Parents' Ambitions and Children's Competitiveness

32 Pages·2014·0.39 MB·English

by  Bock, Olaf

Parents’ Ambitions and Children’s
Competitiveness
Menusch Khadjavi
Andreas Nicklisch
WiSo-HH Working Paper Series
Working Paper No. 0138
FeMbarurcahry 22001144
WiSo-HH Working Paper Series
Working Paper No. 0138
MFeabrrcuha 2ry01240 14
Parents’ Ambitions and Children’s Competitiveness
MenuschKhadjavi,UniversitätHamburg,Germany
AndreasNicklisch,UniversitätHamburg,Germany
ISSN 2196-8128
Font used: „TheSans UHH“ / LucasFonts
Die Working Paper Series bieten Forscherinnen und Forschern, die an Projekten in Federfüh-
rung oder mit der Beteiligung der Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften der Uni-
versität Hamburg tätig sind, die Möglichkeit zur digitalen Publikation ihrer Forschungser-
gebnisse. Die Reihe erscheint in unregelmäßiger Reihenfolge.
Jede Nummer erscheint in digitaler Version unter
https://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/de/forschung/working-paper-series/
Kontakt:
WiSo-Forschungslabor
Von-Melle-Park 5
20146 Hamburg
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/forschung/forschungslabor/home/
∗
Parents’ Ambitions and Children’s Competitiveness
1 1,2,∗
Menusch Khadjavi, Andreas Nicklisch,
1
UniversityofHamburg,Germany
2
MaxPlanckInstituteforResearchonCollectiveGoods,Bonn,Germany
∗
Correspondingauthor;e-mail: [email protected]
February 1, 2014
Abstract
Individualwillingnesstocompeteisapersonalitytraitofhighimportance. Whilesub-
stantial differences between individuals are documented in the literature, the sources of
this heterogeneity are still not well understood. To contribute to this issue we conduct an
incentivized field study with pre-school children. We assess the children’s willingness to
compete and relate those inclinations to ambitions and preferences of their parents. The
ambition levels of parents concerning their children’s success in the later professional life
seemspredictivefortheirchildren’scompetitiveness. Inparticular,childrenofhighlyam-
bitious parents tend to enter competition even if their chances to win are low. Moreover,
thelinkbetweenparents’ambitionsandchildren’scompetitivenessisrelatedtothesocio-
economicbackgroundoftheparents.
Keywords: Children, Competition, Field Experiment, Parents, Socialization, Intergenera-
tionalTransmission
JEL-Classification: C91,C93,D01
∗We gratefully acknowledge the many useful comments provided by participants of the Workshop on Self-
Control, Self-Regulation and Education at Aarhus University, Denmark in December 2013. We are indebted to
BernoBu¨chelforexcellentresearchassistance.
1
1 Introduction
Akeycharacteristicofmostmodernsocietiesistheiremphasisoncompetition. Firmscompete
forcustomers,employeescompeteforpromotionsandbonuses,andpoliticianscompeteforvot-
ers. Indeed competition increases welfare and productivity in many settings, for instance labor
contracts(LazearandRosen,1981),andcanresultinjoyofwinning(Dohmenetal.,2011). The
ubiquitous emphasis of competition may however also be a burden for those individuals who
experience losing frequently, resulting in stress, depression and connected health costs (e.g.,
Dohmen et al., 2011; Gilbert et al., 2009). Several studies show that competition for school
placement and competition in classrooms negatively affects the quality of learning and other
socialaspectsofstudents(e.g.,BelfieldandLevin,2002;LaddandFiske,2003). Consequently,
itiscrucialtochooseone’scompetitionswisely.
Little is known about the origins of immanent preferences for competition. Our study pro-
vides evidence on factors that shape preferences for competition already in their early child-
hood. Our data suggests that an important factor triggering children’s competitiveness are par-
ents’ ambitions for their child’s later success in professional life. That is, parents’ ambitions
drivesomeofthechildrentoentercompetitionregardlessoftheirchancestowin.
A number of studies analyze whether gender causes differences in the competitiveness of
children: Gneezy and Rustichini (2004) as well as Sutter and Ru¨tzler (2010) find greater com-
petitivenessamongboysinarunningtask,particularlyforolderchildren. Theauthorsrelatethis
finding to the tremendous degree of overconfidence concerning the rank of their performance
of – especially older – boys. Other authors cannot confirm this result for other tasks (Khacha-
tryan, 2012; Dreber et al., 2011; Samak, 2013), or present mixed evidence regarding decisions
tocompeteandtheimprovementofperformance(Ca´rdenasetal.(2012)). Onepotentialreason
forthismixedpicturemaybedifferentculturesinthecountrieswherethechildrengrewup.
Psychologists, and very recently also economists, test another potential origin of prefer-
ences for competition: they link different degrees of competitiveness to family factors (e.g.
Hupp et al., 2010; McKee and Leader, 1955; Poulin-Dubois et al., 2002; Van Lange et al.,
1997).1 For instance, McKee and Leader (1955) analyze behavior of 112 three-to-four-year
1Recent studies by Bauer et al. (2011), Dohmen et al. (2012) and Kosse and Pfeiffer (2012) have taken the
sameavenuelinkingother-regardingpreferences,riskpreferencesandpatiencetotheirparents’attitudes.Allthree
worksfindcorrelationsbetweenparents’andchildren’spreferencessuggestingthatthetransmissionofpreferences
fromparentstotheirchildrenisakeydriverforthesepersonalitytraits. Likewise,Deckersetal.(2013)showthat
parentalsocioeconomicstatussignificantlyinfluencespatienceandriskattitude:childrenfromfamilieswithhigher
socioeconomicstatusaremorepatientandarelessriskseeking.
2
old children in child-care institutions in the Bay Area. They report that children in child-care
institutions in low-class residential areas were more inclined towards competition compared
to children from middle-class areas. Van Lange et al. (1997) measure competitiveness of 631
Dutchadultswiththesocialvalueorientationmethodandrelatetheirdatatobackgroundinfor-
mation. Notably, they find that subjects with more siblings are more pro-socially oriented, but
less competition-oriented compared to those with fewer siblings. Alma˚s et al. (2012) explore
the relation between children’s willingness to compete and the socio-economic background of
their families among Norwegian adolescents, 14 to 15 years old. One of their key findings
is that children from families with low income and low education are less willing to compete
(even when controlling for performance). Leibbrandt et al. (2013) provide evidence that part
ofanindividual’scompetitivenessstemsfromnormsandcustomsinhersociety. Bartlingetal.
(2012) analyzes whether child health can explain differences in their willingness to compete
with others. Findings suggest that childrens willingness to compete is negatively related to
health problems. More specifically, health has a strongly negative effect for children with low
socio-economic background, whereas this connection cannot be found for children with high
socio-economicbackground.
In our study, we provide an investigation on another source of intergenerational socializa-
tion: wetestwhetherparents’preferencesandambitionswithrespecttotheirchildren’ssuccess
influence children’s competitiveness. In order to allow for maximal relevance of the family
background on children’s decision, we analyze the behavior of very young children. Our in-
vestigation comprises an experimental task with 84 pre-school children in Northern Germany.
Like other recent studies, we borrow a running task from Gneezy and Rustichini (2004). The
designallowsustomeasurechildren’swillingnesstocompeteinafamiliartaskwhichappears
tobeeasilycomprehensibleforthreetosixyear-oldchildren,andwherecompetingis‘natural’.
Prior to the experiment, we sent out consent forms including a short survey to the parents. Im-
portantly,neithertheparentsnorthekindergartenteachersknewthetaskandresearchquestion.
The survey included questions concerning topics which are related and unrelated to competi-
tiveness. Wecollectedinformationonparents’valuesandambitionsconcerningtheirchildren.
Ourresultsindicatehardlyanygenderdifferencesincompetitivenessatthisveryyoungage.
Likewise, parents’ preferences do not appear to matter directly for children’s decision making.
Rather,oneofthemostimportantfactorsinfluencingchildren’scompetitivenessisparents’am-
bitions for their child’s later success in professional life. That is, children of parents stressing
the importance of their offspring’s job success are significantly more likely to compete than
3
children of less ambitious parents: we find a (mean) marginal increase of about 14 percent in
the likelihood to compete for a one point increase on the seven-point ambitions scale. Inter-
estingly, when controlling for the individual likelihood of winning a competition, children of
highly ambitious parents decide to enter competition even when the prospects of winning are
unfavorable. Consequently,relativelyslowchildrenwithveryambitiousparentsentercompeti-
tions and, on average, earn fewer rewards than relatively slow children whose parents are less
ambitious. Hence, parents’ ambitions drive some of the children to ‘overinvest’ into competi-
tion. Onaverage,wefindparentswithlowerincomeandlowereducationtobemoreambitious
thanfamilieswithhighrelativeincome. Thiseffectcouldstrengthenthealreadyexistingstatus
andincomedisadvantagesofchildrenfromlowincomeandloweducationhouseholds.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the method we
use to obtain data on children’s willingness to compete as well as parents’ characteristics and
ambitions. Here we also formulate the hypotheses we want to test. In Section 3 we lay out the
resultsofourstudywithregardtothedifferentpossiblesourcesofcompetitivenessandtestour
hypotheses. Finally,Section4providesaconcludingdiscussionofourresults.
2 Method
Intotal,ourstudyincludesdatafrom84childrenofagesbetweenalmostthreeandsixyears. 2
The settings of our study are two kindergartens in Northern Germany. The first kindergarten is
located in Hamburg, in the suburb of Heimfeld. 52 children from Hamburg participated in our
study,23boysand29girls. ThisdatawascollectedinMarch2012. Thesecondkindergartenis
located in Lower Saxony, in Essenrode. Here we were able to collect the data for 32 children,
20boysand12girlsinMay2012. NoticethatbothkindergartensarelocatedinGermanmiddle
classneighborhoods. Childreninbothkindergartenscomefromapproximatelythesamefamily
structure (83% married parents in Heimfeld, 88% in Essenrode), the same number of siblings
(mean is 0.78 in Heimfeld, 0.97 in Essenrode), parents’ age (median is 34 in Heimfeld, 37
in Essenrode) and parents’ education level (27% of the mothers have a university degree in
Heimfeld,23%inEssenrode).
Theprimaryaimofourstudyistoanalyzejointlytheeffectsofachild’scharacteristicsand
her parents’ characteristics and ambitions for her decision concerning competition. First, we
2Overall,100childrenparticipatedintheexperiment.However,wehadtoexclude16observationsduetosome
missingdataintheparents’survey.
4
describe the elicitation of the competition decision. Then we report the data on parents’ and
children’scharacteristics.
2.1 Eliciting Children’s Willingness to Compete
Weelicitchildren’swillingnesstocompetebyofferingcompetitiveandnon-competitivereward
schemes in a running task. We borrow the idea of a running task from Gneezy and Rustichini
(2004) who use it to study competition effects among 9-10 years old children in Israel.3 We
employ the specific running task in our design to allow for easy comparison of our data with
earlier findings. Moreover, running is one of the few tasks that presumably all children are
familiarwithalreadyataveryyoungage. Itthereforeseemsnaturaltoconsidercompetitionin
arunningtaskforkindergartenchildren.
Therunningtaskwasconductedintherespectiveplaygroundsofthetwokindergartensinsix
separatesessions.4 Thekindergartenteachersallocatedchildrenintothesesessionsaccordingto
organizational criteria of the kindergartens. In each session, one group of children participated
inourstudy,whileallotherswerelookedafterbyteachers. Onaverageagroupconsistedof16
children,whilegroupsizesvariedbetween12and23children.
The children were asked to run as fast as possible from one pair of cones to another pair
of cones which were placed at a distance of 30 meters. Each child ran twice and we recorded
thetimewithastopwatch. Priortothefirstrecording,eachchildwasinformedthatshewould
receive the reward if she completed the task faster than half of the other children. If she was
notfasterthanhalfoftheotherchildren,thenshereceivednorewardforthisrecording. Notice
thatwedidnotelicitthechild’ssubjectiveexpectationconcerningtherankorbeinginthefaster
half of the group. Sutter and Ru¨tzler (2010) report an overwhelming degree of overconfidence
among children of that age, so that statement seems to provide little information (they report
that on average 91 percent of the children expect to be in the faster group). Nonetheless, we
assumethatchildrencouldassessintuitivelytheirperformancewithinthegroupbasedonevery-
day experience, since they were able to observe each other while running. Information on
performanceandonearnedrewardswasnotdiscloseduntiltheendoftheexperiment.5
Afterthefirstrecordingeachchildwasinterviewedinprivate(ateacherwasalwayspresent
3RecentstudiesbyCa´rdenasetal.(2012),Dreberetal.(2011)andSutterandRu¨tzler(2010)alsomakeuseof
the task for research with 9-12 years old children in Colombia and Sweden, 7-10 years old children in Sweden,
and3-8yearsoldchildreninAustria,respectively.
4Allsessionswereconductedincomparable,sunnyweatherconditions.
5Allchildrenfinallyreceivedatleastonerewardasa‘show-upfee’.
5
inthebackgroundtoensurecomfortforthechild). Weinformedeachchildthattherewouldbe
a second recording and that this time the reward depends on her decision. Again, we told each
child that we would record the time. Each child had to decide whether to run against another
child(i.e.,tocompeteagainstanotherchild),ortoruninordertoimproveherowntime. Ifshe
winsagainstanotherchild,shereceivesalargerewardplusasmallreward. Ifshelosesagainst
another child, she receives no reward. Conversely, if she decides to improve her own time, she
receivesalargerewardifsherunsfasterthanbeforeandasmallrewardifshedoesnotimprove
her own time. The two options were illustrated by two large cards showing large and small
wrapped rewards for the corresponding case (see Figure A.1 in Appendix A); children had to
point to one of the two options and to declare explicitly their choices in order to make clear
decisions.
The interview with each child was always conducted by the same experimenter and fol-
lowed,ascloselyaspossible,aprotocolofhowtophrasetheinstructionsandquestions. 6 The
second recording of the running time was also conducted without another child running at the
sametime(seeFigureA.2inAppendixA).7 Thematchingofcompetingchildrenwassetupby
rankingfirstrecordingtimesandensuringcloseranks;noinformationconcerningthematching
was provided to the children. Again, this procedure follows Gneezy and Rustichini (2004) and
SutterandRu¨tzler(2010).
Formally,achildineedstodecideonherbinarycompetitionchoicec ∈ {0,1}. Giventhat
i
childrendonotknowtheformoftherewardsuntiltheendofthestudy,itisfairtoassumethat
0 = vnone < vsmall < vlarge < vboth forallchildren.8 Thentheexpectedutilityofchildiis
i i i i
(cid:2)
p vboth +0 ifc = 1
EU (c ) = i i i (1)
i i q vlarge +(1−q )vsmall ifc = 0,
i i i i i
where p is child i(cid:3)s probability of winning in competition and q is her probability of running
i i
faster than her first record. The decision to compete (c = 1) maximizes expected utility if and
i
onlyif
q vlarge +(1−q )vsmall
p ≥ i i i i ∈ (0,1). (2)
i vboth
i
6SeeAppendixBfortheprotocol.
7Wedecidedtohavechildrenrunwithouttheircompetitorsasidetheminordertodisentanglethetwoeffects
ofpressurefromhavinganotherchildnexttooneselfandbeinginacompetitionperse.Otherwise,wewouldhave
hadthechildrenrunningnexttoeachotherforthefirstrecordingaswell,whichmayresultinissuesoffeelingin
acompetitionwithoutbeinginone.
8Itispossiblethatvboth = vsmall +vlarge, whichhasthestandardinterpretationofriskneutrality. Smaller
i i i
vbothreflectsriskaversionsinceitisthediscretecounterparttoaconcaveutilityfunction.
i
6
Note that this is always the case if p close enough to 1 and never satisfied if p close enough
i i
to 0 such that children who are very confident about winning should always enter competition,
while children very sure not to win potential competition should not enter.9 For less extreme
valuesofp theutilitymaximizingdecisiondependsonthetrade-offbetweenprobabilitiesand
i
valuation of the rewards. Thereby, the competitive choice becomes more attractive the larger
the value of both rewards, vboth, is compared to the case of either reward, vlarge or vsmall and
i i i
thesmallertheprobabilityq isofrunningfasterinthesecondroundthaninthefirstround.
i
The probability of winning a competition, p , depends on the own ability to run fast in
i
comparisontotheabilitiesoftheothersintheowngroupwhoalsoenterthecompetition.10 Ex
post, we can observe those who opted for competition and how they performed in the second
round. Ex ante, the estimation of p depends on the beliefs about who enters the competition.
i
Still, it is reasonable to assume that the probability to win a competition, p , is increasing in
i
the performance in round one compared with the other children from the own group such that
childrenwhoarefasterthanothershavebetterprospectsincompetition. Therefore,weconsider
beingfasterthanothersinthefirstroundasanindicatorforahighp .11
i
Theaboveexpectedutilityfunctionservesasasummaryoftheincentiveanddecisionstruc-
ture;naturally,onemaywonderwhetherkindergartenchildrenareabletoprocessallthetrade-
offs involved. Nevertheless, we employ the rewards in order to ensure an adequate incentive
structure. While all children are informed about this incentive structure, we deliberately focus
the attention of the children on the decision of whether to run against another child or to run
to improve one’s own time. Thus, when confronted with the choice situation not only consid-
erations of expected rewards, but also spontaneous inclinations to avoid or enter competition
are likely to be present. In the latter case, we are not measuring risk preferences and beliefs
about own and others’ performance, but rather a preference for or against competition per se.
Ineithercase,itisimportanttounderstandwhichfactorsshapethedecision. Letusnowturnto
thecharacteristicsandambitionsoftheparents.
9Similarly,highlyriskaversechildren(vboth closetovlarge)shouldnotentercompetition,whileriskseeking
i i
children(vbothsufficientlylarge)shouldenter.
i
10Theassumptionvboth = vsmall+vlarge simplifiestheconditionsuchthatcompetitionmaximizesexpected
i i i
utilityifvsmall(p +q −1)≥vlarge(q −p ). Forinstance,oneshouldrejectcompetitionifp <min{q ,1}.
i i i i i i i i 2
11Moreover,wewillshowlateronthatchildrenwhodonotbelongtothiscategoryof‘fast’children,maximize
expectedutilitybynotenteringcompetition,iftheyareriskaverseorriskneutral.
7
2.2 Parents’ Preferences and Ambitions
In addition to children’s decisions for or against entering into a competition, we collected data
on parents’ preferences and ambitions which may allow us to identify parents’ influences on a
child’s willingness to compete. In order to collect our data, we approached the parents by mail
(sent via the kindergarten) to ask for their consent (with the permissions of the kindergartens’
directions and their administrative institutions). We combined the consent form with a survey
part, so that we had the possibility to collect data on children’s and parents’ characteristics
beyond the age and gender of the child. Note that neither parents nor kindergarten teachers
wereawareofourresearchquestion. Toruleoutobviouscluesaboutourresearchquestion,the
survey was a mixture of related and unrelated questions. Both kindergartens offered activities
forthosechildrenwithoutparents’consentorthosewhooptedoutduringthesessions.12
Themainreasonforustostudykindergartenchildrenisthattheyareattheverybeginningof
theirencounterofsocialnorms. Therefore,weexpectthatparents’influenceisfairlyundiluted
compared to later stages in life. Amongst others, we collected data on parents’ age, number
and ages of siblings, duration of breast feeding, marital status of the parents, the language
that is spoken at home, and the education of the parents. Further, we asked parents to answer
questionswithregardtotrust,competition,risk,importanceofathleticandprofessionalsuccess
of their child, perceived relative household income and the mother’s share of household work
onaseven-pointscale. 13
The survey items are guided by a list of hypotheses derived from multiple strands of the
literature: Approaches suggesting the transmission of cultural traits argue that children adopt
preferences similar to their parents’ (e.g., Bisin and Verdier, 2001, or see Bisin and Verdier,
2010 for a survey). In that light, competitive parents are expected to have competitive chil-
dren.14In our data set we measure to which extent parents like competition on a seven-point
scale. Thecorrespondinghypothesisisthathighlycompetitiveparentstendtohavecompetitive
children. If this hypothesis is confirmed, then it is still an open question which mechanism
causes the correlation. Parents not only share genes with their children but also serve as role
modelsintheirsocializationprocess. Moreover,socializationisdependentonthe(social)envi-
12Despite the consent of her parents, a child was free to choose not to participate in the study at any point in
time. Thisoptionwasnotusedapartfromafewexceptionsofveryyoungchildren.
13SeeAppendixCforanEnglishtranslationofthesurveysheet.
14Similarcorrelationsbetweenchildren’sandparents’preferencesarefoundrecentlyforriskpreferencesand
trust(Dohmenetal.,2012),fortimepreferencessuchasimpatience(KosseandPfeiffer,2012),andforattitudes
concerningfemalelaborforceparticipation(Fernandezetal.,2004).
8