Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment
A disadvantage of multiple choice tests is that students have incentives to guess. To discourage guessing, it is common to use scoring rules that either penalize wrong answers or reward omissions. In psychometrics, penalty and reward scoring rules are considered equivalent. However, experimental evidence indicates that students behave differently under penalty or reward scoring rules. These differences have been attributed to the different framing (penalty versus reward). In this paper, we model students’ behavior in multiple choice tests as a choice among lotteries. We show that strategic equivalence among penalty and reward scoring rules holds only under risk neutrality. Therefore, risk aversion could be an alternative explanation to the previously found differences in students’ behavior when confronted with penalty and reward scoring rules. We suggest the use of a modified penalty scoring rule which is equivalent to the reward rule for whatever risk attitudes students might have. To disentangle the effect of framing and risk aversion on students’behavior we design a field experiment with three treatments, each one with a different scoring rule. Two of these scoring rules are equivalent but have different framing, while the third is not equivalent but has the same framing as one of the other two. The experimental results indicate that differences in students’ behavior are due to risk aversion and not due to different framing.
Volume (Year): 9 (2013)
Issue (Month): 2 (July)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.jem.org.tw/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Suzanne Scotchmer, 2008.
"Risk Taking and Gender in Hierarchies,"
NBER Working Papers
14464, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2006. "Risk Taking and Gender in Hierarchies," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt2tm5m16f, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2008. "Risk-Taking and Gender in Hierarchies," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt3470h635, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2009. "Risk Taking and Gender in Hierarchies," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt9gn734nz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
- Haigh, Michael S. & List, John A., 2002.
"Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis,"
28554, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
- Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2005. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 523-534, 02.
- John List & Michael Haigh, 2005. "Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis," Artefactual Field Experiments 00052, The Field Experiments Website.
- Bram Cadsby, C. & Maynes, Elizabeth, 2005. "Gender, risk aversion, and the drawing power of equilibrium in an experimental corporate takeover game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 39-59, January.
- Espinosa Alejos, María Paz & Gardeazabal, Javier, 2007. "Optimal Correction for Guessing in Multiple-Choice Tests," DFAEII Working Papers 2007-08, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
- Marco Haan & Bart Los & Yohanes Riyanto & Martin van Geest, 2002.
"The Weakest Link - A Field Experiment in Rational Decision Making,"
- Haan, Marco, 2002. "The weakest link : a field experiment in rational decision making," Research Report 02F20, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
- Becker, William E & Johnston, Carol, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(231), pages 348-57, December.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jec:journl:v:9:y:2013:i:2:p:107-135. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Yi-Ju Su)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.