare. This set of ideas has come to be known as folk or naïve economics. The article provides an overview of this “theory” and presents empirical findings on its prevalence among certain groups in Russia — specifically, university students and senior government officials. The first group was surveyed using questionnaires, while the second one was examined through computer-assisted narrative analysis. The pilot studies suggest that the overall prevalence of naïve economic beliefs is relatively low, though this does not diminish the importance of improving economic education in the country.
About the Authors
V. L. Tambovtsev
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vitaly L. Tambovtsev.
Moscow
L. A. Valitova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Lilia A. Valitova.
Moscow
D. A. Sitkevich
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Daniil A. Sitkevich.
Moscow
M. Y. Sheresheva
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina Y. Sheresheva.
Moscow
References
1. Tsygankov S. S., Maskaev A. I. (2024). Public procurement and innovation policy in Russia: What are the State Duma talking about. ECO, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 145—157. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2024-4-145-157
2. Ali S. N., Mihm M., Siga L. (2025). The political economy of zero-sum thinking. Econometrica, Vol. 93, No. 1, рр. 41—70. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA22474
3. Bacon E. (2015). Perspectives for Russia’s future: The case for narrative analysis. In: A. Pikulicka-Wilczewska, R. Sakwa (eds.). Ukraine and Russia: People, politics, propaganda and perspectives. Bristol: E-international Relations, pp. 242—250.
4. Bhattacharjee A., Dana J. (2024). Lay economic reasoning: An integrative review and call to action. Consumer Psychology Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3—39. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1096
5. Bisgaard M. (2015). Bias will find a way: Economic perceptions, attributions of blame, and partisan-motivated reasoning during crisis. Journal of Politics, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 849—860. https://doi.org/10.1086/681591
6. Boland F. K., Davidai S. (2024). Zero-sum beliefs and the avoidance of political conversations. Communications Psychology, Vol. 2, article 43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00095-4
7. Boyer P., Petersen M. B. (2018). Folk-economic beliefs: An evolutionary cognitive model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 41, article e158. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17001960
8. Brennan J. (2016). Against democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Camerer C. F., Loewenstein G. (2004). Behavioral economics: Past, present, future. In: C. F. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, M. Rabin (eds.). Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3—51. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400829118-004
9. Capano G., Galanti M. T., Barbato G. (2023). When the political leader is the narrator: The political and policy dimensions of narratives. Policy Sciences, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 233—265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-023-09505-6
10. Caplan B. (2001). What makes people think like economists? Evidence on economic cognition from the “Survey of American economists on the economy”. Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 395—426. https://doi.org/10.1086/322812
11. Caplan B. (2011). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4gf2
12. Carvalho J.-P., Bergeron A., Henrich J., Nunn N., Weigel J. (2023). Zero-sum environments, the evolution of effort-suppressing beliefs, and economic development. NBER Working Paper, No. w31663. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31663
13. Chinoy S., Nunn N., Sequeira S., Stantcheva S. (2023). Zero-sum thinking and the roots of U.S. political divides. NBER Working Paper, No. w31688. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31688
14. Davidai S. (2025). Going at it alone: Zero-sum beliefs inhibit help-seeking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 117, article 104714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104714
15. Davidai S., Ongis M. (2019). The politics of zero-sum thinking: The relationship between political ideology and the belief that life is a zero-sum game. Science Advances, Vol. 5, No. 12, article eaay3761. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3761
16. Facchini F. (2017). Public choice failure and voter incompetence in France. Political Quarterly, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 258—264. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12366
17. Fischer F., Forester J. (eds.) (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815
18. Foster G. M. (1965). Peasant society and the image of limited good. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 293—315. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1965.67.2.02a00010
19. Frederick S., Novemsky N., Wang J., Dhar R., Nowlis S. (2009). Opportunity cost neglect. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 553—561. https://doi.org/10.1086/599764
20. Frey B. S. (1986). Economists favor the price system — Who else does? Kyklos, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 537—563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1986.tb00677.x
21. Gavrilets S., Seabrigh P. (2025). The evolution of zero-sum and positive-sum world-views. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 122, No. 32, article e2504339122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2504339122
22. Gerber A. S., Huber G. A. (2010). Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 153—173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00424.x
23. Gigerenzer G. (2018). The bias in behavioral economics. Review of Behavioral Economics, Vol. 5, No. 3—4, pp. 303—336. https://doi.org/10.1561/105.00000092
24. Hajer M. A. (1997). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019829333X.001.000
25. Johnson S. G. B., Zhang J., Keil F. C. (2022). Win—win denial: The psychological underpinnings of zero-sum thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 151, No. 2, pp. 455—474. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001083
26. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 363—391. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
27. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, Vol. 185, No. 4157, pp. 38—55. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477
28. Krueger A. O. (1974). The political economy of the rent-seeking society. American Economic Review, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 291—303.
29. Leiser D., Drori S. (2005). Naïve understanding of inflation. Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 34, pp. 179—198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.006
30. Leung K., Bond M. H., Reimel de Carrasquel S., Muñoz C., Hernández M., Murakami F., Yamaguchi S., Bierbrauer G., Singelis T. M. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 286—302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033003005
31. Lewis A. (2011). The social psychology of taxation. British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 151—158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1982.tb00523.x
32. Lilja M. (2021). Russian political discourse on illegal drugs: A thematic analysis of parliamentary debates. Substance Use & Misuse, Vol. 56, No. 7, pp. 1010—1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2021.1906275
33. Liu K. J., Stutzer A. (2025). Zero-sum beliefs, political views, and life satisfaction in a rich country. WWZ Working Paper, No. 2025/02. Center of Business and Economics (WWZ), University of Basel.
34. Magalhães P., White K. G. (2016). The sunk cost effect across species: A review of persistence in a course of action due to prior investment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 339—361. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.202
35. Maguire A., Persson E., Tinghög G. (2023). Opportunity cost neglect: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Economic Science Association, Vol. 9, No. 2, рр. 176—192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-023-00134-6
36. Matsunaga L. H., Petersen J., Aoki T., Faiad C. (2025). The science of zero-sum thinking: A scoping review of 10 years of empirical research. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 209—229. https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2024.2441504
37. Newcomb S. (1893). The problem of economic education. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 375—399. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882282
38. North D. C., Wallis J. J., Weingast B. R. (2009). Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575839
39. Olson M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation, and social rigidities. New Haven: Yale University Press.
40. Patterson M., Monroe K. R. (1998). Narrative in political science. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 1, pp. 315—331. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.315
41. Roberts R., Davidai S. (2022). The psychology of asymmetric zero-sum beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. 559—575. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000378
42. Roczniewska M., Wojciszke B. (2021). Reducing hindering job demands: The role of belief in life as a zero-sum game and workload. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18, No. 19, article 10036. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910036
43. Różycka-Tran J., Alessandri G., Jurek P., Olech M. (2018). A test of construct isomorphism of the belief in a zero-sum game scale: A multilevel 43-nation study. PLoS One, Vol. 13, No. 9, article e0203196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203196
44. Różycka-Tran J., Boski P., Wojciszke B. (2015). Belief in a zero-sum game as a social axiom: A 37-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 525—548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115572226
45. Różycka-Tran J., Jurek P., Olech M., Piotrowski J., Żemojtel-Piotrowska M. (2019). A warrior society: Data from 30 countries show that belief in a zero-sum game is related to military expenditure and low civil liberties. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, article 2645. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02645
46. Różycka-Tran J., Piotrowski J. P., Żemojtel-Piotrowska M. et al. (2021). Belief in a zero-sum game and subjective well-being across 35 countries. Current Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 7, рр. 3575—3584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00291-0
47. Rubin P. H. (2003). Folk economics. Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 157—171. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2003.tb00558.x
48. Shenhav S. R. (2005). Thin and thick narrative analysis: On the question of defining and analyzing political narratives. Narrative Inquiry, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 75—99. https://doi.org/10.1075/NI.15.1.05SHE
49. Stanovich K. E., West R. F., Toplak M. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 259—264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413480174
50. Thaler R. H. (2016). Behavioral economics: Past, present, and future. American Economic Review, Vol. 106, No. 7, pp. 1577—1600. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.106.7.1577
Review
For citations:
Tambovtsev V.L., Valitova L.A., Sitkevich D.A., Sheresheva M.Y. Naïve economic beliefs: Empirical evidence on their prevalence. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2026;(2):31-51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2026-2-31-51
Views:
921
JATS XML
Email this article 