The Boy Crisis: Experimental Evidence on the Acceptance of Males Falling Behind

Cappelen, Alexander W.; Falch, Ranveig; Tungodden, Bertil

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3348981

Cited by 15 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From Table 3, we observe the correlation between observed background characteristics and distributive behavior. In line with the literature on inequality acceptance in the income domain (Almås et al, 2020;Cappelen et al, 2019b), we observe that females allocate a lower share to quick learners than do males (-0.051, p < 0.001, column 2). We further observe that younger people and people with low education distribute a larger share to the quick learners compared to their counterparts (0.107, p < 0.001, 0.033, and p = 0.008, column 2).…”

Section: Main Analysessupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In terms of political preferences, we observe a political consensus for the priority of the slow learner (0.016, p = 0.150, column 2). This is noticeable, given that Republicans are often found to accept more inequality than Democrats (Almås et al, 2020;Cappelen et al, 2019b). The result suggests that there is more political consensus for reducing inequalities in education, compared to inequalities in the income domain.…”

Section: Main Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relevant to these debated shifts in policy priorities, the present paper shows that, while people prioritize slow learners, they do not exclude efforts to strengthen the performance of quick learners to whom they allocate on average one third of the educational resources. Further, the present paper provides insight into the public support for education policies addressing the boy crisis, where boys are falling behind in school and dropping out at higher rates than girls (Autor and Wasserman, 2013;Cappelen et al, 2019b;OECD, 2017). Additionally, the paper sheds light on the public opinion on the equity-efficiency trade-off linked to how much should be invested in adolescent skill policies aimed at reducing inequality based on socioeconomic backgrounds (Elango, García, Heckman, and Hojman, 2015;Heckman, 2006;Marks, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…2 There are a number of other important questions in the literature on human capital investment, including how to respond to the boy crisis in education (Cappelen, Falch, and Tungodden, 2019b) and how to design fair and efficient adolescent skill policies (Heckman, 2006). mechanisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other articles studying social preferences and impartial behavior are, e.g., Andreoni, Aydin, Barton, Bernheim, and Naecker (2020); Bortolotti, Soraperra, Sutter, and Zoller (2017); Cappelen, Falch, Huang, and Tungodden (2019a);Cappelen et al (2019b); Rodriguez-Lara and Moreno-Garrido (2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

How Do People Trade Off Resources Between Quick and Slow Learners?

Falch

2021

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How society invests in human capital is important for economic growth and social welfare. The paper reports from the first experiment designed to elicit people's preferences for how to prioritize educational resources, where 2,000 Americans trade off educational resources between quick and slow learners. I find that they give strong priority to slow learners and assign two thirds of the educational resources to this group. Both cost efficiency and the motivation of the learners causally affect the resource allocation. The findings provide important insights for the present policy debate on how to distribute educational resources in society.

show abstract

Section: Main Analysessupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Main Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

How Do People Trade Off Resources Between Quick and Slow Learners?

Falch

2021

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women

Graso

Reynolds

2023

Arch Sex Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific and organizational interventions often involve trade-offs whereby they benefit some but entail costs to others (i.e., instrumental harm; IH). We hypothesized that the gender of the persons incurring those costs would influence intervention endorsement, such that people would more readily support interventions inflicting IH onto men than onto women. We also hypothesized that women would exhibit greater asymmetries in their acceptance of IH to men versus women. Three experimental studies (two pre-registered) tested these hypotheses. Studies 1 and 2 granted support for these predictions using a variety of interventions and contexts. Study 3 tested a possible boundary condition of these asymmetries using contexts in which women have traditionally been expected to sacrifice more than men: caring for infants, children, the elderly, and the ill. Even in these traditionally female contexts, participants still more readily accepted IH to men than women. Findings indicate people (especially women) are less willing to accept instrumental harm befalling women (vs. men). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications and limitations of our findings.

show abstract

COVID-19 and educational inequality: How school closures affect low- and high-achieving students

Grewenig

Lergetporer

Werner

et al. 2021

European Economic Review

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In spring 2020, governments around the globe shut down schools to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus. We argue that low-achieving students may be particularly affected by the lack of educator support during school closures. We collect detailed time-use information on students before and during the school closures in a survey of 1,099 parents in Germany. We find that while students on average reduced their daily learning time of 7.4 hours by about half, the reduction was significantly larger for low-achievers (4.1 hours) than for high-achievers (3.7 hours). Low-achievers disproportionately replaced learning time with detrimental activities such as TV or computer games rather than with activities more conducive to child development. The learning gap was not compensated by parents or schools who provided less support for low-achieving students.

show abstract

The Boy Crisis: Experimental Evidence on the Acceptance of Males Falling Behind

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

How Do People Trade Off Resources Between Quick and Slow Learners?

How Do People Trade Off Resources Between Quick and Slow Learners?

Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women

COVID-19 and educational inequality: How school closures affect low- and high-achieving students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About