|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
A necessary condition for reducing inequality is the social condemnation of it. In fact, policies that aim to reduce inequality can only be effectively implemented if it is considered unacceptable by citizens. Thus, the central question of this research project is: Does fiction reading causally increase prosociality?
The hypothesis we work with is that art, in general, and fiction reading in particular, can be one of the tools that helps us change social norms to make inequality less socially acceptable. We randomize participants into two courses: a fiction reading course and an economic for beginners course with the same intensity. Both courses last for 4 (pilot) to 6 (experiment) weeks. After the courses we use economic games to elicit participants preferences and measure the causal impact of fiction reading on behavior towards inequality.
Our final goal is also to develop a relevant fiction reading curriculum that facilitates the replication of our findings on a larger scale.
|
After
A necessary condition for reducing inequality is the social condemnation of it. In fact, policies that aim to reduce inequality can only be effectively implemented if it is considered unacceptable by citizens. Thus, the central question of this research project is: Does fiction reading causally increase prosociality?
The hypothesis we work with is that art, in general, and fiction reading in particular, can be one of the tools that helps us change social norms to make inequality less socially acceptable. We randomize participants into two courses: a fiction reading course and an behavioral economics for beginners course with the same intensity. Both courses last for 4 (pilot) to 6 (experiment) weeks. After the courses we use economic games to elicit participants preferences and measure the causal impact of fiction reading on behavior towards inequality.
Our final goal is also to develop a relevant fiction reading curriculum that facilitates the replication of our findings on a larger scale.
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
June 01, 2026
|
After
November 30, 2026
|
|
Field
JEL Code(s)
|
Before
C93, D63, D64
|
After
C93, D63, D64, D91, Z11, I24
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
November 10, 2025 03:51 PM
|
After
August 24, 2026 12:30 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
The public for the pilot is only college students at Universidad de los Andes.
The public for the general intervention are students on their last two years of high-school, early college students at large and members of the general public who frequently visit the public libraries in Bogotá.
|
After
The public for the pilot is only college students at Universidad de los Andes.
Both the first and second intervention will be done at Universidad de los Andes. The general public intervention will be considered a scaling of the curriculum.
The public for the general intervention are students on their last two years of high-school, early college students at large and members of the general public who frequently visit the public libraries in Bogotá.
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
June 01, 2026
|
After
October 31, 2026
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
We want to measure all dimensions of prosociality through economic games.
We will use the following canonical games:
- Dictator game
- Ultimatum game
- Trust game
- Third party game
Instruction for participants on each of these games is provided at the Materials sections.
We will also measure psychological traits with canonical tests in the psychology literature. These include:
- Inclusion of the Other in the Self scale.
- Reading the Mind in the Eyes test.
-
We have also created an questionaire that tries to measure a possible mechanism for our result: the value given to the aesthetic experience of the other. We have called this questionaire the GUERRA measure.
|
After
We want to measure all dimensions of prosociality through economic games.
We will use the following canonical games:
- Dictator game
- Ultimatum game
- Trust game
- Third party game
Instruction for participants on each of these games is provided at the Materials sections.
We will also measure psychological traits with canonical tests in the psychology literature. These include:
- Inclusion of the Other in the Self (IOS) scale.
- Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET). Shortened version.
- Narrative engagement scale
- UCLA Loneliness scale
- Self-importance of morality scale
- Attributional complexity scale
We have also created an questionaire that tries to measure a possible mechanism for our result: the value given to the aesthetic experience of the other. We have called this questionaire the Perceived Uniqueness Scale.
For our second intervention (Fall 2026) we will widen the set of psychological scales we will implement. In particular we will use a Perceived Uniqueness Scale and an individuation incentive compatible task we developed. This 10-question scale is designed to measure the degree to wich others are perceived as unique individuals. Statistical analysis has shown that it can be disentangled into two different indexes: Uniqueness Orientation and Attention to Individual Differences. We will use those Indexes in all our causal anaylisis.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
We understand prosociality as the share of the personal income that an individual is willing to share with others. This share is different depending on each situation, and that is why we use different economic games. In any case, this is a more objective measure than the ones we find in the existing literature.
Will we think there are many things to improve on the existing literature, we still want to be able to have a dialogue with existing papers. This also allows us to valdiate our findings with economic games as the result of real changes in preferences.
|
After
We understand prosociality as the share of the personal income that an individual is willing to share with others. This share is different depending on each situation, and that is why we use different economic games. In any case, this is a more objective measure than the ones we find in the existing literature.
Will we think there are many things to improve on the existing literature, we still want to be able to have a dialogue with existing papers. This also allows us to valdiate our findings with economic games as the result of real changes in preferences.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
There are two experimental sessions in which economic games are played.
The first one occurs on the day of the last session of each course. This is our measure of short term effects.
The second one is performed 1 to 3 months after the corurse end. This is our measure of long term effects.
|
After
There are two experimental sessions in which economic games are played, and psychological scales are discussed.
The first one occurs on the day of the last session of each course. This is our measure of short term effects.
The second one is performed 4 weeks from the last session of the intervention course. This is our measure of longer term effects.
|
|
Field
Randomization Unit
|
Before
For the pilot we randomize at the individual level.
For the formal experiment we will randomize at the school or public library level in order to prevent contamination.
|
After
For the pilot we randomize at the individual level.
We will randomize at the participant level. Depending on the number of participants willing to be included, we will also select some participants directly to the "pure control" arm of our Second Intervention.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
For the pilot we have 60 enrolled students (30 in each course).
For the experiment itself we will have around 200 students, 100 on each treatment arm.
|
After
For the pilot we have 60 enrolled students (30 in each course).
The effective number of participants we have after our first intervenion is N = 227. We aspire to have a similar number for the second intervention that takes place in the fall of 2026.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
For the pil
For the experiment itself we will have around 200 students, 100 on each treatment arm. ot we have 60 enrolled students (30 in each course).
|
After
For the pilot we have 60 enrolled students (30 in each course).
The effective number of participants we have after our first intervenion is N = 227. We aspire to have a similar number for the second intervention that takes place in the fall of 2026.
|
|
Field
Additional Keyword(s)
|
Before
Fiction reading, prosociality
|
After
Fiction reading, prosociality, fiction-reading, individuation, empathy, theory of mind
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
Participants are invited to a course that "combines behavioral sciences, fiction reading and dality life applications". After participants decide to enroll, they are randomly asssigned to one of the two courses.
- Fiction reading course (treatment): This course was specifically designed by our local partner Paredro, a dedicated center on fiction reading teaching and difussion. Fiction materials are chosen to increase prosociality and are all tailored for the language and local knowledge of the participants.
- Economics for beginners course (control): This course is desigend to discuss some general advances on microeconomics. Behavioral economics is included in the syllabus and reading material, but to avoid contamination we don't include is the standard games that we use to measure prosocialty. We explicitly avoid discusing prosocial preferences
Both courses have the exact same duration and the same intensity of reading material. Two incentivized quizzes of the reading material are given during the course.
|
After
Participants are invited to a course that "combines behavioral sciences, fiction reading and dality life applications". After participants decide to enroll, they are randomly asssigned to one of the two courses.
- Fiction reading course (treatment): This course was specifically designed by our local partner Paredro, a dedicated center on fiction reading teaching and difussion. Fiction materials are chosen to increase prosociality and are all tailored for the language and local knowledge of the participants.
- Economics for beginners course (control): This course is desigend to discuss some general advances on microeconomics. Behavioral economics is included in the syllabus and reading material, but to avoid contamination we don't include is the standard games that we use to measure prosocialty. We explicitly avoid discusing prosocial preferences
Both courses have the exact same duration and the same intensity of reading material. Two incentivized quizzes of the reading material are given during the course.
Based on some comments we received, for our second intervention we will add a "pure control" arm. This will comprised of individual who showed interest in participating but due to logistical difficulties (their class schedule, room size at Universidad de los Andes) cannot take part in the courses. We will invite these "pure controls" to our laboratory sessions at the same time, and with similar four-week break, than both our treatment and placebos.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Additionally, we will measure empirical and normative expectations regarding the behavior in those games.
|
After
Additionally, we will measure empirical and normative expectations regarding the behavior in those games. These are all outcomes that the intervention can change.
For our second intervention we will also measure as a secondary outcome the individual variance in some of the scales we measure. This is important in as much as what we are modeling is fiction reading as a mean-preserving spread in other-regarding concerns. Scales like the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET) are designed with the average score as measure, but we will use also the individual variation in responses as a relevant outcome. The same for our Perceived Uniqueness Scale, and its two indexes. The individual variance on these helps us validate the mechanisms we have in mind. We have additionally prepared and incentive-compatible individuation scale that measures both the self-reported motives regarding two actions, and what they perceived others' motives are. We incentivize the prediction of others about what they claimed other would have predicted other motives are, and also, a willingness to pay for knowing what others'motive actually are.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
|
After
We want to test wether our results are caused by a change on individual preferences and decisions or if they are caused by a change in the empirical or normative expectations about which are the prevailing social norms.
We want to also test if the mean-preserving spread in other-regarding concerns comes from changes in individual preferences or changes in the perception of prevailing social norms. For this we will add incentivized questions on second order beliefs around the importance of perceiving others as unique, as measured by our Perceived Uniqueness Scale and individuation task. We not only expect a larger tendency, for those in the treatment cell, to perceive others as unique, rather than an interchangable abstract, but also, to redeuce the actor-observer gap and to increase the richness of other people's motives
|