Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-18T12:39:51.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The unnoticed influence of peers on educational preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2019

SIMON CALMAR ANDERSEN  and
MORTEN HJORTSKOV Open the ORCID record for MORTEN HJORTSKOV [Opens in a new window]
SIMON CALMAR ANDERSEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and TrygFondens Centre for Child Research, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
MORTEN HJORTSKOV
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and TrygFondens Centre for Child Research, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
*
*Correspondence to: Simon Calmar Andersen, Department of Political Science and TrygFondens Centre for Child Research, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. Email: sca@ps.au.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some of the most important decisions young people make are choices about education. Yet recent research shows that educational decisions are poorly explained by classical models of human capital investments: adolescents do not always choose what would best optimize their long-term net outcomes. Instead, students have been shown to be influenced by their current group of peers at the time when they make educational decisions. We expand on existing models by showing that students’ stated educational preferences can be influenced by simply priming them with their peers’ preferences. Further, we show that students are unaware of this peer influence in the sense that: (1) they claim that peers have no influence; (2) in a conjoint experiment, they do not select educations based on peers’ assessments; and (3) in a list experiment absent of any social desirability bias, they do not ascribe any influence to their peers either. All in all, the results show that young people are unwittingly influenced by their peers. These results have important implications for public policies aimed at encouraging young people to make more deliberate and informed educational choices.

Information

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 530 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albert, D., Chein, J. and Steinberg, L. (2013), ‘The Teenage Brain: Peer Influences on Adolescent Decision Making’, Current directions in psychological science, 22(2): 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S. C. and Hjortskov, M. (2016), ‘Cognitive Biases in Performance Evaluations’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4): 647–662. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muv036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, D. and Fryer, R. G. (2005), ‘An Economic Analysis of “Acting White”’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2): 551–583.Google Scholar
Autor, D. H. (2014), ‘Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the “other 99 percent”’, Science, 344(6186): 843–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barone, C. et al. (2017), ‘Information Barriers, Social Inequality, and Plans for Higher Education: Evidence from a Field Experiment’, European Sociological Review, 33(1): 84–96.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1964), Human Capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ben-Porath, Y. (1967), ‘The production of human capital and the life cycle of earnings’, The Journal of Political Economy, pp. 352–365.Google Scholar
Bettinger, E. P. et al. (2012), ‘The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: Results from the h&r block fafsa experiment*’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3): 1205–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, G. and Imai, K. (2012), ‘Statistical Analysis of List Experiments’, Political Analysis, 20(1): 47–77. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpr048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckles, K. et al. (2016), ‘The effect of college education on mortality’, Journal of Health Economics, 50, pp. 99–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bursztyn, L. and Jensen, R. (2015), ‘How Does Peer Pressure Affect Educational Investments?’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(3): 1329–1367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bursztyn, L. and Jensen, R. (2017), ‘Social Image and Economic Behavior in the Field: Identifying, Understanding, and Shaping Social Pressure’, Annual Review of Economics, 9(1): 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbonaro, W. and Workman, J. (2016), ‘Intermediate peer contexts and educational outcomes: Do the friends of students’ friends matter?’, Social Science Research, 58, pp. 184–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M. and Somerville, L. H. (2011), ‘Braking and Accelerating of the Adolescent Brain’, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1): 21–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castleman, B. L., Page, L. C. and Schooley, K. (2014), ‘The Forgotten Summer: Does the Offer of College Counseling After High School Mitigate Summer Melt Among College-Intending, Low-Income High School Graduates?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(2): 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Giorgi, G., Pellizzari, M. and Redaelli, S. (2010), ‘Identification of Social Interactions through Partially Overlapping Peer Groups’, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(2): 241–275.Google Scholar
Ecker, U. K. H. et al. (2011), ‘Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction’, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3): 570–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egan, K. K. et al. (2017), Rygevaner blandt gymnasie- og erhversskoleelever. [Smoking habits among high school and vocational school students], Statens Institut for Folkesundhed: SDU, pp. 1–42. Available at: https://www.sdu.dk:443/da/sif/rapporter/2017/rygevaner_blandt_gymnasie_og_erhversskoleelever (Accessed: 29 December 2018).Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H. and Olson, M. A. (2014), ‘The MODE model: Attitude–behavior processes as a function of motivation and opportunity’, in Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B. and Trope, Y. (eds), Dual process theories of the social mind, 155–171.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. M. (2015), ‘Social interactions and college enrollment: A combined school fixed effects/instrumental variables approach’, Social Science Research, 52, pp. 494–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2017), ‘The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics’, Political Psychology, 38(S1): 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, A. N. (2013), ‘What Can We Learn with Statistical Truth Serum? Design and Analysis of the List Experiment’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(S1): 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J. and Yamamoto, T. (2014), ‘Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments’, Political Analysis, 22(1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haller, A. O. and Butterworth, C. E. (1960), ‘Peer Influences on Levels of Occupational and Educational Aspiration’, Social Forces, 38(4): 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, D. B., Kobus, K. and Schoeny, M. E. (2011), ‘Accuracy and bias in adolescents’ perceptions of friends’ substance use’, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 25(1): 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1996), ‘Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience’, in Higgins, E. T. and Kruglanski, A. W (eds), Social Psychology. Handbook of Basic Principles, New York, NY: Guilford Press, 133–168.Google Scholar
Hjortskov, M. (2017), ‘Priming and Context Effects in Citizen Satisfaction Surveys’, Public Administration, 95(4): 912–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, 1 edition, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S. (2002), ‘Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment’, in Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, M. P., Todd, P. E. and Wolpin, K. I. (2011), ‘Chapter 4 - The Structural Estimation of Behavioral Models: Discrete Choice Dynamic Programming Methods and Applications’, in Ashenfelter, O. and Card, D. (eds), Handbook of Labor Economics. Elsevier (Handbooks in Economics), 331–461.Google Scholar
Keane, M. P. and Wolpin, K. I. (1997), ‘The Career Decisions of Young Men’, Journal of Political Economy, 105(3): 473–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafortune, J. (2013), ‘Making Yourself Attractive: Pre-marital Investments and the Returns to Education in the Marriage Market’, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(2): 151–178.Google Scholar
Lochner, L. (2011), ‘Nonproduction Benefits of Education: Crime, Health, and Good Citizenship’, Handbook of the Economics of Education. (Handbook of The Economics of Education), 4, pp. 183–282.Google Scholar
Marks, G. and Miller, N. (1987), ‘Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review.’, Psychological Bulletin, 102(1): p. 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mincer, J. (1958), ‘Investment in human capital and personal income distribution’, The journal of political economy, pp. 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, P. A. (2014), ‘Learning from Performance Feedback: Performance Information, Aspiration Levels, and Managerial Priorities’, Public Administration, 92(1): 142–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nizalova, O. Y. and Murtazashvili, I. (2016), ‘Exogenous Treatment and Endogenous Factors: Vanishing of Omitted Variable Bias on the Interaction Term’, Journal of Econometric Methods, 5(1): 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2010), ‘When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions’, Political Behavior, 32(2): 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, L. et al. (2011), ‘Adolescents prefer more immediate rewards when in the presence of their peers’, Journal of Research on adolescence, 21(4): 747–753.Google Scholar
Page, L. C. and Scott-Clayton, J. (2016), ‘Improving college access in the United States: Barriers and policy responses’, Economics of Education Review. (Access to Higher Education), 51, pp. 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pihl, M. D. and Jensen, T. L. (2015), Se hvor meget din uddannelse er værd for dig og samfundet, [See how much your education is worth for you and for society]. København: Arbejderbevægelsens Erhvervsråd, 1–12. Available at: https://www.ae.dk/analyser/se-hvor-meget-din-uddannelse-er-vaerd-for-dig-og-samfundet.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. (1977), ‘Human capital: A survey of empirical research’, in Ehrenberg, R. G (ed.), Research in Labor Economics, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 3–39.Google Scholar
Rosenqvist, E. (2018), ‘Two Functions of Peer Influence on Upper-secondary Education Application Behavior’, Sociology of Education, 91(1): 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L., Greene, D. and House, P. (1977), ‘The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes’, Journal of experimental social psychology, 13(3): 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N. et al. (1991), ‘Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic.’, Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 61(2): p. 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skov, P. R. (2016), The Company You Keep:: The Effects of Peers and Disruptive Behavior on Educational Achievement and Choice of Education. PhD Thesis. Sociologisk Institut, Københavns Universitet. Available at: http://www.forskningsdatabasen.dk/en/catalog/2353729030 (Accessed: 8 June 2018).Google Scholar
Sniderman, P. M. (2011), ‘The Logic and Design of the Survey Experiment: An Autobiography of a Methodological Innovation’, in Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, New York: Cambridge University Press, 102–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1999), Who Is Rational?: Studies of individual Differences in Reasoning. Mahwah, N.J: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. (2000), ‘Advancing the rationality debate’, Behavioral and brain sciences, 23(05): 701–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, L. (2008), ‘A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking’, Developmental review, 28(1): 78–106.Google ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, L. et al. (2009), ‘Age Differences in Future Orientation and Delay Discounting’, Child Development, 80(1): 28–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, L. and Monahan, K. C. (2007), ‘Age differences in resistance to peer influence.’, Developmental Psychology, 43(6): 1531–1543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973), ‘Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability’, Cognitive Psychology, 5(2): 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Undervisningsministeriet (2018), Elever i 10. klasse i skoleåret 2017/18. Notat. [Students in 10th grade in the school year of 2017/18]. København: Styrelsen for IT og læring, pp. 1–3. Available at: https://www.uvm.dk/-/media/filer/uvm/udd/folke/pdf18/nov/181106notat---elever-i-10--klasse-2017-18.pdf?la=da (Accessed: 15 February 2019).Google Scholar
Weigard, A. et al. (2014), ‘Effects of anonymous peer observation on adolescents’ preference for immediate rewards’, Developmental Science, 17(1): 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, R. J. and Rosen, S. (1979), ‘Education and Self-Selection’, Journal of Political Economy, 87(5): S7–S36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, S. (2000), ‘Students’ estimates of the prevalence of drug use: evidence for a false consensus effect’, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 14(3): 295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Andersen and Hjortskov supplementary material

Andersen and Hjortskov supplementary material 1

Download Andersen and Hjortskov supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 630.8 KB