From a distance, inequality looks like a sterile graph. Up close, it feels personal. A new study suggests that the simple act of seeing how wealthy the wealthiest really are can change how people vote on taxes and redistribution. It also suggests that seeing more can make us angrier.
An experiment in seeing
The research, published in PNAS Nexus by a team that includes Milena Tsvetkova of the London School of Economics and Political Science, tested a proposition that is as intuitive as it is rarely measured: visibility shapes how people understand inequality, and that understanding shapes how they vote. In most lives, social circles do not include billionaires. Friends, coworkers and neighbors tend to look financially similar, which creates blind spots around the extremes. The study set out to simulate what happens when those blind spots widen or narrow.
The team combined a computational model with a large online experiment involving 1,440 adults in the United States. Participants were randomly assigned to be relatively rich or relatively poor in the experimental economy, then repeatedly voted on tax rates that would redistribute income. The twist was in what each participant could see. Some were placed in segregated networks where they mostly observed people like themselves. Others were placed in mixed networks where poor participants could plainly see the high scores of richer counterparts.
What followed tracked the politics of perception. In segregated networks, support for redistribution was lowest and polarization was muted. Inequality persisted, and yet many of the poorer participants reported feeling relatively content because they were not confronted with the starkest gaps. In mixed networks, support for higher taxes rose and inequality fell, but dissatisfaction and division grew.
“We wanted to understand how social information we obtain from our social contacts and media exposure biases our understanding of inequality in society and our preferences for redistribution,” said Dr Milena Tsvetkova, Associate Professor of Computational Social Science at LSE.
Her summary of the results was blunt.
“When participants are segregated by wealth, they vote for lower taxation, so inequality persists but participants are happy about it, remaining blissfully ignorant. In contrast, when the wealthy are more visible, inequality decreases because the poor, who are a majority in the experiment, vote for a higher taxation rate; yet, the poor are unhappy about it because comparison is the thief of joy.”
The paradox of visibility
At first pass, the findings sound like a civics lesson. If people knew what the top really looks like, they might change policy preferences. But the study adds a complication. Making inequality more visible does not simply unlock support for redistribution. It also heightens dissatisfaction and sharpens divides between groups.
That tension captures a familiar human pattern. People compare themselves to their peers. When peers appear to be doing much better, frustration rises, even if the policies that follow reduce the overall gap. The study does not say visibility is bad. It says visibility has a cost, and democracies need to plan for it.
In real life, that planning plays out through institutions and media. Where pay is transparent, where ownership is traceable, where communities are integrated rather than siloed by income, the public has a clearer view of the economic landscape. This study suggests that clarity does not guarantee calm. The friction that follows is a feature of bringing hidden information to light.
What policymakers can do
The results do not tell lawmakers what tax rate to pick. They do suggest where levers might work.
- Strengthen transparency. Pay reporting, beneficial ownership registries and clear disclosures around political spending can make extreme wealth and its influence more legible to the public. When people understand the top of the distribution, their votes reflect that knowledge.
- Design social contact points that mix incomes. Integrated schools, public spaces and civic programs reduce the social segregation that keeps people in informational bubbles. The study’s mixed networks are a conceptual cousin of this integration.
- Pair visibility with constructive narratives. If showing the top stokes dissatisfaction, then public communication needs to channel that energy toward solutions and away from zero-sum resentment. That means explaining what policies are meant to achieve and how they will be measured.
- Measure outcomes, not just intentions. The experiment observed immediate reactions to new information. In the real world, changes in inequality and satisfaction unfold over time. Governments can track how shifts in transparency and taxation affect both economic gaps and public sentiment.
For researchers, the work opens avenues too. How durable are these effects beyond an experimental setting. Do repeated exposures to information about extreme wealth normalize the gap or deepen urgency for change. How do local conditions, such as housing costs or labor markets, interact with visibility to move votes.
Limits and context
Like any experiment, this one simplifies a messy world. Participants played within a defined game, assigned roles that do not match the tangled histories of real households, and made decisions absent the full churn of politics, media campaigns and lobbying. Voting on an abstract tax rate in a controlled environment is not the same as voting after a year of headlines and town halls. The value of the work lies in isolating one mechanism and measuring its force.
It also aligns with a broader body of research that points to the power of social networks in shaping beliefs. People infer what is normal from who they see. When those circles exclude the extremes, estimates of the whole skew toward the middle. The study gives that intuition experimental weight and links it to a policy lever many societies are already debating.
“Our research suggests that, as a society, we may be able to increase support for redistribution by exposing the ultra-rich, but paradoxically, the resulting lower inequality may be accompanied by increased dissatisfaction and disagreement. Opinion leaders and policy makers should try and mitigate the trade-off,” Dr Tsvetkova said.
The stakes
Economic inequality is not a niche issue. It shows up in life expectancy, in school resources, in home prices and commutes, in who gets to take a risk and who cannot afford a mistake. It also shows up in politics. The study’s lesson is not that seeing the rich is a cure. It is that seeing matters, and that sight changes behavior in ways that are both promising and volatile.
There is a temptation to duck the volatility by keeping the view fuzzy. That path trades calm for complacency. The alternative is more honest. Give people a clear picture of the distribution they live in, then build processes that can handle the reaction. That means insisting on facts, welcoming disagreement without turning disagreement into contempt, and being explicit about the goals of policy rather than only its slogans.
On any evening in a major city, the lights at the top of the skyline mark wealth most residents will never enter. The study does not tell anyone how to feel about that view. It suggests that when the doors open and the public can see inside, ballots change, tempers rise and inequality falls. Societies that want the last outcome without the middle one may be chasing a contradiction. The work of politics is to live with that contradiction long enough to make progress.