hard evidence on soft skills - university of chicago · hard evidence on soft skills james j....

References

Hard Evidence on Soft Skills

James J. HeckmanUniversity of Chicago

Econ 350, Winter 2012

James J. Heckman Hard Evidence on Soft Skills 1 / 31

References

Table 1: Cognitive Ability Validities

Test Validation Domain Estimate(s) Source(s)

SAT (Achievement) 1st Year College GPA 0.35 - 0.53 Kobrin et al. (2008)

ACT (Achievement) Early College GPA 0.42 ACT, Inc. (2007)

GED (Achievement) HS Senior GPA 0.33 - 0.49 GED Testing Service (2009)

DAT (Achievement) College GPA 0.13 - 0.62† Omizo (1980)

AFQT (Achievement) 9th Grade GPA 0.54 Borghans et al. (2011a)

WAIS (IQ) College GPA 0.38 - 0.43 Feingold (1982)

WAIS (IQ) HS GPA 0.62 Feingold (1982)

Various IQ∗∗ 9th Grade GPA 0.42 Borghans et al. (2011a)

WISC (IQ) WRAT (Achievement) 0.44 - 0.75‡ Hartlage and Steele (1977)


References

Table 1: Cognitive Ability Validities

Test Validation Domain Estimate(s) Source(s)

WISC-R (IQ) WRAT (Achievement) 0.35 - 0.76‡ Hartlage and Steele (1977)

Various IQ∗∗ AFQT (Achievement) 0.65 Borghans et al. (2011a)

Stanford Binet (IQ) WISC-R (IQ) 0.77 - 0.87 Rothlisberg (1987),Greene et al. (1990)

Raven’s (IQ) WAIS-R (IQ) 0.74 - 0.84 O’Leary et al. (1991)

WIAT (Achievement) CAT/2 (Achievement) 0.69 - 0.83∗ Michalko and Saklofske (1996)

† Large range is due to varying validity of eight subtests of DAT‡ Ranges are given because correlations vary by academic subject∗ Ranges are given because correlations vary by grade level∗∗ IQ is pooled across several IQ tests using IQ percentiles

Notes: WISC – Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, WISC-R – Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised, WAIS -Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Raven’s IQ – Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices, GED – General EducationalDevelopment, DAT – Differential Aptitude Test, WIAT – Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, CAT – California

Achievement Test, WRAT – Wide Range Achievement Test


References

Table 2: Predictive Validities in Outcomes that Matter (AdjustedR-Squared)

IQ Sample AFQT Sample GPA Sample

Males Pers IQ Both Pers AFQT Both Pers GPA Both

Earnings at Age 35 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.16 0.18 0.06 0.09 0.11Hourly Wage at Age 35 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.14 0.15 0.06 0.07 0.09Hours Worked at Age 35 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02Jail by Age 35 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.04Welfare at Age 35 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01Married at Age 35 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04BA Degree by Age 35 0.09 0.11 0.16 0.10 0.20 0.23 0.10 0.14 0.18Depression in 1992 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.04

IQ Sample AFQT Sample GPA Sample

Females Pers IQ Both Pers AFQT Both Pers GPA Both

Earnings at Age 35 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.06Hourly Wage at Age 35 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.08Hours Worked at Age 35 0.01 -0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Jail by Age 35 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02Welfare at Age 35 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.05 0.04 0.07Married at Age 35 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.04BA Degree by Age 35 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.17 0.20 0.08 0.10 0.14Depression in 1992 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.05


References

Table 3: Correlations Among NLSY79 Measures of Cognition

Correlation between IQ, AFQT, and GPAIQ Achievement (AFQT) Grade Point Average (GPA)

IQ 1AFQT 0.65 1GPA(9th) 0.42 0.54 1

Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79). Pooled male and female random

sample. Notes: The Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT) was administered in 1980 when

subjects were 15-22. AFQT is adjusted for schooling at the time of the test conditional on

final schooling, following the procedure in Hansen et al. (2004). AFQT is constructed from

Arithmetic Reasoning, Word Knowledge, Math Knowledge, and Paragraph Comprehension

tests. IQ and GPA are from high school transcripts. IQ is pooled across several IQ tests using

IQ percentiles. GPA is the individual’s core-subject GPA measured in 9th grade when virtually

all sample participants are enrolled. Differences between males and females are slight. For the

sake of brevity we report pooled results.


References

Table 4: Validities in Labor Market Outcomes from the NationalLongitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979

Table 1: Validities in Labor Market Outcomes from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979: Our StudyNational Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979: Our Study

NLSY79 R2 (tests and school performance)

Males Females

Outcomes IQ GPA (10th grade) AFQT IQ GPA (10th grade) AFQT

Hourly Wage Age 35 0.03 0.05*** 0.05*** 0.11*** 0.10*** 0.13***

Hours Worked Age 35 0 10*** 0 12*** 0 21*** 0 02 0 10*** 0 17***Hours Worked Age 35 0.10*** 0.12*** 0.21*** 0.02 0.10*** 0.17***

Any Welfare Age 35 ‐0.09*** ‐0.11*** ‐0.23*** ‐0.20*** ‐0.23*** ‐0.36***

55

Source: Borghans et al. (2011a).


References

Table 5: The Big Five Domains and Their Facets

Big Five PersonalityFactor

American Psychol-ogy AssociationDictionary descrip-tion

Facets (and corre-lated trait adjective)

Related Traits Childhood Tempera-

ment Traits

Conscientiousness “the tendency to beorganized, responsi-ble, and hardwork-ing”

Competence (ef-ficient), Order(organized), Duti-fulness (not care-less), Achievementstriving (ambitious),Self-discipline (notlazy), and Delibera-tion (not impulsive)

Grit, Persever-ance, Delay ofgratification,Impulse control,Achievementstriving, Ambi-tion, and Workethic

Attention/(lackof) distractibility,Effortful control, Im-pulse control/delayof gratification, Per-sistence, Activity∗

Openness to Experi-ence

“the tendency tobe open to newaesthetic, cultural,or intellectual expe-riences”

Fantasy (imagi-native), Aesthetic(artistic), Feelings(excitable), Actions(wide interests),Ideas (curious), andValues (unconven-tional)

Sensory sensitivity,Pleasure in low-intensity activities,Curiosity


References






ment Traits

Extraversion “an orientation ofone’s interests andenergies toward theouter world of peo-ple and things ratherthan the inner worldof subjective expe-rience; characterizedby positive affectand sociability”

Warmth (friendly),Gregariousness(sociable), As-sertiveness (self-confident), Activity(energetic), Ex-citement seeking(adventurous), andPositive emotions(enthusiastic)

Surgency, Socialdominance, Socialvitality, Sensationseeking, Shyness*,Activity*, Posi-tive emotionality,and Sociabil-ity/affiliation

Agreeableness “the tendency to actin a cooperative, un-selfish manner”

Trust (forgiving),Straight-forwardness(not demanding),Altruism (warm),Compliance (notstubborn), Modesty(not show-off), andTender-mindedness(sympathetic)

Empathy, Per-spective taking,Cooperation,and Competi-tiveness

Irritability∗, Aggres-siveness, and Will-fulness


References






ment Traits

Neuroticism/ Emo-tional Stability

Emotional stabilityis “predictabilityand consistencyin emotional reac-tions, with absenceof rapid moodchanges.” Neu-roticism is “achronic level ofemotional instabil-ity and pronenessto psychologicaldistress.”

Anxiety (worrying),Hostility (irrita-ble), Depression(not contented),Self-consciousness(shy), Impulsiveness(moody), Vulnera-bility to stress (notself-confident)

Internal vs.External, Locusof control, Coreself-evaluation,Self-esteem,Self-efficacy,Optimism, andAxis I psy-chopathologies(mental disor-ders) includingdepressionand anxietydisorders

Fearfulness/behavioralinhibition,Shyness∗,Irritability∗, Frus-tration (Lack of)soothability, Sad-ness

Notes: Facets specified by the NEO-PI-R personality inventory (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Trait adjectives in parenthesesfrom the Adjective Check List (Gough and Heilbrun, 1983). ∗These temperament traits may be related to two Big Five

factors.Source: Table adapted from John and Srivastava (1999).


References

Table 5: Correlations between Stella Marris MeasuresTable 5: Correlations between Stella Marris Measures

ALL RESPONDENTS

DAT RAVEN GPA OPENNESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS EXTRAVERSION AGREEABLENESS NEUROTICISM GRIT

DAT 1

RAVEN 0.3783 1

0

GPA 0.3164 0.1115 1

0 0.0544

OPENNESS 0.2204 0.0995 0.0517 1

0.0001 0.0648 0.3719

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS -0.0123 0.1 0.2 0.1223 1

0.8261 0.0635 0.0005 0.0227

EXTRAVERSION -0.0872 -0.0714 -0.0414 0.238 0.0272 1

0.1182 0.1859 0.4747 0 0.614

AGREEABLENESS 0.0046 0.0153 0.0256 0.2669 0.16 0.2861 1

0.9338 0.7767 0.6583 0 0.0028 0

NEUROTICISM -0.0546 -0.0834 -0.0563 0.0441 -0.1595 -0.1384 -0.0342 1

0.3288 0.122 0.331 0.4128 0.0029 0.0098 0.5257

GRIT -0.0094 0.0682 0.235 0.3121 0.614 0.1131 0.2106 -0.0728 1

0.869 0.2149 0.0001 0 0 0.0389 0.0001 0.1842

18


References


WOMEN ONLY


DAT 1

RAVEN 0.4218 1

0

GPA 0.4705 0.1401 1

0 0.0964

OPENNESS 0.2635 0.1452 0.1955 1

0.0012 0.0643 0.0197

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 0.0555 0.139 0.0862 0.1937 1

0.5031 0.0769 0.3078 0.0132

EXTRAVERSION -0.0756 -0.0547 -0.064 0.1467 0.1044 1

0.3612 0.4878 0.449 0.0617 0.1849

AGREEABLENESS 0.0319 -0.0493 0.0306 0.2471 0.2459 0.2821 1

0.7002 0.5318 0.7175 0.0015 0.0016 0.0003

NEUROTICISM -0.0349 -0.0529 0.0514 -0.0374 -0.2138 -0.1843 -0.162 1

0.6733 0.5023 0.5431 0.6353 0.0061 0.0185 0.0389

GRIT 0.1213 0.1043 0.2837 0.4234 0.5913 0.0761 0.288 -0.0737 1

0.1434 0.1894 0.0007 0 0 0.3386 0.0002 0.3542

19


References


MEN ONLY


DAT 1

RAVEN 0.3601 1

0

GPA 0.2011 0.0804 1

0.011 0.3185

OPENNESS 0.1771 0.069 -0.084 1

0.0194 0.3546 0.2938

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS -0.0652 0.0698 0.2928 0.0628 1

0.3924 0.349 0.0002 0.3971

EXTRAVERSION -0.094 -0.0887 -0.0281 0.3262 -0.0397 1

0.2175 0.234 0.7255 0 0.5931

AGREEABLENESS 0.0359 0.0115 -0.0466 0.3398 0.1165 0.3143 1

0.6379 0.8771 0.5611 0 0.1151 0

NEUROTICISM -0.0452 -0.1459 -0.2161 0.1455 -0.121 -0.1055 -0.0799 1

0.5534 0.0494 0.0064 0.0487 0.1017 0.154 0.2811

GRIT -0.1329 0.0311 0.1751 0.2097 0.6386 0.1488 0.1442 -0.0977 1

0.0899 0.6851 0.0315 0.0055 0 0.0501 0.0577 0.1995

Source: Borghans et al. (2011b). [JJH: I asked Lex for the correlation adding DAT.] Note: The upper number is the correlation coefficient, the lower number is the

p-value. GPA is the average first year high school grade in dutch, English, Math, Geography, French, History, Biology, Technology, Computer science. DAT is the principal

component of the DAT subscores. All traits are principal components of the items underlying the trait. All measures (including GPA and DAT) are standardized with mean 0

and standard deviation 1.

20

Source: Borghans et al. (2011b).Note: The upper number is the correlation coefficient, the lower number is the p-value. GPAis the average first year high school grade in dutch, English, Math, Geography, French, History, Biology, Technology,

Computer science. DAT is the principal component of the DAT subscores. All traits are principal components of the itemsunderlying the trait. All measures (including GPA and DAT) are standardized with mean 0 and standard deviation 1.


References

Table 6: DAT, RAVEN AND PERSONALITY

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)DAT DAT DAT, women DAT, women DAT, men DAT, men

Raven 0.376∗∗∗ 0.341∗∗∗ 0.453∗∗∗ 0.418∗∗∗ 0.337∗∗∗ 0.297∗∗∗

(0.052) (0.052) (0.081) (0.082) (0.067) (0.068)Openness 0.242∗∗∗ 0.207∗∗ 0.226∗∗∗

(0.058) (0.086) (0.083)Conscientiousness -0.014 -0.064 0.033

(0.067) (0.102) (0.090)Extraversion -0.134∗∗ -0.103 -0.156∗

(0.056) (0.080) (0.080)Agreeableness 0.001 0.026 0.037

(0.056) (0.104) (0.074)Neuroticism -0.065 -0.045 -0.051

(0.053) (0.078) (0.079)Grit -0.085 0.039 -0.202∗∗

(0.069) (0.102) (0.098)Constant -0.007 -0.013 -0.129∗ -0.112 0.088 0.058

(0.052) (0.051) (0.077) (0.087) (0.070) (0.077)Observations 320 309 148 147 172 162R-squared 0.14 0.20 0.18 0.23 0.13 0.20

Source: Borghans et al. (2011b). Note: Each column shows the results of an OLS regression.All variables are standardized principal components of several items. A description of the

variables is given in the appendix. Standard errors in parentheses, ∗∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗ p < 0.05,∗ p < 0.1.


References

Figure 1: Decomposing Achievement Tests and Grades into IQ andPersonality [NLSY79]

0.48

0.23

0.43

0.190.16

0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

R-Sq

uare

d

IQ, Rosenberg, and Rotter IQ Rosenberg and Rotter

AFQT Grades

Achievement Grades



References

Figure 2: Decomposing Achievement Tests and Grades into IQ andPersonality [Stella Maris]



References

Figure 3: Association of the Big Five and intelligence with years ofcompleted schooling

-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Crystalized Intelligence

Fluid Intelligence

Openness

Conscientiousness

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Emotional Stability

Standardized Regression Coefficient

Males

Unadjusted for Intelligence Adjusted for Intelligence

Notes: The figure displays standardized regression coefficients from a multivariate regression of years of school attended onthe Big Five and intelligence, controlling for age and age squared. The bars represent standard errors. The Big Five

coefficients are corrected for attenuation bias. The Big Five were measured in 2005. Years of schooling were measured in2008. Intelligence was measured in 2006. The measures of intelligence were based on components of the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale (WAIS). The data is a representative sample of German adults between the ages 21 and 94.Source: Almlund et al. (2011) German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP), waves 20042008.


References

Figure 4: Cumulative Mean-Level Changes in Personality Across the LifeCycle

p1550 In contrast, a longitudinal study of adult intellectual development shows mean-leveldeclines in cognitive skills, particularly cognitive processing speed, after age 55 or so (Schaie,1994). Figure 1.23a shows mean-level changes in cognitive skills using a longitudinalanalysis, and Figure 1.23b shows mean-level changes using a cross-sectional analysis.210 As

Social vitality

−0.20

0.20.40.60.8

11.2

Age

Cum

ulat

ive

d va

lue

−0.20

0.20.40.60.8

11.2

Cum

ulat

ive

d va

lue

−0.20

0.20.40.60.8

11.2

Cum

ulat

ive

d va

lue

Agreeableness

Emotional stability

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Age10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Age10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

−0.20

0.20.40.60.8

11.2

Cum

ulat

ive

d va

lue

−0.20

0.20.40.60.8

11.2

Cum

ulat

ive

d va

lue

−0.20

0.20.40.60.8

11.2

Cum

ulat

ive

d va

lue

Social dominance

Conscientiousness

Openness to experience

Age10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Age10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Age10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

f0115 Figure 1.22 Cumulative Mean-Level Changes in Personality across the Life Cycle.

Note: Social vitality and social dominance are aspects of Big Five Extraversion. Cumulative d valuesrepresent total lifetime change in units of standard deviations (“effect sizes”).Source: Figure taken from Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006) and Roberts and Mroczek (2008).Reprinted with permission of the authors.

fn1055210 Cross-sectional estimates of mean-level change are biased by cohort effects (e.g., the Flynn effect), whereas longitu-

dinal estimates are biased by test–retest learning (when the same IQ tests are administered repeatedly to the same sub-jects) and by selective attrition. Thus, both estimates must be considered in conjunction as evidence for mean-levelchange.

Hanushek_2011 978-0-444-53444-6 00001

Personality Psychology and Economics 119

Note: Cumulative d values represent total lifetime change in units of standard deviations(“effect sizes”).

Source: Figure taken from Roberts et al. (2006) and Roberts and Mroczek (2008). Reprintedwith permission of the authors.


References

Table 7: Validities of GED Test

Test Correlation Source(s)

Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) 0.75 - 0.79 † Means and Laurence (1984)

Iowa Test of Educational Development 0.88 † Means and Laurence (1984)

American College Test (ACT) 0.80 † Means and Laurence (1984)

Adult Performance Level (APL) Survey 0.81 † Means and Laurence (1984)

New York’s Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test 0.77 † Means and Laurence (1984)

Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) 0.66-0.68† Means and Laurence (1984)

General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) 0.61-0.67† Means and Laurence (1984)

National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) factor 0.78 ‡ Baldwin (1995)

† Uses mean GED subtest scores‡ Uses a general GED factor


References

Figure 5: Cognitive ability by educational status

Source: Reproduced from Heckman et al. (2011), which uses data from the NationalLongitudinal Study of Youth 1979 (NLSY79). Notes: The distributions above represent

cognitive ability factors estimated using a subset of the Armed Services Vocational AptitudeBattery (ASVAB) and educational attainment as laid out in Hansen et al. (2004). The sampleis restricted to the cross-sectional subsample for both males and females. Distributions showonly those with no post-secondary educational attainment. The cognitive ability factors are

normalized by gender to be mean zero standard deviation one.


References

Figure 6: Measures of Adolescent Behaviors for Male Dropouts, GEDRecipients, and High School Graduates: Smoking and Drinking

0.2

.4.6

Smokesby 15

(NLSY79)

Drinksby 15

(NLSY79)

Smokes by 14(NLSY97)

Drinks by 14(NLSY97)

SmokesGr.8

(NELS)

Binge DrinksGr.10

(NELS)

Drop p<0.05 (GED vs.Drop) +/− S.E.

GED p<0.05 (HSG vs.Drop)

HSG p<0.05 (GED vs.HSG)

Sources: Heckman et al. (2012, Chapter 3). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, National Longitudinal Survey ofYouth 1997, National Educational Longitudinal Survey. school.Notes: Minor crime includes vandalism, shoplifting, petty

theft, fraud, holding or selling stolen goods. Major crime includes auto theft, breaking/entering private property, grand theft.Violent crime includes fighting, assault, aggravated assault.


References

Figure 6: Measures of Adolescent Behaviors for Male Dropouts, GEDRecipients, and High School Graduates: Sex and Violent Behavior

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

Sex by 15(NLSY79)

Fight by 14(NLSY97)

Gang by 14(NLSY97)

SchoolFight Gr.8(NELS)







References

Figure 6: Measures of Adolescent Behaviors for Male Dropouts, GEDRecipients, and High School Graduates: Criminal Behavior

0.2

.4.6

.8

MinorCrime

(NLSY79)

MajorCrime

(NLSY79)

ViolentCrime

(NLSY79)

Arrested by 14(NLSY97)

Prop Crimeby 14

(NLSY97)

Theftby 14

(NLSY97)







References

Figure 7: Distribution of Risky Behavior by Education Group

Source: Reproduced from Heckman et al. (2011), which uses data from the NationalLongitudinal Study of Youth 1979 (NLSY79). Notes: The distributions above represent

non-cognitive ability factors estimated using measures of early violent crime, minor crime,marijuana use, regular smoking, drinking, early sexual intercourse, and educational attainmentas in Hansen et al. (2004). Sample restricted to the cross-sectional subsample for both malesand females. Distributions show only those with no post-secondary educational attainment.

The non-cognitive ability factors normalized to be mean zero standard deviation one.


References

Figure 8: Post-Secondary Educational Attainment Across EducationGroups Through Age 40 (NLSY79) - Males

0.2

.4.6

.8

Prop

ortio

n

SomeColl

Some Coll, MoreThan 1 Year

A.A. B.A.

Drop 5% Sig (GED vs. Drop) S.E.

GED 5% Sig (GED vs. HSG)

HSG 5% Sig (HSG vs. Drop)

Sources: Heckman et al. (2012, Chapter 3). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Notes: The graph representspost-secondary educational attainment of dropouts, GED recipients and high school graduates. Variable Definitions: “SomeCollege” represents people who entered any post-secondary institution ever. “Some College, More Than a Year” representspeople who completed at least a year of some post-secondary education ever. “Certificate” represents people who obtained

any certificate or license ever. “A.A.” represents people who obtained associate’s degrees ever. “B.A.” represents people whoobtained bachelor’s degrees ever. “B.A.” also includes people with higher education: M.A. Ph.D and professional degrees.


References

Figure 9: Survival Rates in Various States for Male Dropouts, GEDRecipients, and High School Graduates: Survival Rate in Employment

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Surv

ival

Rat

e in

Em

ploy

ed S

tate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Years Since Start of Spell

Drop p<0.05 (GED vs.HSG)

GED p<0.05 (GED vs.Drop)

HSG p<0.05 (HSG vs.Drop)

Source: Heckman et al. (2012, Chapter 3). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79), nationally representativecross sectional sample. Notes: The spell to first time being incarcerated begins in the first year that individuals exit school.


References

Figure 9: Survival Rates in Various States for Male Dropouts, GEDRecipients, and High School Graduates: Survival Rate in Same Job

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Surv

ival

Rat

e in

Cur

rent

Job

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10







References

Figure 9: Survival Rates in Various States for Male Dropouts, GEDRecipients, and High School Graduates: Survival Rate in Marriage

.4

.6

.8

1

Surv

ival

Rat

e in

Mar

riag

e

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10







References

Figure 9: Survival Rates in Various States for Male Dropouts, GEDRecipients, and High School Graduates: Survival Rate in Not HavingBeen Incarcerated

.85

.9

.95

1S

urvi

val R

ate

in N

on−

Inca

rcer

ated

Sta

te

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10







References

Figure 10: Labor Market Outcomes Differences - By Age - NLSY79 -Males

(a) Annual Earnings

−10

000

010

000

2000

030

000

Ann

ual E

arni

ngs

Age 20 to 24 Age 25 to 29 Age 30 to 34 Age 35 to 39Raw Abil BG Raw Abil BG Raw Abil BG Raw Abil BG

GED p<0.05 (GED vs.Drop) p<0.05 (HSG vs.Drop)

HSG p<0.05 (GED vs.HSG) S.E.

Source: Heckman et al. (2012, Chapter 3). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Controls: “Raw” – age, race, andregion of residence; “Abil” –age, race, region of residence, and AFQT adjusted for schooling at time of test; “BG” – mother’shighest grade completed, urban status at age 14, family income in 1979, broken home status in 1979, south at age 14, AFQT,

and factors based on adolescent behavioral measures, crime and school performance. Regressions exclude those reportingearning more than $300,000 or working more than 4,000 hours. Notes: All regressions allow for heteroskedastic errors and

when appropriate clustering at the individual level.


References

Figure 10: Labor Market Outcomes Differences - By Age - NLSY79 -Males

(b) Hourly Wage

05

10H

ourl

y W

age

Age 20 to 24 Age 25 to 29 Age 30 to 34 Age 35 to 39Raw Abil BG Raw Abil BG Raw Abil BG Raw Abil BG

GED p<0.05 (GED vs.Drop) p<0.05 (HSG vs.Drop)

HSG p<0.05 (GED vs.HSG) S.E.

Source: Heckman et al. (2012, Chapter 3). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Controls: “Raw” – age, race, andregion of residence; “Abil” –age, race, region of residence, and AFQT adjusted for schooling at time of test; “BG” – mother’shighest grade completed, urban status at age 14, family income in 1979, broken home status in 1979, south at age 14, AFQT,

and factors based on adolescent behavioral measures, crime and school performance. Regressions exclude those reportingearning more than $300,000 or working more than 4,000 hours. Notes: All regressions allow for heteroskedastic errors and

when appropriate clustering at the individual level.


References

Figure 11: Perry Preschool Program: IQ, by Age and Treatment Group

traits of the participants were beneficially improved in a lasting way.11 This chapter isabout those traits.

p0025 Personality psychologists mainly focus on empirical associations between their mea-sures of personality traits and a variety of life outcomes. Yet for policy purposes, it isimportant to know mechanisms of causation to explore the viability of alternative poli-cies.12 We use economic theory to formalize the insights of personality psychology andto craft models that are useful for exploring the causal mechanisms that are needed forpolicy analysis.

p0030 We interpret personality as a strategy function for responding to life situations. Person-ality traits, along with other influences, produce measured personality as the output ofpersonality strategy functions. We discuss how psychologists use measurements of theperformance of persons on tasks or in taking actions to identify personality traits andcognitive traits. We discuss fundamental identification problems that arise in applyingtheir procedures to infer traits.

p0035 Many economists, especially behavioral economists, are not convinced about thepredictive validity, stability, or causal status of economic preference parameters or per-sonality traits. They believe, instead, that the constraints and incentives in situations

100IQ

95

90

85

80

75

4Entry

78.5

83.3 83.5

86.3 87.1 86.9 86.884.6

8587.788.1

91.791.3

94.995.5

5 6

Age

Treatment group

Control group

7 8 9 10

79.6

f0010 Figure 1.1 Perry Preschool Program: IQ, by Age and Treatment Group.

Notes: IQ measured on the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale (Terman and Merrill, 1960). The test wasadministered at program entry and at each of the ages indicated.Source: Cunha, Heckman, Lochner, and Masterov (2006) and Heckman and Masterov (2007) based ondata provided by the High Scope Foundation.

fn006011 We discuss this evidence in Section 8. The traits changed were related to self-control and social behavior. Participants

of both genders had better “externalizing behavior,” while for girls there was also improvement in Openness toExperience. See Heckman, Malofeeva, Pinto, and Savelyev (first draft 2008, revised 2011). Duncan and Magnuson(2010) offer a different interpretation of the traits changed by the Perry experiment. But both analyses agree that itwas not a boost in IQ that improved the life outcomes of Perry treatment group members.

fn006512 See Heckman (2008a).

Hanushek_2011 978-0-444-53444-6 00001

Personality Psychology and Economics 5

Notes: IQ measured on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Terman and Merrill, 1960). The test was administered atprogram entry and at each of the ages indicated. Source: Cunha et al. (2006) and Heckman and Masterov (2007) based on

data provided by the High Scope Foundation.

ACT, Inc. (2007). The ACT Technical Manual. Iowa City, IA: ACT,Inc.

Almlund, M., A. Duckworth, J. J. Heckman, and T. Kautz (2011).Personality psychology and economics. In E. A. Hanushek,S. Machin, and L. Woßmann (Eds.), Handbook of the Economicsof Education, Volume 4, pp. 1–181. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Baldwin, J. (1995). Who Took the GED? GED 1994 StatisticalReport. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, GEDTesting Service, Center for Adult Learning.

Borghans, L., B. H. H. Golsteyn, J. J. Heckman, and J. E.Humphries (2011a). Identification problems in personalitypsychology. Personality and Individual Differences 51(SpecialIssue on Personality and Economics), 315–320. E. Ferguson, J.J.Heckman, and P. Corr, editors.

Borghans, L., B. H. H. Golsteyn, J. J. Heckman, and J. E.Humphries (2011b). Reinterpreting estimated effects of cognitionon social outcomes. Unpublished manuscript, Department ofEconomics, University of Chicago.

Costa, P. T. and R. R. McCrae (1992). Revised NEO PersonalityInventory (NEO PI-R) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory(NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Cunha, F., J. J. Heckman, L. J. Lochner, and D. V. Masterov(2006). Interpreting the evidence on life cycle skill formation. InE. A. Hanushek and F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the Economicsof Education, Chapter 12, pp. 697–812. Amsterdam:North-Holland.

Feingold, A. (1982). The validity of the information and vocabularysubtests of the WAIS. Journal of Clinical Psychology 38(1),169–174.

GED Testing Service (2009, March). The technical manual: 2002series GED tests. Technical manual, American Council onEducation and GED Testing Service, Washington, DC.http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ged/

pubs/TechnicalManual_2002SeriesGEDTests.pdf.Gough, H. G. and A. B. Heilbrun (1983). The Adjective Check List

Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Greene, A. C., G. L. Sapp, and B. Chissom (1990). Validation of the

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth edition with exceptionalblack male students. Psychology in the Schools 27(1), 35–41.

Hansen, K. T., J. J. Heckman, and K. J. Mullen (2004,July–August). The effect of schooling and ability on achievementtest scores. Journal of Econometrics 121(1-2), 39–98.

Hartlage, L. C. and C. T. Steele (1977). WISC and WISC-Rcorrelates of academic achievement. Psychology in theSchools 14(1), 15–18.

Heckman, J. J., J. E. Humphries, and T. Kautz (2012). The GEDand the Problem of Soft Skills. Unpublished book manuscript,University of Chicago, Department of Economics.

Heckman, J. J., J. E. Humphries, S. Urzua, and G. Veramendi(2011). The effects of educational choices on labor market,health, and social outcomes. Unpublished manuscript, Universityof Chicago, Department of Economics.

Heckman, J. J. and D. V. Masterov (2007). The productivityargument for investing in young children. Review of AgriculturalEconomics 29(3), 446–493.

John, O. P. and S. Srivastava (1999). The big five trait taxonomy:History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervinand O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory andResearch, Chapter 4, pp. 102–138. New York: The Guilford Press.

Kobrin, J. L., B. F. Patterson, E. J. Shaw, K. D. Mattern, andS. M. Barbuti (2008). Validity of the SAT for predicting first-yearcollege grade point average. The College Board 5, 1–10.

Means, B. and J. H. Laurence (1984). Characteristics andperformance of recruits enlisted with general educationaldevelopment (ged) credentials. Technical Report FR-PRD-84-6,Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, VA.

Michalko, K. T. and D. H. Saklofske (1996). A psychometricinvestigation of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test with asample of Saskatchewan schoolchildren. Canadian Journal ofSchool Psychology 12(1), 44–54.

O’Leary, U.-M., K. M. Rusch, and S. J. Guastello (1991).Estimating age-stratified WAIS-R IQs from scores on the Raven’sStandard Progressive Matrices. Journal of ClinicalPsychology 47(2), 277–284.

Omizo, M. M. (1980). The differential aptitude tests as predictorsof success in a high school for engineering program. Educationaland Psychological Measurement 40(1), 197–203.

Roberts, B. W. and D. Mroczek (2008). Personality trait change inadulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17(1),31–35.

Roberts, B. W., K. E. Walton, and W. Viechtbauer (2006). Patternsof mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: Ameta-analysis of longitudinal studies. PsychologicalBulletin 132(1), 1–25.

Rothlisberg, B. (1987). Comparing the Stanford-Binet, fourthedition to the WISC-R: A concurrent validity study. Journal ofSchool Psychology 25(2), 193–196.

Terman, L. M. and M. A. Merrill (1960). Stanford-Binet IntelligenceScale: Manual for the Third Revision Form L-M. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.


http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ged/pubs/TechnicalManual_2002SeriesGEDTests.pdf

http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ged/pubs/TechnicalManual_2002SeriesGEDTests.pdf

hard evidence on soft skills - university of chicago · hard evidence on soft skills james j....

Documents