Educated or Indoctrinated? Remarks on the Influence of Economic Teaching on Students’ Attitudes Based on Evidence from the Public Good Game Experiment

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Joanna Dzionek-Kozłowska, Jarosław Neneman
{"title":"Educated or Indoctrinated? Remarks on the Influence of Economic Teaching on Students’ Attitudes Based on Evidence from the Public Good Game Experiment","authors":"Joanna Dzionek-Kozłowska, Jarosław Neneman","doi":"10.2478/slgr-2021-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Economic education is frequently blamed for negatively affecting students’ values and attitudes. Economists are reported as less cooperative, more self-interested, and more prone to free-riding. However, empirical evidence is inconclusive – certain studies support while others gainsay the so-called indoctrination hypothesis. We contribute to the discussion by running a Public Good Game (PGG) quasi-experiment. Working with economics and non-economics graduates (N = 206), we compared contributions to the common fund by representatives of both subsamples. Students’ contributions were then juxtaposed against the scores they achieved from the exam items, testing their command of game theory to detect the supposed influence of economic teaching. We hypothesised that holders of a bachelor’s degree in economics and management would contribute less to finance the common good. We also expected that those whose exam scores were higher would donate less to the common fund in the PGG. Contrary to expectations and prior empirical evidence, students holding a bachelor’s degree in economics and management made higher contributions to the common fund than their non-economics counterparts. Also, we found no correlation between the level of donations and exam scores. We conclude that there are no grounds for considering economic teaching as promoting uncooperativeness and exerting the supposed harmful influence on students’ character. We claim that economic departments provide education rather than indoctrination.","PeriodicalId":38574,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric","volume":"22 3","pages":"353 - 371"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2021-0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Economic education is frequently blamed for negatively affecting students’ values and attitudes. Economists are reported as less cooperative, more self-interested, and more prone to free-riding. However, empirical evidence is inconclusive – certain studies support while others gainsay the so-called indoctrination hypothesis. We contribute to the discussion by running a Public Good Game (PGG) quasi-experiment. Working with economics and non-economics graduates (N = 206), we compared contributions to the common fund by representatives of both subsamples. Students’ contributions were then juxtaposed against the scores they achieved from the exam items, testing their command of game theory to detect the supposed influence of economic teaching. We hypothesised that holders of a bachelor’s degree in economics and management would contribute less to finance the common good. We also expected that those whose exam scores were higher would donate less to the common fund in the PGG. Contrary to expectations and prior empirical evidence, students holding a bachelor’s degree in economics and management made higher contributions to the common fund than their non-economics counterparts. Also, we found no correlation between the level of donations and exam scores. We conclude that there are no grounds for considering economic teaching as promoting uncooperativeness and exerting the supposed harmful influence on students’ character. We claim that economic departments provide education rather than indoctrination.
受过教育还是受过教育?从公益博弈实验看经济学教学对学生态度的影响
摘要经济教育经常被指责对学生的价值观和态度产生负面影响。据报道,经济学家不太合作,更自私,更倾向于搭便车。然而,经验证据是不确定的——某些研究支持所谓的灌输假说,而另一些研究则反对。我们通过运行一个公益游戏(PGG)准实验来为讨论做出贡献。我们与经济学和非经济学毕业生(N=206)合作,比较了两个子样本的代表对共同基金的贡献。然后将学生的贡献与他们在考试项目中获得的分数并列,测试他们对博弈论的掌握程度,以检测经济教学的所谓影响。我们假设拥有经济学和管理学学士学位的人对公共利益的资助会更少。我们还预计,那些考试成绩较高的人会减少对PGG共同基金的捐款。与预期和先前的经验证据相反,拥有经济学和管理学学士学位的学生对共同基金的贡献高于非经济学学生。此外,我们发现捐款水平与考试成绩之间没有相关性。我们的结论是,没有理由认为经济教学会助长不合作性,并对学生的性格产生所谓的有害影响。我们声称经济部门提供的是教育,而不是灌输。
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
Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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