Abstract
The one-child policy was implemented in September 1980 and abolished in late 2015. With this change in the demographic policy, the fertility decision of families also changed. Such decisions can result in an increase in the number of siblings in a family. Individuals' educational outcomes may be affected by a change in their parents' fertility decision. The objective of this paper is to provide evidence of the difference of educational outcomes between the only-child and the non-only child. The authors try to estimate the change of educational outcomes when the only child of a family turns to the child with siblings. Moreover, they estimate different channels to interpret these effects. They employ the data set of China Education Panel data in this paper. In the part of mechanism check, the Sobel-Good test is used for checking the mediation effects of different channels. The authors found the only child has significant higher educational outcomes comparing to a child who has siblings. To explain these effects, the authors use four channels to interpret: (1) money resource, (2) parenting time, (3) closeness of parent-child relationships, and (4) personality traits. The policy implication is to help the policymaker estimate and predict the impact of new demographic policy.
References
Becker, G. S. (1960). An economic analysis of fertility. In: Demographic and economic change in developed countries (pp. 209–240). Columbia University Press. https://www.nber.org/chapters/c2387.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Blake, J. (1981). Family size and the quality of children. Demography 18:421–42.Search in Google Scholar
Blake, J. (1985). Number of siblings and educational mobility. American Sociological Review, 84–94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20609410.2307/2095342Search in Google Scholar
Blake, J. (1989). Family size and achievement (Vol. 3). Univ of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Blau, D., and Currie, J. (2006). Pre-school, day care, and after-school care: Who’s minding the kids? Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2, 1163–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0692(06)02020-410.1016/S1574-0692(06)02020-4Search in Google Scholar
Carretta, T. R., and Ree, M. J. (2018). The relations between cognitive ability and personality: Convergent results across measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 26(2-4), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.1222410.1111/ijsa.12224Search in Google Scholar
Coplan, R. J., Hughes, K., Bosacki, S., and Rose-Krasnor, L. (2011). Is silence golden? Elementary school teachers’ strategies and beliefs regarding hypothetical shy/quiet and exuberant/talkative children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 939. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-14327-00110.1037/a0024551Search in Google Scholar
Daly, M., and Wilson, M. (1988). The Darwinian psychology of discriminative parental solicitude. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 35, 91–144). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-39009-001Search in Google Scholar
De Haan, M. (2010). Birth order, family size and educational attainment. Economics of Education Review, 29(4), 576–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.10.01210.1016/j.econedurev.2009.10.012Search in Google Scholar
Del Boca, D., Flinn, C., andWiswall, M. (2013). Household choices and child development. Review of Economic Studies, 81(1), 137–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdt02610.1093/restud/rdt026Search in Google Scholar
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Openness/intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper, R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology. APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 4. Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 369-399). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14343-01710.1037/14343-017Search in Google Scholar
Downey, D. B. (1995). When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources, and children’s educational performance. American Sociological Review, 60, 746–761. https://www.jstor.org/stable/209632010.2307/2096320Search in Google Scholar
Downey, D. B. (2001). Number of siblings and intellectual development: The resource dilution explanation. American Psychologist, 56(6–7), 497–504. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1141387310.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.497Search in Google Scholar
Featherman, D. L., and Hauser, R. M. (1978). Opportunity and change. InStudies in Population. Academic Press. New York NY United States 1978.Search in Google Scholar
Goff, M., and Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 537–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.53710.1037/0022-0663.84.4.537Search in Google Scholar
Heer, D. M. (1985). Effects of sibling number on child outcome. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 27–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/208328410.1146/annurev.so.11.080185.000331Search in Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., Davis, J. N., & Sulloway, F. J. (2002). Parental investment: How an equity motive can produce inequality. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 728–745. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1220619210.1037/0033-2909.128.5.728Search in Google Scholar
Knudsen, E. I., Heckman, J. J., Cameron, J. L., and Shonkoff, J. P. (2006). Economic, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(27), 10155–10162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.060088810310.1073/pnas.0600888103Search in Google Scholar
Lao, Y., Dong, Z., and Yang, X. (2018, June). Scholarship, admission and application of a postgraduate program. In International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence (pp. 57–66). Springer, Cham.10.1007/978-3-319-99698-1_7Search in Google Scholar
Powell, B., and Steelman, L. C. (1990). Beyond sibship size: Sibling density, sex composition, and educational outcomes. Social Forces, 69(1), 181–206. https://www.jstor.org/stable/257961310.2307/2579613Search in Google Scholar
Salmon, C., and Schumann, K. (2011). The secret power of middle children: How middleborns can harness their unexpected and remarkable abilities. Penguin.Search in Google Scholar
Schuerger, J. M., and Kuna, D. L. (1987). Adolescent personality and school and college performance: A follow-up study. Psychology in the Schools, 24(3), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(198707)24:3<281::AID-PITS2310240313>3.0.CO;2-310.1002/1520-6807(198707)24:3<281::AID-PITS2310240313>3.0.CO;2-3Search in Google Scholar
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., and Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1819399810.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138Search in Google Scholar
Thomson, E., T.L. Hanson, and S.S. McLanahan. 1994. Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces 73, 221–242. https://www.jstor.org/stable/257992410.2307/2579924Search in Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B., and Markus, G. B. (1975). Birth order and intellectual development. Psychological Review, 82(1), 74–88.10.1037/h0076229Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Yehui Lao et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
