Risk–return preferences, gender inequalities and the moderating role of a counselling intervention on choice of major: evidence from a field and survey experiment

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Higher Education Pub Date : 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1007/s10734-024-01237-7
Lukas Fervers, Marita Jacob, Janina Beckmann, Joachim G. Piepenburg
{"title":"Risk–return preferences, gender inequalities and the moderating role of a counselling intervention on choice of major: evidence from a field and survey experiment","authors":"Lukas Fervers, Marita Jacob, Janina Beckmann, Joachim G. Piepenburg","doi":"10.1007/s10734-024-01237-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this study, we examine gender inequalities in educational decision-making. Specifically, we consider high school students selecting a higher education study programme and examine gender-specific risk and return preferences regarding monetary returns and the risk of failure in the programme. Moreover, we assess whether a counselling intervention can mitigate these gender inequalities. We employ a research design that combines a factorial survey and a field experiment to test our hypotheses. Consistent with our theoretical expectations, the results of the factorial survey confirm that girls are disproportionally deterred by the higher failure rates of possible study programmes, whereas boys are attracted more strongly by higher expected returns after graduation. Overall, the counselling intervention reduces the dissuasive effect of higher failure rates. Contrary to our expectations, the moderating effect is not stronger for girls but (if at all) is stronger for boys.</p>","PeriodicalId":48383,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01237-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this study, we examine gender inequalities in educational decision-making. Specifically, we consider high school students selecting a higher education study programme and examine gender-specific risk and return preferences regarding monetary returns and the risk of failure in the programme. Moreover, we assess whether a counselling intervention can mitigate these gender inequalities. We employ a research design that combines a factorial survey and a field experiment to test our hypotheses. Consistent with our theoretical expectations, the results of the factorial survey confirm that girls are disproportionally deterred by the higher failure rates of possible study programmes, whereas boys are attracted more strongly by higher expected returns after graduation. Overall, the counselling intervention reduces the dissuasive effect of higher failure rates. Contrary to our expectations, the moderating effect is not stronger for girls but (if at all) is stronger for boys.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
风险收益偏好、性别不平等以及咨询干预对专业选择的调节作用:来自实地和调查实验的证据
在本研究中,我们探讨了教育决策中的性别不平等问题。具体来说,我们考虑了高中生选择高等教育学习课程的情况,并研究了不同性别在货币回报和课程失败风险方面的风险和回报偏好。此外,我们还评估了辅导干预能否缓解这些性别不平等现象。我们采用了一种将因子调查和实地实验相结合的研究设计来检验我们的假设。与我们的理论预期一致,因子调查的结果证实,女生因可能的学习计划失败率较高而望而却步,而男生则因毕业后预期收益较高而受到更强烈的吸引。总体而言,辅导干预降低了较高失败率的劝阻作用。与我们的预期相反,对女生的调节作用并不强,而对男生(如果有的话)更强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Higher Education
Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
12.00%
发文量
160
期刊介绍: Higher Education is recognised as the leading international journal of Higher Education studies, publishing twelve separate numbers each year. Since its establishment in 1972, Higher Education has followed educational developments throughout the world in universities, polytechnics, colleges, and vocational and education institutions. It has actively endeavoured to report on developments in both public and private Higher Education sectors. Contributions have come from leading scholars from different countries while articles have tackled the problems of teachers as well as students, and of planners as well as administrators. While each Higher Education system has its own distinctive features, common problems and issues are shared internationally by researchers, teachers and institutional leaders. Higher Education offers opportunities for exchange of research results, experience and insights, and provides a forum for ongoing discussion between experts. Higher Education publishes authoritative overview articles, comparative studies and analyses of particular problems or issues. All contributions are peer reviewed.
期刊最新文献
“Writing for English-medium publication is a journey to nowhere — no route and no tools”: Russian academics’ perceptions of the existing publication support The enigma of collegiality: collegiality frames and institutional logics in US higher education Navigating public goods: Chilean public universities and their transformative role in Latin America Exploring perceptions of public good(s), government, and global contributions in Japanese higher education: a phenomenographic approach The importance of international and national publications for promotion and the impact of recruitment policies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1