“Hegemonic” conflict narratives help reinforce intergroup conflict through focus on ingroup victimhood, denying outgroup narratives, and advancing beliefs that the conflict is “zero-sum” in nature. Many researchers have used narrative-based interventions to shift exclusive focus on ingroup victimhood and denial of outgroup narratives, but relatively little attention has been paid to the role of zero-sum beliefs. Here, I argue that narrative primes recalling past peace processes can potentially be used to shift zero-sum beliefs, thereby shifting conflict-relevant outcome variables indirectly. In two survey studies of American participants (Studies 1 & 2), I found evidence that participants who read about the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea compared to a control article or a baseline condition demonstrated reduced zero-sum beliefs, and that this reduction indirectly increased conflict-attenuating attitudes while decreasing conflict-promoting attitudes. In Studies 3 and 4, I examined whether how past reminders of peace processes are framed affects zero-sum beliefs in a context where denying peace processes had ever occurred was impossible (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) using representative samples of Jewish Israelis. Taken together, these studies suggested that a positive (or at least non-negative) framing of past peace processes could reduce zero-sum beliefs among Jewish Israelis, leading indirectly to conflict-attenuating responses to downstream variables. As a whole, these four studies suggest that zero-sum beliefs are malleable in response to narratives, and that this malleability can have positive (or negative) implications for conflict resolution depending on how the narrative reminder is framed.