ArticlePNAS nexus2025
Social networks affect redistribution decisions and polarization.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Social networks affect redistribution decisions and polarization.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigate theoretically and empirically how network structure affects collective decisions about redistribution in an unequal society. We study the effects of assortativity by wealth (observing others with similar or different wealth) and visibility by wealth (observing rich or poor others) on voting for redistribution and the polarization of votes, as well as satisfaction and perceptions of fairness. We develop a computational model and test the predictions of the model in an online network experiment. The results reveal that although most social networks lead people to under-observe inequality, different structural properties produce different collective outcomes: redistribution and polarization are the lowest in networks with maximum assortativity, where participants are segregated by wealth, and the highest in networks where the rich are most visible. Furthermore, segregation keeps the poor poorest but satisfied, while observing the rich makes them dissatisfied despite becoming better off. These findings suggest that political communication and policy strategies aiming to increase support for redistribution should enhance the visibility of excessive wealth. At the same time, it is crucial to ensure that this does not exacerbate polarization and conflict.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.