Digital versus Paper Reading: A Systematic Literature Review on Contemporary Gaps According to Gender, Socioeconomic Status, and Rurality.

This paper presents a comprehensive review of the literature on electronic reading (e-reading) versus paper reading. The main objective was to assess the current state of research comparing digital and paper reading outcomes among students aged 6-18 years old, as well as assessing the impact of various factors (gender, socioeconomic status, and school location) in explaining the differences between the two modes. Inclusion criteria included the following: participants (6-18 years), research focus (comparing digital reading and paper reading), study type (quantitative or mixed methods), publication (peer reviewed between 2015 and 2022), and language (English). A systematic search in four databases (WOS, Scopus, ERIC, and JSTOR) in August 2022 was conducted by three reviewers. The search revealed 23 studies matching the inclusion criteria. The findings from the reviewed studies are diverse, with some reporting no significant differences in reading comprehension between the two modes, while others suggest screen inferiority, thereby favoring paper reading. Individual-level predictors, such as prior comprehension skills and reading habits, play a crucial role in determining reading performance across modes. Family-level factors, such as the number of books at home, and school-level factors, like the usage of ICT resources, influence both paper and digital reading comprehension. Moreover, gender differences in attitudes and performance towards different reading modes are apparent. SES is positively associated with reading achievement in both modes, with a larger effect shown for paper reading. Overall, the comparison between electronic and paper reading modes reveals a complex interplay of individual and contextual factors influencing reading comprehension and attitudes.

The persistence of cognitive biases in financial decisions across economic groups.

While economic inequality continues to rise within countries, efforts to address it have been largely ineffective, particularly those involving behavioral approaches. It is often implied but not tested that choice patterns among low-income individuals may be a factor impeding behavioral interventions aimed at improving upward economic mobility. To test this, we assessed rates of ten cognitive biases across nearly 5000 participants from 27 countries. Our analyses were primarily focused on 1458 individuals that were either low-income adults or individuals who grew up in disadvantaged households but had above-average financial well-being as adults, known as positive deviants. Using discrete and complex models, we find evidence of no differences within or between groups or countries. We therefore conclude that choices impeded by cognitive biases alone cannot explain why some individuals do not experience upward economic mobility. Policies must combine both behavioral and structural interventions to improve financial well-being across populations.