Who do they think you are? Inconsistencies in self- and proxy-reports of education within families

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Chloé Lavest , Mathieu Ferry , Mathieu Ichou , Patrick Präg
{"title":"Who do they think you are? Inconsistencies in self- and proxy-reports of education within families","authors":"Chloé Lavest ,&nbsp;Mathieu Ferry ,&nbsp;Mathieu Ichou ,&nbsp;Patrick Präg","doi":"10.1016/j.ssresearch.2025.103225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Estimates of intergenerational educational mobility are generally computed using a combination of self- and proxy-reports of one’s and one’s parents’ education. Such reports are easily collected, offering a cost-effective alternative to collecting multiple self-reports or register data. However, the bias that proxy-reports could introduce in the measurement of intergenerational educational mobility is rarely assessed. Our study fills this gap and assesses how reliable people are when they report their parents’ or their child’s educational attainment. We find that both parents and children tend to underestimate the educational distance between themselves and their family members, thus inflating estimates of educational reproduction. This trend is larger when children act as proxy-reporters. Another limitation of using children’s proxy-reported information is the number of missing answers, which is lower when parents are asked to proxy-report their child’s education. In a simulation exercise, we establish that the bias introduced by proxy reports is not negligible, with self-reported intergenerational regression coefficients being 9% higher when a proxy-report is used.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48338,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Research","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 103225"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X25000869","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Estimates of intergenerational educational mobility are generally computed using a combination of self- and proxy-reports of one’s and one’s parents’ education. Such reports are easily collected, offering a cost-effective alternative to collecting multiple self-reports or register data. However, the bias that proxy-reports could introduce in the measurement of intergenerational educational mobility is rarely assessed. Our study fills this gap and assesses how reliable people are when they report their parents’ or their child’s educational attainment. We find that both parents and children tend to underestimate the educational distance between themselves and their family members, thus inflating estimates of educational reproduction. This trend is larger when children act as proxy-reporters. Another limitation of using children’s proxy-reported information is the number of missing answers, which is lower when parents are asked to proxy-report their child’s education. In a simulation exercise, we establish that the bias introduced by proxy reports is not negligible, with self-reported intergenerational regression coefficients being 9% higher when a proxy-report is used.
他们以为你是谁?家庭内部教育的自我报告和代理报告不一致
对代际教育流动性的估计通常是通过个人和父母教育的自我报告和代理报告相结合来计算的。这些报告很容易收集,为收集多个自我报告或登记数据提供了一种经济有效的替代方案。然而,代理报告在测量代际教育流动性时可能引入的偏差很少被评估。我们的研究填补了这一空白,并评估了人们在报告父母或孩子的教育成就时的可靠程度。我们发现父母和孩子都倾向于低估自己和家庭成员之间的教育距离,从而夸大了对教育再生产的估计。当儿童充当代理记者时,这种趋势更大。使用儿童代理报告信息的另一个限制是缺失答案的数量,当父母被要求代理报告他们孩子的教育时,缺失答案的数量会减少。在模拟练习中,我们确定代理报告引入的偏差不可忽略,当使用代理报告时,自我报告的代际回归系数高出9%。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
65 days
期刊介绍: Social Science Research publishes papers devoted to quantitative social science research and methodology. The journal features articles that illustrate the use of quantitative methods in the empirical solution of substantive problems, and emphasizes those concerned with issues or methods that cut across traditional disciplinary lines. Special attention is given to methods that have been used by only one particular social science discipline, but that may have application to a broader range of areas.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信