TEENAGERS’ BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS PERSIST INTO MIDDLE AGE

Academic motivation and behavioural problems at age 16 are strongly echoed in people’s behaviour at age 41, such as their likelihood of being involved in drug abuse, smoking and criminal activity, their physical and mental health, their political participation and whether they have low self-confidence and a poor attitude to work.

These are the findings of research by Christoph Weiss, presented at the Royal Economic Society’s 2011 annual conference. His study analyses data on every adult in the UK born between 3 and 9 March 1958 – the National Child Development Study (NCDS). The NCDS measures academic motivation based on five questions that each person was asked at age 16 about their feelings towards school. Behavioural problems are measured based on questions to each teenager’s parents and teachers.

Even when controlling for school results and other factors, the study finds that people with higher academic motivation and lower behavioural problems at age 16 are less likely to report ‘problematic’ behaviour at 41.For example, academic motivation and behavioural problems at age 16 have a large effect on smoking status, consumption of illegal drugs or the chances of reacting violently at age 41. They also affect whether people considers themselves to be good at problem-solving or using numbers.

The report then examines the role of family environment in shaping these adolescent traits. It finds that parental investment of time and money in their child’s education matters a lot. But parental attitudes towards the school achievement of their children and parental satisfaction with their education have much larger effects on motivation and behaviourthan measures of the family’s financial situation.

These results suggest that interventions should not only be targeted at improving people’s cognitive skills at age 16 but also their personality traits. The author argues that any programmes should also involve the parents, given their critical role in shaping a child’s personality.

More…

Several studies in economics, psychology and sociology have established that personality or non-cognitive traits – such as motivation, attentiveness, self-esteem, perseverance or disruptiveness – are important determinants of educational and labour market outcomes.[1] Osborne points out, ‘there is an intuitive appeal that a good worker is, in part, determined by personality traits.’

Some authors have also examined the impact of these traits at adolescent age on social behaviour. For example, Heckman et al (2006) find that the same vectors of adolescent cognitive and non-cognitive skills explain various adolescent risky social behaviours, such as final educational attainment, teenage pregnancy or youth smoking.

Cunha et al (2010) show that skills beget skills. Segal (2008) finds that student behaviour during adolescence is persistent. Adolescent attitudes and behaviours have thus been shown to be associated with adolescent outcomes.

But do they matter for attitudes and behaviours 25 years later?

This paper examines the impact of academic motivation and behavioural problems at age 16 on self-reported adult attitudes and behaviours at age 41, such as illegal drugs consumption, smoking, physical and mental health, criminal activity, political participation, self-confidence and opinions about the labour market.

The data is taken from the NCDS, a longitudinal dataset containing rich information about a particular cohort of the British population: all children born between 3 and 9 March 1958.

The paper shows that academic motivation and behavioural problems are important determinants of adult social outcomes. The measure of academic motivation is based on five questions that asked of children at age 16 about their feelings towards school.

The study uses two different measures of behavioural problems at age 16, one based on questions asked to the mother of the child and another based on questions asked to the teacher. Even when controlling for educational attainment and personal characteristics, individuals with higher academic motivation and lower behavioural problems at age 16 have lower probabilities of reporting ‘problematic’behaviour at age 41.

For example, academic motivation and behavioural problems at age 16 have a large impact on smoking status, consumption of illegal drugs or the probability of often getting into a violent rage at age 41. They also affect whether someone considers that he or she is good at problem solving or at the use of numbers at age 41.

This leads to the next research question discussed in this paper: what are the factors determining academic motivation and behavioural problems at age 16?

The research examines the role of family environment in shaping these adolescent attitudes and behaviours and finds that parental investment matters a lot! But parental investment does not necessarily mean more money.

Parental attitudes towards the school achievement of their children and parental satisfaction with their education have much larger effects on academic motivation and behavioural problems than measures of the financial situation of the family (for example, free school meals for the child or financial hardship reported by the parents).

The results of this study indicate that interventions directed at adolescents should not only be targeted at improving their cognitive skills. Cognitive abilities are of course very important but personality traits matter as well. Cunha et al (2006) argue that non-cognitive abilities or personality traits are more malleable at a later age than cognitive abilities.

This should be taken into account when thinking about policy programmes that aim to improve the life prospects of disadvantaged adolescents. The programmes should also involve the parents. The results suggest that there are important economic returns to an improvement in personality traits, even at adolescent age. By boosting their confidence and motivation, some adolescents may become better citizens.

ENDS

‘Persistent attitudes and behaviours’ by Christoph Weiss, European University Institute and University of Padua

Contact:

Christoph Weiss

Tel. +44 757 622 95 26 (From April 16 to April 20)

Tel. +39 049 827 40 48 / +39 348 988 31 94 (Before April 16 or after April 20)

References

Bowles, Samuel, Herbert Gintis and Melissa Osborne (2001). ‘The Determinants of Earnings: A Behavioural Approach.’Journal of Economic Literature, 39(4), 1137-1176.

Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas and Adrian Furnham (2003). ‘Personality Traits and Academic Examination Performance.’European Journal of Personality, 17, 237-250.

Cunha, Flavio, James J. Heckman, Lance Lochner and Dimitriy V. Masterov (2006). ‘Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle Skill Formation.’ In Handbook of the Economics of Education. Edited by E. Hanushek and F. Welch. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 697-812.

Cunha, Flavio, James J. Heckman and Susanne Schennach (2010). ‘Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation.’Econometrica, 78(3), 883-931.

Farkas, George (2003). ‘Cognitive Skills and Noncognitive Traits and Behaviours in Stratication Process.’Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 541-562.

Heckman, James J., Jora Stixrud and Sergio Urzua (2006). ‘The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labour Market Outcomes and Social Behavior.’Journal of Labour Economics, 24(3), 411-482.

Osborne-Groves, Melissa (2005). ‘How important is your personality? Labour market returns to personality for women in the U.S. and U.K.’Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(6),

827-841.

Segal, Carmit (2008). ‘Classroom Behavior.’Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 783-814.

Wolfe, Raymond N., and Scott D. Johnson (1995). ‘Personality as a Predictor of College Performance.’Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(2), 177-85.

[1]See Bowles et al (2001), Chamarro-Premuzic and Furnham (2003), Wolfe and Johnson (1995) and Farkas (2003)