信念纠偏与投资竞赛：信息影响教育投资的双重机制

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2023.09.134

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (3)

Download: PDF (1190 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The home Internet enables parents to better communicate with the schools and comprehend their children’s educational performance. Additionally, the home Internet enables parents to acquire outside educational information that may be contrasted with their children’s academic performance. Through two mechanisms, belief correction and investment contest, the educational information parents acquire through the home Internet will have an impact on their decisions regarding investments in their children’s education. On the one hand, the educational information made available by the Internet can help parents form more accurate beliefs in terms of their children’s abilities and make educational decisions that are better suited to their children’s needs; on the other hand, the Internet intensifies interpersonal comparisons, makes clear the rewards of competition in education, and so encourages all parents to increase their investments in their children’s education, resulting in investment contests.In this paper, we investigate whether the use of the home Internet will have an impact on parents’ investments in their children’s education and whether the acquisition of the home Internet affects educational investments through two mechanisms: belief correction and investment contest. We use PSM-DID estimates and an instrumental variable strategy to perform empirical researches on the population of middle school students using data from the China Education Panel Survey (CEPS). The parental investments in their children’s education, including whether or not their children take extracurricular tutoring classes, the cost of extracurricular tutoring classes in logarithmic form, and whether or not parents check on their children’s homework, are the explanatory variables for our empirical study. Whether the Internet has been installed in students’ homes is the explanatory variable of interest in this paper. We control the individual and family characteristics of students, the characteristics of the school where the students attend, school fixed effect and semester fixed effect, as well as city/county-semester fixed effect in various econometric models to varying degrees. We cluster standard errors at the city/county level.We find that parents of Internet-connected households invest more in their children’s education than parents of non-Internet-connected households. Even after taking possible selection biases into account using PSM-DID and instrumental variable estimates, the acquisition of the home Internet still has statistically significant effects on parents’ educational investments. We further explore the mechanisms through which the home Internet affects educational investments. We find that the acquisition of the home Internet does strengthen the connection between parents and schools, allowing parents to acquire more comparable information in terms of their children’s academic ranks. We also find that parents of high-ranking children frequently underestimate their children’s academic rankings, while parents of low-ranking children overestimate their children’s academic rankings. The acquisition of the home Internet has increased the beliefs of parents of high-ranking students in their children’s academic rankings, reduced the beliefs of parents of low-ranking students in their children’s academic rankings, and to some extent corrected the biases of parents’ initial beliefs, which reflects the belief correcting mechanism of educational information affecting educational investments. The acquisition of the home Internet also increases parents’ assurance that their children need to earn a bachelor’s degree or higher, reflecting the investment contest mechanism of educational information affecting educational investments.Our paper may contribute to the existing literature as follows. Firstly, previous empirical investigations have largely failed in identifying the numerous mechanisms through which educational information affects educational outcomes. We find two mechanisms through which the home Internet, as an information channel, affects Chinese family educational investments for the first time in a nationally representative sample of China: belief correction and the investment contest. Secondly, unlike researches that examine the overall impact of information provision on educational outcomes, and researches that simply examine the relationship between beliefs and educational decisions or the effects of information shocks on belief updating, we investigate the mechanisms through which information affects educational decisions, providing empirical evidence for the theoretical clue of information provision, belief updating, and decision adjustments.

Key words： educational investments educational information home Internet belief correction investment contest

Received: 13 September 2023

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Luo Weidong
	Wang Qixuan
	Xu Bin

Cite this article:

Luo Weidong,Wang Qixuan,Xu Bin. Belief Correction and Investment Contest: The Dual Mechanisms of Information Effects on Educational Investments[J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2024, 54(1): 42-60.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2023.09.134 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2024/V54/I1/42

1 Cunha F. & Heckman J.， “The technology of skill formation，” American Economic Review， Vol. 97， No. 2 （2007）， pp. 31-47.
2 Bj?rklund A. & Salvanes K. G.， “Education and family background，” in Hanushek E. A.， Machin S. & Woessmann L. （eds.）， Handbook of the Economics of Education， vol. 3， Amsterdam： Elsevier， 2011， pp. 201-247.
3 Azmat G. & Iriberri N.， “The importance of relative performance feedback information： evidence from a natural experiment using high school students，” Journal of Public Economics， Vol. 94 （2010）， pp. 435-452.
4 Moen E. R.， “Education， ranking， and competition for jobs，” Journal of Labor Economics， Vol. 17， No. 4 （1999）， pp. 694-723.
5 Chung K. & Lee D.， “Inefficient competition in shadow-education investment，” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization， Vol. 139 （2017）， pp. 152-165.
6 朱秋博、朱晨、彭超等：《信息化能促进农户增收、缩小收入差距吗？》，《经济学（季刊）》2022年第1期，第237-256页。
7 Tran A. & Zeckhauser R.， “Rank as an inherent incentive： evidence from a field experiment，” Journal of Public Economics， Vol. 96， No. 9-11 （2012）， pp. 645-650.
8 Stinebrickner R. & Stinebrickner T.， “A major in science？ initial beliefs and final outcomes for college major and dropout，” Review of Economic Studies， Vol. 81， No. 1 （2014）， pp. 426-472.
9 Zafar B.， “How do college students form expectations？” Journal of Labor Economics， Vol. 29， No. 2 （2011）， pp. 301-348.
10 Bobba M. & Frisancho V.， “Self-perceptions about academic achievement： evidence from Mexico City，” Journal of Econometrics， Vol. 231， No. 1 （2022）， pp. 58-73.
11 罗卫东、袁月美、许彬：《信念与人力资本投资研究进展》，《经济学动态》2022年第9期，第132-146页。
12 Dizon-Ross R.， “Parents’ beliefs about their children’s academic ability： implications for educational investments，” American Economic Review， Vol. 109， No. 8 （2019）， pp. 2728-2765.
13 Wiswall M. & Zafar B.， “Human capital investments and expectations about career and family，” Journal of Political Economy， Vol. 129， No. 5 （2021）， pp. 1361-1424.
14 Becker G. S. & Tomes N.， “Child endowments and the quantity and quality of children，” Journal of Political Economy， Vol. 84， No. 4 （1976）， pp. 143-162.
15 Spence M.， “Job market signaling，” Quarterly Journal of Economics， Vol. 87， No. 3 （1973）， pp. 355-374.
16 Akerlof G.， “The economics of caste and of the rat race and other woeful tales，” Quarterly Journal of Economics， Vol. 90， No. 4 （1976）， pp. 599-617.
17 Leuven E. & Oosterbeek H.， “Overeducation and mismatch in the labor market，” in Hanushek E. A.， Machin S. & Woessmann L. （eds.）， Handbook of the Economics of Education， vol. 4， Amsterdam： Elsevier， 2011， pp. 283-326.
18 Bandiera O.， Larcinese V. & Rasul I.， “Blissful ignorance？ a natural experiment on the effect of feedback on students’ performance，” Labour Economics， Vol. 34 （2015）， pp. 13-25.
19 Goulas S. & Megalokonomou R.， “Knowing who you actually are： the effect of feedback on short- and longer-term outcomes，” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization， Vol. 183 （2021）， pp. 589-615.
20 Wiswall M. & Zafar B.， “Determinants of college major choice： identification using an information experiment，” Review of Economic Studies， Vol. 82， No. 2 （2015）， pp. 791-824.
21 Stinebrickner T. & Stinebrickner R.， “Learning about academic ability and the college dropout decision，” Journal of Labor Economics， Vol. 30， No. 4 （2012）， pp. 707-748.
22 Stinebrickner R. & Stinebrickner T.， “Academic performance and college dropout： using longitudinal expectations data to estimate a learning model，” Journal of Labor Economics， Vol. 32， No. 3 （2014）， pp. 601-644.
23 Cunha F.， Elo I. & Culhane J.， “Maternal subjective expectations about the technology of skill formation predict investments in children one year later，” Journal of Econometrics， Vol. 231， No. 1 （2022）， pp. 3-32.
24 Attanasio O. P. & Kaufmann K. M.， “Education choices and returns to schooling： mothers’ and youths’ subjective expectations and their role by gender，” Journal of Development Economics， Vol. 109 （2014）， pp. 203-216.
25 Anderson M. & Magruder J.， “Learning from the crowd： regression discontinuity estimates of the effects of an online review database，” The Economic Journal， Vol. 122， No. 563 （2012）， pp. 957-989.
26 Che Y. K. & H?rner J.， “Recommender systems as mechanisms for social learning，” Quarterly Journal of Economics， Vol. 133， No. 2 （2018）， pp. 871-925.
27 Chen H.， De P. & Hu Y. et al.， “Wisdom of crowds： the value of stock opinions transmitted through social media，” Review of Financial Studies， Vol. 27， No. 5 （2014）， pp. 1367-1403.
28 Burszty L.， Egorov G. & Fiorin S.， “From extreme to mainstream： the erosion of social norms，” American Economic Review， Vol. 110， No. 11 （2020）， pp. 3522-3548.
29 Enikolopov R.， Makarin A. & Petrova M.， “Social media and protest participation： evidence from Russia，” Econometrica， Vol. 88， No. 4 （2020）， pp. 1479-1514.
30 Faber B.， Sanchis-Guarner R. & Weinhardt F.， “ICT and education： evidence from student home addresses，” https：//doi.org/10.3386/w21306， 2023-09-13.
31 Malamud O.， Cueto S. & Cristia J. et al.， “Do children benefit from internet access？ experimental evidence from Peru，” Journal of Development Economics， Vol. 138 （2019）， pp. 41-56.
32 Derksen L.， Michaud-Leclerc C. & Souza P.， “Restricted access： how the internet can be used to promote reading and learning，” Journal of Development Economics， Vol. 155 （2022）， https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102810.
33 杨钋、徐颖：《数字鸿沟与家庭教育投资不平等》，《北京大学教育评论》2017年第4期，第126-154页。
34 杨钋、徐颖：《信息资本与家庭教育选择：来自中国的证据》，《华东师范大学学报（教育科学版）》2020年第11期，第39-55页。
35 Lavecchia A. M.， Liu H. & Oreopoulos P.， “Behavioral economics of education： progress and possibilities，” in Hanushek E. A.， Machin S. & Woessmann L. （eds.）， Handbook of the Economics of Education， vol. 5， Amsterdam： Elsevier， 2016， pp. 1-74.
36 Perez-Truglia R.， “The effects of income transparency on well-being： evidence from a natural experiment，” American Economic Review， Vol. 110， No. 4 （2020）， pp. 1019-1054.
37 Bertrand M.， Duflo E. & Mullainathan S.， “How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates？” Quarterly Journal of Economics， Vol. 119， No. 1 （2004）， pp. 249-275.
38 Galiani S.， Gertler P. & Schargrodsky E.， “School decentralization： helping the good get better， but leaving the poor behind，” Journal of Public Economics， Vol. 92， No. 10-11 （2008）， pp. 2106-2120.
39 Antman F.， “Gender discrimination in the allocation of migrant household resources，” Journal of Population Economics， Vol. 28， No. 3 （2015）， pp. 565-592.
40 Heyman F.， Sj?holm F. & Tingvall P. G.， “Is there really a foreign ownership wage premium？ evidence from matched employer-employee data，” Journal of International Economics， Vol. 73， No. 2 （2007）， pp. 355-376.
41 Crump R. K.， Hotz V. J. & Imbens G. W. et al.， “Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects，” Biometrika， Vol. 96， No. 1 （2009）， pp. 187-199.
42 谢申祥、范鹏飞、宛圆渊：《传统PSM-DID模型的改进与应用》，《统计研究》2021年第2期，第146-160页。
43 Greenaway D. & Kneller R.， “Exporting， productivity and agglomeration，” European Economic Review， Vol. 52， No. 5 （2008）， pp. 919-939.
44 Wang J.， “The economic impact of special economic zones： evidence from Chinese municipalities，” Journal of Development Economics， Vol. 101， No. 1 （2013）， pp. 133-147.
45 Cameron A. C. & Miller D. L.， “A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference，” Journal of Human Resources， Vol. 50， No. 2 （2015）， pp. 317-372.
46 Lavy V.， Paserman M. D. & Schlosser A.， “Inside the black box of ability peer effects： evidence from variation in the proportion of low achievers in the classroom，” The Economic Journal， Vol. 122， No. 559 （2012）， pp. 208-237.
47 Huang B. & Zhu R.， “Peer effects of low-ability students in the classroom： evidence from China’s middle schools，” Journal of Population Economics， Vol. 33， No. 4 （2020）， pp. 1343-1380.
48 Lowes S. & Montero E.， “The legacy of colonial medicine in central Africa，” American Economic Review， Vol. 11， No. 4 （2021）， pp. 1284-1314.
49 Conley T. G.， Hansen C. B. & Rossi P. E.， “Plausibly exogenous，” Review of Economics and Statistics， Vol. 94， No. 1 （2012）， pp. 260-272.
50 Sobel M. E.， “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models，” Sociological Methodology， Vol. 13 （1982）， pp. 290-312.
51 Sobel M. E.， “Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models，” Sociological Methods & Research， Vol. 16， No. 1 （1987）， pp. 155-176.