to be correlated with redistributive behavior in the literature).<sup>28</sup> To construct indicators of the second dimension we use information from three survey questions that participants answered after the experiment, asking about participants’agreement with the following statements: (1) People are poor in Jordan because of bad luck or injustice (rather than laziness or lack of willpower); (2) Successful careers are a matter of luck and connections (rather than hard work)<sup>29</sup> ; and (3) A just society should make people’s incomes more equal.

Tables 7 and 8 present the results. Table 7 is similar to Table 4 but focuses on distance from the poor rather than age. Results show that distance from the poor does not appear to mediate the effect of the transparency-enhancing treatment, with the interaction term of distance from the poor and treatment being not significant in most specifications. Table 8 focuses on social norms and adds to our baseline specification controls for the scope for giving using the three attitudinal questions described above (Columns 1 to 3) and a composite index, produced with polychoric principal-components analysis, for the importance of redistributing (Column 4). When controls for indicators of being in favor of redistribution are included, results on the effect of the interaction term between treatment and trust on giving remain largely unchanged. This suggests that the relationship of interest is not being driven by differences in these indicators.

Finally, in Table 9 we check the robustness of our results to a different age threshold for youth. Table 9 is similar to Table 4 but considers youth to be those aged 18 to 34. Results on the interaction term between trust and treatment are robust to this alterantive

# 6 Conclusion

This paper analyzes income redistribution preferences and the effect of program design and enhanced transparency on willingness to give up a personal endowment. It uses data from a behavioral experiment conducted on a nationally representative sample of the Jordanian middle class. In contrast to opinion surveys, the experiment evaluated preferences using real trade-offs. It contributes to the literature on redistributive preferences by offering

> 28 The literature has shown that the demand for redistribution varies according to personal beliefs about the causes of poverty and success, with those who believe that people are poor because of bad luck or injustice or that success is the result of individual effort rather than luck being more prone to redistribution (Alesina, Glaeser, and Sacerdote 2001; Alesina and Glaeser 2004; Alesina and Angeletos 2005; Alesina and La Ferrara 2005; Alesina and Giuliano 2011; Charness and Rabin 2002; Konow 2010).

> 29 66 percent of the participants expressed a general belief that poverty is the result of bad luck or injustice rather than laziness, 37 percent believed that hard work usually brings success and 80 percent agreed that society should make people’s incomes more equal. These perceptions are in line with those in Latin America and Western Europe but in stark contrast with the United States, where government redistribution from the rich to the poor is less extensive. This might also be a factor behind the higher giving rates in our experiment compared to the classic dictator games or fundraising experiments in the United States.

16