IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/58047.html

¿Estudiar Economía te Hace más Egoísta?
[Studying Economics make you more Selfish?]

Author

Listed:
  • Caffera, Marcelo
  • Zipitría, Leandro
  • Arboleya, Lucila

Abstract

We present students of different careers from the University of Montevideo (Uruguay) to a hypothetical situation in which, as vice-president of a company, have to make a decision that involves a trade-off between economic benefits and number of employees fired. The paper is a replica of the survey conducted by Rubinstein (2006). Our results do not allow us to reject the hypothesis that students who choose to study economics are more geared to maximizing benefits prior to entry to university, against the alternative of "Indoctrination", whereby students just decide to maximize profits after exposure to economic theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Caffera, Marcelo & Zipitría, Leandro & Arboleya, Lucila, 2010. "¿Estudiar Economía te Hace más Egoísta? [Studying Economics make you more Selfish?]," MPRA Paper 58047, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:58047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/58047/1/MPRA_paper_58047.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, 2003. "Are Political Economists Selfish and Indoctrinated? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(3), pages 448-462, July.
    2. Bruno Frey & Stephan Meier, 2005. "Selfish and Indoctrinated Economists?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 165-171, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Faravelli, Marco, 2007. "How context matters: A survey based experiment on distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1399-1422, August.
    2. Max Deter, 2020. "Prosociality and Risk Preferences in the Financial Sector," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1075, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    3. Roland Cheo, 2006. "Teaching Contingent Valuation and Promoting Civic Mindedness in the Process," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 5(2), pages 81-97.
    4. Claus Dierksmeier, 2020. "From Jensen to Jensen: Mechanistic Management Education or Humanistic Management Learning?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 73-87, September.
    5. Malte Petersen & Monika Keller & Jürgen Weibler & Wasilios Hariskos, 2019. "Business education: Does a focus on prosocial values increase students’ pro-social behavior?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 18(2), pages 181-190, December.
    6. Johannes Abeler & Daniele Nosenzo, 2015. "Self-selection into laboratory experiments: pro-social motives versus monetary incentives," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 195-214, June.
    7. Bauman, Yoram & Rose, Elaina, 2011. "Selection or indoctrination: Why do economics students donate less than the rest?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 318-327, August.
    8. Jeffrey Milyo & Jennifer M. Mellor & Lisa Anderson, 2005. "Did the Devil Make Them Do It? The Effects of Religion and Religiosity in Public Goods and Trust Games," Working Papers 0512, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    9. Ifcher, John & Zarghamee, Homa, 2018. "The rapid evolution of homo economicus: Brief exposure to neoclassical assumptions increases self-interested behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 55-65.
    10. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2019. "Values of Economists Matter in the Art and Science of Economics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 472-499, August.
    11. Jose-Luis Godos-Díez & Roberto Fernández-Gago & Laura Cabeza-García, 2015. "Business Education and Idealism as Determinants of Stakeholder Orientation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 439-452, October.
    12. Jeffrey Milyo & Jennifer M. Mellor & Lisa Anderson, 2004. "Do Liberals Play Nice? The Effects of Party and Political Ideology in Public Goods and Trust Games," Working Papers 0417, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    13. Gerald Eisenkopf & Pascal A. Sulser, 2016. "Randomized controlled trial of teaching methods: Do classroom experiments improve economic education in high schools?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 211-225, July.
    14. Paul Dalziel, 2011. "Schumpeter's 'Vision' and the Teaching of Principles of Economics to Resource Students," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 63-74.
    15. Sharma, Smriti, 2015. "Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 113-123.
    16. Michał Krawczyk, 2011. "Greed vs. Love of Science in Young Economists A Field Experiment," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 25.
    17. Fuchs, Andreas & Richert, Katharina, 2015. "Do Development Minister Characteristics Affect Aid Giving?," Working Papers 0604, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    18. Gordon Menzies & Donald Hay & Thomas Simpson & David Vines, 2019. "Restoring Trust in Finance: From Principal–Agent to Principled Agent," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 95(311), pages 497-509, December.
    19. Gächter, Simon & Nosenzo, Daniele & Renner, Elke & Sefton, Martin, 2008. "Who Makes a Good Leader? Social Preferences and Leading-by-Example," IZA Discussion Papers 3914, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Ruske, René & Suttner, Johannes, 2012. "Wie (un-)fair sind Ökonomen? Neue empirische Evidenz zur Marktbewertung und Rationalität," CIW Discussion Papers 03/2012, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:58047. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.