Paying to Read: A Gamble Worth Taking?

The Singapore government’s recent announcement that citizens can earn cash for logging reading time on a government website has sparked debate over whether this is a clever solution to the reading crisis or a misguided attempt to bribe people into picking up books. Research in behavioral science suggests that short-term rewards can establish new habits, especially among young people who are highly motivated by money.

Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist and author, notes that some children respond to rewards “to some degree,” making the Singapore scheme likely to have a beneficial effect. However, this approach is not about paying people to read as an intrinsic reward but rather as a trigger to get them started. The payment may be acting more like a prompt than a wage, says Ivo Vlaev, a professor of behavioral psychology at the National University of Singapore.

The scheme might also tap into our innate desire for gamification and tracking progress. Patrick Taylor, director of education at the Behavioural Insights Team, highlights the “smarter” aspects of this approach: manageable daily goals, streaks, and tracking to keep progress visible. This gamified element could be more effective than the financial reward itself.

But what about the long-term implications? Will people continue reading once the rewards stop? Katy Milkman suggests that if people are already intrinsically motivated to read, this scheme may tip them over the edge. Vlaev agrees that small immediate rewards can help bridge the gap between intention and action for those who struggle to get started.

In the UK, non-monetary reward schemes have been around for a while now. The primary school rainbow certificate scheme and The Reading Agency’s Summer Reading Challenge offer badges and certificates as recognition and a sense of achievement. Perhaps it’s time to test whether small financial rewards can complement or even surpass these symbolic rewards.

A UK pilot of the Singapore-style scheme could be an excellent opportunity to run trials comparing different types of rewards, such as cash versus certificates or gamification. By testing various approaches, we might uncover what works and why. Taylor suggests running true control groups to measure how many books they read without any interventions.

This raises a more profound question: should governments financially reward what has been traditionally considered something you do for fun? Milkman counters that we already subsidize and require other forms of education, so why not reading too?

While paying people to read might undermine the value of reading as an intrinsic activity, it’s worth considering that our lives are filled with examples of activities we participate in solely because they’re rewarded. Should we pay athletes for their training sessions or artists for their creative hours? The answer lies somewhere between these extremes.

The Singapore scheme might not solve the reading crisis entirely, but by introducing short-term rewards and tapping into gamification, it’s worth exploring its potential as a complementary approach to encouraging people to read. After all, in the words of Milkman, “we subsidize, and even require, many other forms of education.” Perhaps paying people to read is not as outlandish an idea as we think.

As governments consider implementing similar schemes, they should be prepared for both successes and failures. By running trials and testing different types of rewards, we can uncover what works best in promoting reading habits among the population. One thing is certain: the reading crisis requires innovative solutions, and paying people to read might just be one such solution worth taking a gamble on.

The real challenge lies not in whether this scheme will encourage people to pick up books but in creating a culture where reading is seen as a valuable activity that doesn’t need financial rewards. Only then can we truly say we’ve addressed the reading crisis and created a society that values knowledge, imagination, and creativity above all else.