# Abstract

 We study whether exposure to poverty can induce affective states that decrease productivity. In a controlled laboratory setting, we find that subjects randomly assigned to a treatment, in which they view a video featuring individuals that live in extreme poverty, exhibit lower subsequent productivity compared to subjects assigned to a control treatment. Questionnaire responses, as well as facial recognition software, provide quantitative measures of the affective state evoked by the two treatments. Subjects exposed to images of poverty experience a more negative affective state than those in the control treatment. Further analysis shows that individuals in a more positive emotional state exhibit less of a treatment effect. Also, those who exhibit greater attentiveness upon viewing the poverty video are less productive. The results are consistent with the notion that exposure to poverty can induce a psychological state in individuals that adversely affects productivity. # Results 

## Performance The measure of performance in our experiment is the number of sliders an individual correctly aligns over the course of a ten-period session. On average subjects solved 171.91 sliders with a standard deviation of 46.96 in a session. As illustrated in [Fig 1](#), subjects in the *Poverty* treatment solved 165.2 sliders as compared to 179.3 sliders in the *Neutral* treatment. This difference is borderline significant (t(97,151) = 1.534, p = 0.063). A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test rejects the hypothesis that the number of sliders completed in the two treatments are drawn from the same distribution (KS-test, p\<0.01). Performance in the Neutral treatment is significantly lower than that observed by \[[12](#)\], where subjects on average solved 222 sliders in 20 minutes. We attribute this difference to the fact that \[[12](#)\] employ tournament incentives that have been proven to increase effort \[[28](#)\]. <figure> 10.1371/journal.pone.0170231.g001 <p><img src="" /></p> <figcaption>Average performance by treatment.</figcaption> </figure> Furthermore, the treatment effect on performance is significant once other sources of variation are controlled for. We estimate a regression of performance on condition dummies, covariates of wealth, and previous exposure to poverty. The estimates of this linear regression are presented in [Table 1](#). The table shows that the effect of being assigned to *Poverty* is significant once the variables that capture the subject's previous exposure to poverty and wealth are included. Ceteris paribus, a subject assigned to *Poverty* produces on average 1.54 less sliders in each two-minute round as compared to a subject assigned to the *Neutral* condition. ::::table-wrap

10.1371/journal.pone.0170231.t001

::: caption



##

##

## Linear Regression of Performance on Treatment, Round and Control Variables.

:::

![](<>)

```
                  (1)              (2)              (3)
```

______________________________________________________________________

```
                  Performance        Performance        Performance
```

Poverty -1.410 -1.547 [\*](#) -1.544 [\*](#)
(-1.54) (-1.68) (-1.68)
Previous Exposure 0.724 0.731
(1.38) (1.38)
Wealth -0.076
(-0.12)
Round 0.703[\*\*\*](#) 0.703[\*\*\*](#) 0.703[\*\*\*](#)
(14.57) (14.56) (14.55)
Constant 14.06[\*\*\*](#) 13.40[\*\*\*](#) 13.45[\*\*\*](#)
(18.99) (16.03) (13.12)
*N* 1050 1050 1050
R^2^ 0.133 0.142 0.142

Note: This table presents the estimates of an ordinary least squares
regression of the statistical model *Performance*~*i*~ = *α*~0~ +
*α*~1~*Poverty*~*i*~ + *α*~2~*PreviousExposure* + *α*~3~*Wealth* +
*ϵ*~*i*1~ . *Performance~*i*~* is the number of sliders solved per
round. *Previous Exposure* is a variable that captures whether the
subject traveled and/or lived in a poor country. *Wealth* is a variable
that captures whether the subject's parents have more than three cars
and/or own more than two real estate properties. Clustered standard
errors at the individual level.

\*p\<0.1;

\*\* p\<0.05;

\*\*\*p\<0.01.:::: [Fig 2](#) illustrates the performance gap between the treatments by round. This figure shows that the average number of sliders in every round is lower for subjects assigned to the *Poverty* treatment. Moreover, the figure suggests that the effect of the *Poverty* video on performance persists throughout the entire session. This may be either because the video itself affects performance throughout the session, or that the video has only a short-term effect in early rounds, but the performance in early rounds serves to anchor performance in later rounds. <figure> 10.1371/journal.pone.0170231.g002 <p><img src="" /></p> <figcaption>Average performance by round and treatment.</figcaption> </figure> 

## Affects 

### Self-reported measures As described in the experimental design and procedures section, we administered the PANAS questionnaire \[[13](#)\] immediately after the subjects watched the video. Based on \[[29](#)\], we constructed, using the subjects responses, six emotional and affective scales, and two general dimension scales. Tables [2](#) and [3](#) present the mean and standard deviation of negative and positive affects in each treatment. The tables also report the average values of the affective scales and general dimension scales for both treatments. ::::table-wrap
10.1371/journal.pone.0170231.t002

::: caption



##

##

## Average and Standard Deviation of Positive Affect Scales, by Treatment.

:::

![](<>)

Affect Poverty Neutral Z-Score

______________________________________________________________________

**Items**\
Interested 3.691 3.100 2.879[\*\*\*](#)
(1.143) (1.119)\
Excited 2.145 2.600 -2.089[\*\*](#)
(1.070) (1.021)\
Strong 2.927 2.620 1.388
(1.190) (1.019)\
Enthusiastic 2.273 2.780 -2.393 [\*\*](#)
(1.136) (1.083)\
Proud 1.982 2.180 -1.304
(1.259) (1.091)\
Alert 3.291 2.680 2.258 [\*\*](#)
(1.247) (1.393)\
Inspired 3.055 2.540 2.239 [\*\*](#)
(1.243) (1.082)\
Determined 3.309 2.880 2.155[\*\*](#)
(1.094) (1.014)\
Attentive 3.418 3.120 1.178
(1.004) (1.108)\
Active 2.709 3.080 -1.590
(1.217) (.9978)\
**Affective Scales**\
Joviality 4.41 5.38 -2.546 [\*\*](#)
(1.877) (1.940)\
Self-Assurance 4.909 4.8 0.172
(2.076) (1.910)\
Attentiveness 13.709 11.78 3.006[\*\*\*](#)
(3.309) (3.180)\
**General Dimension Scale**\
Positive Affects (PA) 28.80 27.58 2.236 [\*\*](#)
(7.631) (7.655)\
N 55 50

Note: This table presents the average score and standard deviation of
each of the ten items representing positive affects in the PANAS
questionnaire. The standard deviation of each item is presented in
parentheses. The scale *Joviality* is constructed as the sum of the
items *Excited* and *Enthusiastic*. The scale *Self-Assurance* is
constructed as the sum of the items *Proud* and *Strong*. The scale
*Attentiveness* is constructed as the sum of the items *Inspired*,
*Determined* and *Attentive*. The row *Positive Affects* is the
summation of the ten items. The column *Z-score* presents the statistic
evaluating the rank sum difference between the two treatments. The
significance is evaluated with the following significance levels.

\*p\<0.1;

\*\* p\<0.05;

\*\*\* p\<0.01.:::: ::::table-wrap
10.1371/journal.pone.0170231.t003

::: caption



##

##

## Average and Standard Deviation of Negative Affect Scales, by Treatment.

:::

![](<>)

Affect Poverty Neutral Z-Score

______________________________________________________________________

**Items**\
Distressed 2.509 2.560 -0.126
(1.008) (1.204)\
Upset 2.782 1.620 4.789[\*\*\*](#)
(1.247) (1.038)\
Guilty 2.218 1.420 3.749 [\*\*\*](#)
(1.217) (0.778)\
Scared 1.709 1.540 0.596
(1.004) (0.830)\
Hostile 1.818 1.400 2.200 [\*\*](#)
(.9934) (0.722)\
Irritable 2.036 2.040 0.027
(1.010) (1.039)\
Ashamed 2.182 1.440 3.401[\*\*\*](#)
(1.178) (0.753)\
Nervous 1.982 2.100 -0.622
(1.088) (1.064)\
Jittery 2.145 2.000 0.822
(0.924) (0.939)\
Afraid 1.655 1.560 0.458
(0.920) (0.829)\
**Affective Scales**\
Fear 5.509 5.1 1.028
(2.167) (2.121)\
Guilt 4.4 2.86 3.631[\*\*\*](#)
(2.231) (1.343)\
Hostility 1.818 1.400 2.200 [\*\*](#)
(.993) (0.722)\
**General Dimension Scale**\
Negative Affects (NA) 21.036 17.680 2.728 [\*\*\*](#)
(6.327) (5.859)\
N 55 50

Note: This table presents the average score and standard deviation of
each of each of the ten items representing negative affects in the PANAS
questionnaire.The standard deviation of each item presented in
parentheses. The scale *Fear* is constructed as the sum of the items
*Afraid*, *Scared* and *Jittery*. The scale *Guilt* is constructed as
the sum of the items *Guilt* and *Ashamed*. The scale *Hostile* is
represented by the item *Hostility*. The row *Negative Affects* is the
summation of the ten items. The column *Z-Score* presents the statistic
evaluating the rank sum difference between the two treatments. The
significance is evaluated with the following significance levels.

\*p\<0.1;

\*\* p\<0.05;

\*\*\*p\<0.01.:::: These tables show that the *Poverty* treatment yields a higher score on the general dimension scale of negative affects (referred to as NA from here onward), compared to the *Neutral* treatment (p\<0.01). This difference stems from the higher score of the Guilt scale, composed by the items *Guilty* and *Ashamed* (p\<0.001) and the higher scores of the items *Hostile* (p\<0.05), and *Upset* (p\<0.001), under *Poverty*. Moreover, the *Poverty* treatment also yields a higher score on the general dimension scale of positive affects (PA from here onward), than under *Neutral* (p = 0.025). This difference between treatments is driven by a higher score on the attentiveness scale, composed of the items *Alert*, *Determined* and *Interested*, in *Poverty* (p\<0.05). Note that even though the Joviality scale, composed of *Enthusiastic* and *Excited*, exhibits a lower score under *Poverty* (p = 0.011), the direction of the difference in PA between treatments shows that this difference is not as large as that displayed by attentiveness. *Poverty* induces higher average negative affects compared to the PANAS scores obtained under typical natural conditions. The average score of 21.036 in NA after watching the *Poverty* video is significantly larger than a typical baseline average of NA 14.8 reported by \[[13](#)\]. However, the *Poverty* treatment does not induce higher average positive affect than 29.7, the score observed by \[[13](#)\]. Taken together, these results show that the *Poverty* video induces a considerable increase on the score of both positive and negative affects as compared to the *Neutral* video. On the one hand the *Poverty* video evokes higher scores on guilt and hostility. On the other hand, the video increases the score related to attentiveness. 

### Physiological Measure of Emotional State The Facereader data indicate that before the videos are played, there are no significant differences in the physiological measures of emotions between treatments. We report no significant difference across treatments in neutrality (p = .9873), sadness (p = 0.1591) happiness (p = .757), anger (p = .7411), scare (p = .4343) or disgust (p = .6738). As a consequence and as can be seen in [Fig 3](#), there is no significant difference in the emotional valence before presentation of the videos (p = 0.782). <figure> 10.1371/journal.pone.0170231.g003 <p><img src="" /></p> <figcaption>Initial value and change in valence from before to after the video was shown.</figcaption> </figure> The descriptive statistics of the subject's physiological reaction due to the videos, measured as the difference between the one-minute interval before the beginning of the video and the one-minute interval immediately after it has finished, are presented in [Table 4](#). These statistics, along with [Fig 3](#), show that the *Poverty* video induces a more negative valence (one sided t-test, p = .055). This finding is in agreement with the self-reported data, in that the *Poverty* treatment induces a more negative emotional state than the *Neutral* treatment. This difference is driven by the specific emotions of *Scare* (one sided t-test, p = .039) and *Sadness* (one sided t-test, p = .057). These patterns, coupled with the PANAS results, reveal that the *Poverty* video increases a number of negative emotions such as fear, guilt, sadness, shame and upset. Whether these differences in affects correlate with lower performance is addressed in the next section. ::::table-wrap
10.1371/journal.pone.0170231.t004

::: caption



##

##

## Changes in Physiological Measure of Emotions from Before to After the Video, both Treatments.

:::

![](<>)

Emotion Poverty Neutral Difference

______________________________________________________________________

Neutral -.0011 0.048 -.058
(.213) (0.294) (.066)
Happy -.068 -0.051 .-017
(.125) (0.122) (.033)
Sad 0.037 -0.002 .039[\*](#)
(0.098) (0.077) (.024)
Angry 0.002 -0.002 .004
(0.091) (0.062) (.025)
Surprised 0.007 0.027 -.020
(0.097) (0.090) (.022)
Scared 0.010 -0.006 .015[\*\*](#)
(0.036) (0.019) (.008)
Disgusted -0.003 -0.004 .001
(0.016) (0.010) (.003)
Valence -0.111 -0.037 -.073[\*](#)
(0.185) (0.134) (.045)
N 39 21 21

Note: This table presents the difference in average intensity, between
before and after the stimulus was presented to the subjects for the 7
emotions analyzed by the facereader software. The standard deviation is
given in Parentheses. The row *Valence* contains the change in average
valence from before to after the stimulus was presented to the subjects.
Valence is calculated as *Happiness* − *max*(*Sadness*, *Anger*,
*Scare*, *Disgust*). The column labeled *Difference* gives the average
difference in emotional intensity between the *Poverty* and *Neutral*
treatments. The significance of *Difference* is evaluated with a one
sided t-test.

\*p\<0.1;

\*\* p\<0.05;

\*\*\*p\<0.01.::::


Extracted trial result:
Outcome: score on the general dimension scale of negative affects (referred to as NA from here onward) (continuous)
Intervention: view a video featuring individuals that live in extreme poverty
Comparator: control
Intervention group size: 55
Intervention mean: 21.036
Intervention standard deviation: 6.327
Comparator group size: 50
Comparator mean: 17.68
Comparator standard deviation: 5.859