Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The study will use three main outcome variables. The first of them is the financial literacy score, which will be based on the “Big-Three” to attest for financial knowledge (including degree of certainty by answer), with extra questions for financial knowledge, financial attitude and financial behaviour from slightly modified questions of the full OECD (2013) questionnaire, Atkinson & Messy (2011), Maldonado et al. (2019) and from Iterbeke et al. (2020).
For the second outcome variable we will develop a behavioural test for heuristics divided into two segments. First an availability heuristic use test, which asks students for preference among financial alternatives and likelihood of different outcomes at different degrees of availability (i.e. events that come easily to mind). Second, a gambler’s fallacy heuristics test based on the opposite of the availability heuristics, when individuals put higher probabilities to events that did not happened recently. Part of the questions for heuristics are based on Camerer (1989).
The last outcome variable, the degree of possibility effect is analysed in a set of different nine questions individually, which vary in terms of probabilities, economic size and type of financial decision (investment or insurance). The questions are partially inspired by Kahneman & Tversky (1979) and Tversky & Kahneman (1992), but considering its applications to financial decisions.
Besides the tests of the main outcome variables, pre-existing conditions of students (e.g. grades in math and language, situation of family, absence rate) and school (e.g. private/public, region, performance in past standardized tests, funding by student) will also be collected.
Atkinson, A., & Messy, F. A. (2011). Assessing financial literacy in 12 countries: an OECD/INFE international pilot exercise. Journal of Pension Economics & Finance, 10(4), 657-665.
Camerer, C., & Kunreuther, H. (1989). Experimental markets for insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(3), 265-299.
Iterbeke, K., De Witte, K., Declercq, K., & Schelfhout, W. (2020). The effect of ability matching and differentiated instruction in financial literacy education. Evidence from two randomised control trials. Economics of Education Review, 78, 101949.
Jacobs, A. M., & Matthews, J. S. (2012). Why do citizens discount the future? Public opinion and the timing of policy consequences. British Journal of Political Science, 903-935.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
Maldonado, J. E., De Witte, K., & Declercq, K. (2019). The effects of parental involvement in homework. Two randomised controlled trials in financial education. FEB Research Report Department of Economics DPS19. 14.
OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy, OECD Publishing.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.