An Exploration of Gender Bias, Framing, and Student Loan Decisions Through an Experimental Design
Tóm tắt
As student loan debt is one of the fastest growing concerns for American households today, we need to understand the decision making behind student loan behavior to deal with the high student loan debt level properly. For this purpose, following a behavioral economics framework, we examine how variation in framing scenarios including gender bias, negative and positive framing, and aspiration for college degree framing, affects participant’s perceptions about the wisdom of using student loans and appropriate borrowing amounts. To analyze these framing affects, we obtained 1847 participants through an online survey describing a hypothetical student’s considerations related to attending college. We applied nonlinear regression with probit analysis and found that participants in the experiment had an implicit gender bias by recommending higher student loan debt for men than for women. However, additional information regarding the value of a college degree given in the female scenario encouraged them to take student loans and increase the amount of student loans.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bakar, E., Masud, J., & Jusoh, Z. (2006). Knowledge, attitude and perceptions of university students towards educational loans in Malaysia. Journal of Family and Economic Issues,27(4), 692–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-006-9035-6.
Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy,70(5), 9–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/258724.
Becker, G. S. (1992). Human capital and the economy. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,136(1), 85–92.
Becker, G. S. (1994). Human capital revisited. In G. S. Becker (Ed.), Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3rd ed., pp. 15–28). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Boatman, E. S. (2014). Applying the lessons of behavioral economics to improve the federal student loan programs: Six policy recommendations. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/ideas_summit/.
Caetano, G., Patrinos, H. A., & Palacios, M. (2011). Measuring aversion to debt: An experiment among student loan candidates. The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5737.
Cha, K.-W., Weagley, R. O., & Reynolds, L. (2005). Parental borrowing for dependent children’s higher education. Journal of Family and Economic Issues,26(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-005-5900-y.
Chamie, J. (2014). Women more educated than men but still paid less. Yale Global Online, 6. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/women-more-educated-menstill-paid-less-men.
Chapman, E. N., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2013). Physicians and implicit bias: How doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. Journal of General Internal Medicine,28(11), 1504–1510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2441-1.
Cho, S. H., Mountain, T. P., Porto, N., Kiss, E. D., Gutter, M. S., & Griesdorn, T. (2016). Experimental design to understand the student loan decision: A methodological note. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal,45(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12186.
Churaman, C. V. (1992). Financing of college education by single-parent and two-parent families. Journal of Family and Economic Issues,13(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01013647.
Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2012). Graduating to a pay gap: The earnings of women and men one year after college graduation. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
Dwyer, R. E., Hodson, R., & McCloud, L. (2013). Gender, debt, and dropping out of college. Gender & Society,27(1), 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212464906.
Ewert, S. (2012). Fewer diplomas for men: The influence of college experiences on the gender gap in college graduation. The Journal of Higher Education,83(6), 824–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2012.11777271.
Field, E. (2009). Education debt burden and career choice: Evidence from a financial aid experiment at NYU Law School. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,1(1), 1–21.
FRB. (2017). Quarterly Report On Household Debt and Credit. New York. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/interactives/householdcredit/data/pdf/HHDC_2017Q2.pdf.
Fry, R. (2014). The changing profile of student borrowers: Biggest increase in borrowing has been among more affluent students. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/10/07/the-changing-profile-of-student-borrowers/.
Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review,94(4), 945–967.
Kahneman, D., & Amos, T. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica,47(2), 263–291.
Ratcliffe, C., & McKernan, S.-M. (2013). Forever in your debt: Who has student loan debt, and who’s worried. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Sajaia, Z. (2008). Maximum likelihood estimation of a bivariate ordered probit model: Implementation and Monte Carlo simulations. The Stata Journal,4(2), 1–18.
Schubert, R., Brown, M., Gysler, M., & Brachinger, H. (1999). Financial decision-making: Are women really more risk-averse? Gender and Economic Transacitons,89(2), 381–385.
Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives,13(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.13.1.13.
Yilmazer, T. (2008). Saving for children’s college education: An empirical analysis of the trade-off between the quality and quantity of children. Journal of Family and Economic Issues,29(2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-008-9105-z.