EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND MORALITY: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Public Policy in Public Policy

By

Richard Xavier Headley-Soto, B.S.B.A.

Washington, DC April 16, 2013

  ii

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND MORALITY: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

Richard Xavier Headley-Soto, B.S.B.A.

Thesis Advisor: Peter Hinrichs, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

I use ordinary least squares regression with year and region of birth fixed effects to

estimate the relationship between educational attainment and morality. Morality is broken into

six categories. I find statistically significant and sizable relationships between educational

attainment and individuals’ perceptions of morality, moral reasoning, moral attitudes towards

personal or private conduct, and moral attitudes towards citizens’ relationship with government. I

find mixed results concerning education’s relationship with moral attitudes towards

responsibility and loyalty. I do not find a statistically significant relationship between

educational attainment and moral attitudes towards economic inequality. I further analyze the

different levels of education and find that college education drives the relationships found for

cumulative educational attainment. Elementary education has no significant relationship with

morality in any category of morality. High school education has a statistically significant

relationship with some indicators of morality, but not others, across the categories of morality.

Postgraduate education exhibits similar outcomes to college education on moral attitudes

towards private action. It also exhibits a statistically significant relationship with moral attitudes

towards government – in some cases similar to the relationship between college education and

these attitudes, and in other cases diametrically opposed to that relationship.

  iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1  

History of Education and Morality in the United States ................................................................................ 1  

Current Policy Issues ...................................................................................................................................... 2  

Possible Channels for an Effect ...................................................................................................................... 4  

Research Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 5  

II. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................... 6  

Social Returns to Education ........................................................................................................................... 7  

Economic Returns to Education ................................................................................................................... 11  

Psychological Theories ................................................................................................................................. 12  

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 13  

III. Data ............................................................................................................................................................. 14  

IV. Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 16  

V. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 19  

Nature of Morality ........................................................................................................................................ 20  

Moral Reasoning .......................................................................................................................................... 22  

Moral Attitudes towards Private Actions ..................................................................................................... 24  

Moral Attitudes towards Responsibility and Loyalty ................................................................................... 26  

Moral Attitudes towards Government .......................................................................................................... 28  

Moral Attitudes towards Economic Inequality ............................................................................................. 31  

VI. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 33  

Table 1: Summary Statistics for Variables Included in “Morality” ................................................................. 37  

Table 2: Summary Statistics for the Variables of Interest and Control Variables ........................................... 38  

  iv

Table 3: Estimates of Education’s Impact on Variables Revealing Morality .................................................. 39  

Table 4a: Regression Results for “World is Evil” ............................................................................................ 41  

Table 4b: Regression Results for “Morality Has Shades of Gray” .................................................................. 42  

Table 4c: Regression Results for “Woman has a Right to Abortion” .............................................................. 43  

Table 4d: Regression Results for “Personal Responsibility for Reducing Pain” ............................................. 44  

Table 4f: Regression Results for “Inequality in US is Too Large” .................................................................. 46  

Table 5a: Estimates of Education’s Impact at Various Levels on Perceptions of the Nature of Morality ....... 47  

Table 5b: Estimates of Education’s Impact at Various Levels on Moral Reasoning ....................................... 48  

Table 5c: Estimates of Education’s Impact at Various Levels on Moral Attitudes Towards Private Actions . 49  

Table 5d: Estimates of Education’s Impact at Various Levels on Moral Attitudes Towards Responsibility .. 50  

Table 5e: Estimates of Education’s Impact at Various Levels on Moral Attitudes Towards Government ..... 51  

Table 5f: Estimates of Education’s Impact at Various Levels on Moral Attitudes Towards Inequality .......... 52  

Reference List ................................................................................................................................................... 53  

 

  1

I. Introduction

Education and morality have been associated in intellectual and political spheres

since the advent of philosophic thought. Socrates linked the two in claiming that immoral

behavior resulted from ignorance of the good. Aristotle expounded upon this in his

contention that, to be virtuous, one’s emotional responses must be trained to act in

concert with one’s rational responses to a given situation. In his Nicomachean Ethics, he

asserted “the best way to teach morality is to make it a habit in children.”

History of Education and Morality in the United States   In the United States, morality and education were intertwined from the colonial

period forward. Harvard University was founded in 1621 with the purpose of creating a

place for clergy to study scripture. And in 1642, the Massachusetts Bay Colony

established compulsory schooling in all towns of 50 or more people, not only for

economic advancement, but so that all children could learn Calvinist teachings.

Politicians and philosophers alike indicated a belief in a strong relationship

between education and morality. Early in his political career, Abraham Lincoln wrote, "I

desire to see a time when education, and by its means, morality, sobriety, enterprise and

industry, shall become much more general than at present." Horace Mann, an influential

Massachusetts politician and considered by many to be the founding father of secular and

public education in the United States, wrote in the mid-19th century that if children could

go to “good schools, the dark host of private vices and public crimes…might [nearly] be

banished from the world.” And John Dewey, a prominent early 20th century philosopher

on education, thought that education’s effect on morality was omnipresent: “The

 

  2

development of character [occurs] through all the agencies, instrumentalities, and

materials of school life.”

Later in the 20th century, the most prominent thinkers in science and religion

would also link education and morality. Said Albert Einstein: “A man's ethical behavior

should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs.” And said

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of real

education.” However, education’s connection with moral development has not come

without controversy in the political sphere. Particularly, a large portion of the United

States population has felt, and continues to feel, that only religious teachings should

inform morality. Many demonized Mann for his efforts to establish secular education in

what was then a country dominated by religion. In fact, it was not until a century after

Mann’s stint as Massachusetts’ Secretary of Education that the Supreme Court found

religious instruction in public school to violate the Establishment clause of the

Constitution.

In sum, it has long been thought that one of the objectives of education ought to

be the moral development of pupils. Furthermore, it has been assumed that development

does in fact occur over the course of a child’s educational attainment, and is particularly

shaped by the content of the child’s education.

Current Policy Issues  

Increasing educational attainment, at all levels, is a policy goal commonly

espoused by leaders at the federal, state, and local levels. President Obama pledged to

devote considerable resources to early childhood education during his first campaign, and

is currently working with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to evaluate the effects of

 

  3

spending $10 billion on expanding access to pre-kindergarten to middle-class families.

Universal, or at least greatly expanded, pre-K programs have been implemented in

Oklahoma and Florida, and Andrew Cuomo called for New York to implement and

expand its already authorized universal program in his recent State of the State address to

the New York legislature.

Part of the rationale for additional childhood education has been to improve high

school graduation rates (including reducing the dropout rate) and concomitantly, college

attendance and graduation rates. These goals are largely seen as desirable by policy

makers of all stripes, on the understanding that improved educational attainment

generally results in improved outcomes for individuals in the workforce, and for the

economy as a whole. President Obama mentioned “college” eight times and “education”

fifteen times in his most recent State of the Union, and hardly a single governor has failed

to mention improving access to, and attainment of, higher education when issuing an

annual address to the state legislature. However, rarely do policy makers acknowledge

non-economic effects of increasing educational attainment. If increasing educational

attainment has an effect on individuals’ moral reasoning, attitudes, and perceptions of

morality, then it would be beneficial for policy makers to know about and account for the

effects when crafting policies to improve educational attainment.

Additionally, two political issues fall squarely within the intersection of education

and morality. First, the drive to keep religion out of public schools has left that space

seemingly morally barren for some, and is arguably one of the reasons for an uptick in

enrollments in private educational institutions, as well as home schooling. On the other

hand, the public’s aversion to government-sponsored indoctrination has kept most secular

 

  4

moral teachings out of public school curricula. This has generated outcry from those who

believe that education in civics is a critical part of a well-rounded course of study.

Second, there is persistent criticism that there is “liberal bias” in higher education,

based largely on surveys that find that a substantial majority of college professors self-

identify as liberal. This has induced fear in some commentators that colleges inculcate

liberal values in their students, or in other words, that educational attainment at the

highest levels is responsible for a shift in moral attitudes that is undesirable to some.

Furthermore, polling results have shown Democratic Party candidates have held a

consistent advantage amongst voters with postgraduate education (as well as with voters

with no high school degree), but that Republican Party candidates have held the

advantage amongst voters with at least some college education (but no graduate degree).

It is thus possible that changes in morality driven by educational attainment have political

impacts that shape the partisan divide in government.

Possible Channels for an Effect  

Although political furor is often directed at the content of what is taught in school,

there are many more channels – aside from direct transfer of moral information – through

which education might shape moral attitudes. Exposure to new (non-moral) information,

concepts, or modes of thinking might stimulate changes in moral attitudes. Improvements

in students’ logical reasoning skills might similarly spark changes in attitudes. Finally,

but perhaps most prominently, the multitude of social interactions that are generated in

educational environments could have a great effect on the development of moral

reasoning and attitudes.

However, despite the many channels through which education might affect

 

  5

morality, and the common-sense consensus that it does, there are valid reasons to suspect

that educational attainment has no effect on moral attitudes. First, perhaps it truly is only

the content of one’s education, and not the extent of it, that affects morality. Second, it is

possible that attitudes harden at an early age, and that education beyond that age has no

effect on attitudes. Lastly, it is possible that social interactions outside of school, or other

life events, dominate the shaping of one’s attitudes, to the exclusion (or minimization) of

education.

Research Overview  

This paper will seek to address whether educational attainment in fact affects

moral attitudes, without regard for the particular curricula or course of study during that

attainment. I will rely upon pooled cross-sectional survey data from the General Social

Survey (GSS) collected between 1972 and 2010. I use the responses to a variety of

questions relating to morality to address whether educational attainment moves moral

attitudes in some subject areas but not others. I will also examine whether there is an

impact on moral reasoning or overall perceptions of morality itself. There has been no

concerted effort in prior research to address this specific question.

My estimation method is ordinary least squares (OLS), controlling for a host of

biographic and demographic variables, variables related to childhood environment and

parental status, and year and region of birth fixed effects. I estimate linear probability

models (LPMs) and find statistically significant relationships between educational

attainment and moral reasoning, as well as between education and perceptions of

morality. I also find statistically significant relationships between educational attainment

and some moral attitudes, particularly attitudes towards personal or private behaviors and

 

  6

attitudes towards individuals’ interactions with government. I find no statistically

significant relationship between educational attainment and moral attitudes towards

economic inequality. Results are inconclusive as to whether educational attainment has a

meaningful relationship with moral attitudes towards responsibility and loyalty.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section II will discuss related

prior research. Section III will describe the data, and section IV will describe my

empirical methodology. Section V will describe the results, interpret them, and discuss

their implications. Section V will conclude and give suggestions for further research.

II. Literature Review   Little empirical investigation has been done on the possible effects of education

on moral or ethical attitudes. Other than a limited study finding a correlation between

education (as well as age and gender) and the responses to a 90-person survey on ethical

behavior in an Iranian company (Ahmadi and Ashrafjahani 2011),1 there appears to be no

empirical analysis directly on point. However, much empirical analysis has been done

with respect to the “social” returns to education. Empirical analysis has also conclusively

established connections between education and crime, as well as education and earnings.

Furthermore, the field of psychology has generated much useful theory when considering

the question at hand.

                                                                                                               1 The research question posed focused on business ethics, and specifically the impact of age, gender, education, and the presence of a company code of ethics on managers’ evaluations of the ethicality of employees’ behaviors and the factors leading to unethical behavior. The study found statistically significant correlations between gender and evaluations of the ethicality of employee behavior (women largely believed that employees were more likely to act unethically), as well as between education level and evaluation of the factors leading to unethical behavior (more educated managers believed that the factors posited in the survey as impacting ethical behavior were relevant to actual ethical behavior).

 

  7

Social Returns to Education

An area that has been studied with some vigor in empirical circles is the social, or

non-market, returns to education. Many possible social effects of education have been

analyzed in the empirical literature, with possible but unconfirmed (or muddled)

connections to the relationship between education and moral attitudes. Some studies have

found notable relationships between educational attainment and beliefs or behaviors that

may have moral underpinnings, but have not explicitly made the connection to morality.

Others have examined the connection between educational attainment and explicitly

moral beliefs or behaviors, but have obtained results that do not readily identify whether

a relationship exists.

One of the analyses most relevant to the topic at hand was of GSS data from

1972-2000. Using changes in child labor laws as an instrument for educational

attainment, the study found sizable and statistically significant positive effects on whether

individuals believe anti-religionists, communists, and homosexuals should be allowed

free speech (Dee 2004). Particularly, Dee found that an additional year of attainment

increased the likelihood that an individual would allow free speech to an anti-religionist,

a homosexual, or a communist, by 12.0, 12.3, and 8.0 percentage points, respectively. All

three results were statistically significant at the one-percent level. Belief that a person,

whose views clash with one’s own, should be allowed free speech is certainly reflective

of a certain moral attitude. However, the connection this study might have established

was muddled when it failed to find a statistically significant effect of educational

attainment on whether individuals believe that militarists or racists should be allowed free

 

  8

speech.2 Additionally, the existence of an effect of educational attainment on one attitude

that could be counted as moral cannot be said to establish a conclusive link between

educational attainment and the many attitudes and forms of reasoning that encompass an

individual’s morality.

A number of other analyses of the social return to education touch upon a

potential relationship between educational attainment and morality. Oreopolous and

Salvanes (2011) examined GSS data from 1972-2000) and found significant positive

correlations between educational attainment and an individual’s trust as well as patience,

implicit in negative correlations with whether the individual was ever arrested, ever

smoked, had a child born as a teenager, or agreed that he or she “lived for today.”

Specifically, they found that roughly 30% of respondents with less than a high school

education believed “people can be trusted,” but that the relevant fraction increased to

40% among high school graduates, 45% among individuals with some college education,

and more than 55% for respondents with a college degree or higher. Similarly, more than

50% of respondents without a high school degree said that they “live for today,” had a

child as a teenager, and had smoked at some point in their lives. But these proportions

declined dramatically as education levels increased (to roughly 30%, 10%, and 40% in

the respective categories, for respondents with a college degree or greater). However,

while patience and trust could represent moral attitudes, they might also represent

economic preferences. Oreopolous and Salvanes point out that education might improve

trust because it teaches people how to interact successfully with others, or because it

                                                                                                               2 Two further notes about this study are worth mentioning. First, Dee’s OLS estimates suggested statistically significant correlations between educational attainment and allowing all five categories of potentially objectionable speakers the right to speak, although the size of the effects were muted. Second, Dee did not control for the religion the individual was raised in, but rather the individual’s current religion, introducing potential problems with endogeneity.

 

  9

teaches them to fully account for transaction costs (which are lower when people are

trusting). With regard to patience, they suggest that education may teach people to

properly weigh future benefits against current costs and benefits, thus “reducing myopia.”

In both cases, a plausible economic argument weakens the argument that education

makes individuals more patient or trusting exclusively as a matter of moral attitude.

A meta-analysis published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston has suggested

possible public returns to education in the categories of charitable giving and self-

reliance, implied by the activity of forgoing government benefits one is entitled to

(Haveman and Wolfe 2002). Particularly, the analysis referenced Hodgkinson and

Wietzman (1988), who found that college graduates donated 50% more of their incomes

and volunteered nearly twice as much as high school graduates. The meta-analysis also

referenced a previous study by the authors, which suggested that more education led to a

decreased probability of receiving disability or welfare benefits to which one would

otherwise be entitled (Haveman and Wolfe 1993). Associations between educational

attainment and these behaviors do not immediately appear to flow through a channel of

economic self-interest, again suggesting a link to moral attitudes. But evidence of

causality is limited, and the studies referenced are dated.

McMahon compiled a number of OLS analyses on aggregate annual data for 78

countries, and found that the percentage of the country’s population enrolled at the

secondary level (lagged) was significantly and positively correlated with democratization

(fair elections, competing parties, civilian control of the military, and decentralized

power) and equality, as suggested by a negative relationship with the country’s Gini

coefficient (1999). But even if these correlations prove reliable and linked to moral

 

  10

attitudes rather than economic self-interest, it would be problematic to extrapolate from

aggregate preferences to individual ones.

Other studies have reviewed links between educational attainment and “social

returns” that are less likely to be indicative of moral reasoning or attitudes. Particularly, it

has been of interest whether increased education increases the likelihood that an

individual will be politically active. Dee’s analysis of High School & Beyond data, using

distance to the closest two-year college and concentration of two-year colleges as

instruments for educational attainment, found statistically significant positive effects on

voter registration and turnout (2004). Dee suggests that one of the mechanisms through

which education might increase civic participation is the shaping of preferences.

“Preferences” could meal moral attitudes regarding what people should do, but it could

also simply refer to what the individual likes to do. Furthermore, Dee postulates that the

effect could be the result of education reducing the cost (to the individual) of civic

participation. It could be added that education might affect individuals’ perception of the

private returns to civic activity.

Additionally, another notable analysis of education’s effect on citizenship

produced mixed results when employing similarly rigorous empirical methods. Milligan,

Moretti and Oreopolous analyzed National Election Studies data (for the US) and

Eurobarometer survey data (for the UK), using compulsory schooling laws as an

instrument for education (2004). The analysis of the US data found a statistically

significant positive effect on whether individuals follow political campaigns and public

affairs, but it found no statistically significant effects on voter registration. Similarly, the

analysis of the UK data found statistically significant positive effects on whether

 

  11

individuals discussed political matters and considered themselves politically active, but

no statistically significant effect on voter registration or on whether individuals follow the

news.

Finally, another empirical study of note considered whether the share of college

graduates in a city increased wages over and above the expected private returns to

education (Moretti 2004). It analyzed National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY)

and US Census data, using differences in lagged age structure and presence of a land-

grant college as instruments for average educational attainment in a particular city, and

found a significant positive effect. However, while such a finding could possibly be

related to individual preferences for social equality (a moral attitude), it was not

mentioned by Moretti as a potential channel; he instead focused on the possibilities that

educated workers raised the productivity of the uneducated, or that there were “human

capital spillovers.”

Economic Returns to Education   It is widely accepted that educational attainment has a causal effect on earnings.

While the magnitudes of estimates vary, subsequent analysis of the various statistical

techniques used to model the relationship has confirmed that sizable and statistically

significant causal effects are present (Card 1999). This has implications for the question

at hand because moral attitudes may be affected by income level, and as such, education

may affect morality obliquely through its effects on earnings.

The effect of education on crime has also been studied thoroughly. Analysis of

US Census data, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, and the NLSY, using changes in state

compulsory education laws as an instrument for educational attainment, found that

 

  12

increased educational attainment had statistically significant negative effects on the

probability of committing a crime (Lochner and Moretti 2004). International studies have

also found significant negative effects (Machin, Marie and Vujic 2011; Hjalmarsson,

Holmlund and Lindquist 2011). However, education’s link to reduced criminal activity is

rarely described as resulting from a fundamental effect on the moral attitudes of students,

but instead is typically viewed as an economic choice. Economic models typically

suggest that education and crime are substitute activities, and that the choice between

them is driven by relative wage rates, opportunity cost, and time preferences.

Nonetheless, as with education’s effect on earnings, moral attitudes may be affected by

one’s participation in criminal activity, and thus affected by educational attainment in an

indirect manner.

Psychological Theories   The two most influential thinkers in the field of psychology, with respect to

education’s impact on moral attitudes, are Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg. A

summary of their work strongly suggests that education has a substantial impact on moral

development (Hersh, Paolitto and Reimer 1990).

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development suggests that intellectual and moral

development occurs in stages as individuals age and perform actions on objects. Actions

lead to consequences that the individual then internalizes and abstracts upon in both

reflective and empirical ways. The abstraction processes coalesce into new knowledge

and insight. With specific regard to moral development, Piaget subscribed to Kantian

ontology, and as such thought morality developed from observations of the world and

from peer interactions; he thought that the drive for autonomy would negate attempts to

 

  13

instill morality directly. Thus, Piaget strongly believed that education could influence

morality, but only through influencing interactions with objects, ideas, and peers.

Morality could not be inculcated directly through dogma.

Kohlberg extended upon Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, creating the

most prominent psychological theory of moral development. The theory holds that moral

reasoning develops in six stages, with two stages at each of three levels: pre-

conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. He suggested that moral development

continues late into an individual’s life span, and although he noted moral regression in his

studies, he thought that regression was not actually occurring. Rather, he attributed

regression to transition between stages, where moral reasoning and behavior could be

misconstrued. Kohlberg believed that individuals cannot skip stages of development, and

thought education a critical component of advancement through stages. Specifically, he

believed education advanced an individual’s conceptualization of the psychology of other

persons, his or her appreciation and reflection on social norms, and his or her ability to

reason logically from multiple perspectives.

Summary   There is a plethora of evidence suggesting that educational attainment has an

impact on moral attitudes. However, there is no empirical evidence directly on point. The

empirical evidence that is available in related fields is subject to alternative

interpretations, and psychology can only offer theories, convincing as they might be. This

study will thus seek to contribute to the literature by reliably estimating whether a

relationship exists, and if one is found, by beginning the discussion of what that

relationship might be.

 

  14

III. Data   The data used in this analysis come from the General Social Survey (GSS)

cumulative file (1972-2010), a pooled cross-section of data for every year that the survey

has been performed, with a total of 55,087 observations. The survey is conducted and

data compiled by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of

Chicago, with the primary purpose of monitoring social attitudes and changes in those

attitudes. The GSS was conducted annually between 1972 and 1993 – with the exceptions

of 1979, 1981, and 1992 – and biannually from 1994 through 2010. In the years it was

conducted annually, the survey averaged 1,547 observations; since it has been conducted

biannually, each survey has averaged 2,855 observations. Each survey was conducted

against an independently drawn sample of US residents, aged 18 years and older, and

living in non-institutional arrangements. Block quota sampling was used to select all

respondents for the 1972-1974 surveys and for half of the respondents to the 1975 and

1976 surveys. Block quota sampling involves segmenting the population into mutually

exclusive subgroups, and then creating the sample by sampling within each block to meet

a predetermined quota of observations from that block. The GSS used blocks stratified by

income and race, and applied quotas based on age, sex, and employment status. Full

probability sampling, featuring entirely random selection of observations, was used to

select the other half of respondents to the 1975 and 1976 surveys, and to select all

respondents for every survey from 1977 forward. From 1972 through 2004, respondents

were limited to English-speaking persons; from 2006 forward, samples have included

Spanish speakers as well.

 

  15

The GSS contains three types of questions: permanent (or “core”) questions that

appear on every survey; rotating questions that appear frequently but not universally;3

and special questions that appear in a single survey.4 The survey organizers have taken

care to retain the exact wording of reappearing questions whenever possible in order to

facilitate time trend studies. Respondents are interviewed by trained social scientists

about their biographic and demographic background, as well as opinions on a multitude

of topics. The median time taken to conduct an interview has historically been roughly 90

minutes. While most questions include response codes for “Don’t Know,” “No Answer,”

and “Not Applicable,” these responses were, in most cases, coded as missing by the

survey organizers in the publicly available data set. However, I have also dropped three

types of observations in order to preserve the statistical integrity of the models estimated.  

Education was reported as “unsure” for 122 observations; these were dropped.

Additionally, 476 observations were dropped where age was reported as “89+” years, and

1673 observations were dropped where the respondent either indicated that he or she had

more than 25 siblings or did not provide an answer to the question of how many siblings

he or she had.

There are well-documented issues associated with the use of survey data in

empirical studies, particularly the presence of measurement error in the independent

variables due to respondents’ liability to give imprecise answers (or worse, intentionally

misreport), particularly when the survey is designed poorly or the interviewer is not well

                                                                                                               3 Rotating questions appeared for all respondents in two out of every three years from 1972 through 1988. Beginning in 1990, all rotating questions were asked every year, but only of two thirds of respondents. 4 These categories are not necessarily static. Special questions may be asked in multiple years and become rotating or even permanent questions; permanent and rotating questions might be dropped from the survey.

 

  16

trained. The rigor with which the GSS is prepared and executed eases concerns one might

have about survey data generally and measurement error specifically.

IV. Methodology   I use the GSS data to measure whether educational attainment has a relationship

with an individual’s moral reasoning and attitudes, as well as his or her conception of the

nature of morality. My models are of the general form:

𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦!"# = 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐!"#𝛽! +  𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑜!"#! 𝛽! + 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠!"#! 𝛽! + 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑑!"#! 𝛽! + 𝛼! +  𝛿! +  𝜖!"#

In these models, 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦!"# represents a response from individual i to one of

various questions that shed light on morality, in survey year t, given that the individual

was raised in region r. I use 27 distinct variables (responses to survey questions) to

measure morality, broken down roughly into six categories: the nature of morality, moral

reasoning, moral attitudes towards interpersonal and private actions, moral attitudes

towards responsibility and loyalty, moral attitudes towards government and its

relationship with citizens, and moral attitudes towards economic inequality.5 Table 1

describes all the variables that were used to measure morality, and includes information

on the sample size and mean for any given variable. Sample sizes vary because, with only

a couple exceptions, the survey questions (variables) included were rotating or special

questions, and thus were not asked universally across surveys and respondents.

                                                                                                               5 The classification of the variables into these categories is not meant to be a definitive statement on what they represent. Rather, it is simply a construct used to simplify discussion of the many variables that shed light on morality. Many of the variables speak to more than one of these classifications, while some of them fit into a classification only loosely.

 

  17

The variable of interest in this model, 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐!"# (educational attainment), is

measured as the total years of formal schooling completed by the individual, on a scale of

zero to 20. The value is derived from a series of questions the interviewer asks the

respondent about the highest grade he or she has completed. The coefficient of interest

then is 𝛽!, which measures the impact of an additional year of formal school on morality.

I have also broken down educational attainment into four separate component variables:

elementary education, high school education, college education, and postgraduate

education. Elementary education is defined as attainment within the first eight years of

formal education (on a scale of 0-8), high school as attainment within the next four years

(0-4), college as attainment within the four years after that (0-4), and postgraduate

education as any attainment after college, limited to a maximum of four years (0-4).6 I

will conduct further analysis using these component variables as variables of interest to

see whether or not relationships are consistent across levels of education.

Three vectors of control variables are included in the model in order to minimize

omitted variable bias. Included in 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑜!"#! are the individual’s age, race, gender, and

an indicator for whether or not the person was born in the United States. Included in

𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠!"#! are controls for mother’s education, father’s education, whether the

individual’s parents were born in the United States, and whether the individual’s

grandparents were born in the United States. The vector 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑑!"#! represents variables

related to the individual’s childhood environment, particularly the number of siblings the

individual had, the religion he or she was raised in, whether his or her family’s income

was above or below average, and the level of urbanization of the place where the                                                                                                                6 The maximum value of the “postgraduate education” variable follows as a consequence of the coding of the original education variable (from with the component variables were derived), which had a maximum value of 20 years.

 

  18

individual was raised. Table 2 lists all the variables of interest and control variables

included in the models, and provides summary statistics.

In order to strengthen the reliability of the estimates presented, most of the models

estimated include year and region fixed effects, in addition to the control variables

discussed above.7 Specifically, this means that indicator variables for each year the

survey was given will be included, controlling for any shocks or trends in moral attitudes

attributable to the particular period in history in which the survey was conducted.

Indicator variables for the region respondents grew up in will also be included,

controlling for any effects on individuals’ morality attributable to the geographic location

in which he or she was raised. Including these controls further reduces the problem of

omitted variable bias. I also cluster standard errors by the region in which the respondent

grew up.

It must be noted that, for a number of the models estimated, observations were

dropped where the response to the survey question did not indicate alignment with either

state in the binary variable constructed for the purpose of estimating an LPM. That is,

some survey questions asked respondents what their attitude was towards a statement,

and the discrete set of response choices allowed was on a scale, where for example, “1”

indicated “strong agreement” with the statement and “5” indicated “strong

disagreement.” Where the discrete set was an odd number, the middle of the scale

arguably could not be classified as either “agreement” or “disagreement” with the

statement, and therefore could not be used when the original responses were transformed

to binary variables for the purpose of constructing LPMs. This practice necessarily

reduced the statistical power of these models, and arguably could influence the results, as                                                                                                                7 Exceptions are noted as appropriate on the results tables.

 

  19

the construction of binary variables might be said to unduly remove nuance from the

measurement of the attitudes captured by these variables.

There are other valid concerns that can be raised about this approach. The specter

of omitted variable bias looms over this study like most others; because so many

variables are likely to impact an individual’s morality, many variables not accounted for

in these models could be correlated with both educational attainment and moral attitudes.

For example, individuals who experience fewer traumatic events than their peers as

children might both exhibit greater educational attainment as well as different moral

attitudes. Additionally, reverse or simultaneous causality could be a problem for this

study: It is possible that moral attitudes in adolescence and early adulthood impact the

level of educational attainment an individual achieves.

V. Results

Discussion of results is organized by category of morality as identified in the

preceding section, and presented in the order listed in Table 1. Regression results tables

referred to in the discussion are organized as follows: Table 3 reports parameter estimates

for the variable of interest, educational attainment, for each of the variables within

morality, in all categories of morality. Tables 4a through 4f report full regression results

for a selected (representative) variable within each category. Tables 5a through 5f report

parameter estimates for educational attainment by level (elementary, high school, college,

and postgraduate) and organized by category of morality.

 

  20

Nature of Morality   The results of a variety of OLS regressions (as reported in Table 3) strongly

suggest a link between educational attainment and individuals’ perceptions of the nature

of morality. Individuals with more formal education were less likely to believe that the

world is fundamentally evil (by two percentage points per year of education), more likely

to believe that human nature is fundamentally good (by 1.2 percentage points per year),

less likely to believe that morality is solely a personal matter (by 0.8 percentage points

per year), and less likely to believe that science breaks down people’s morals (by three

percentage points per year). Parameter estimates were statistically significant at the 1%

level or greater for each regression run within this category, exhibiting remarkable

robustness to inclusion of controls.

That additional education changes the way one perceives the nature of morality,

in the sizable way suggested by the results, makes logical sense. As one is exposed to

new information and knowledge, one’s understanding of the world is reshaped to

accommodate it. Particularly, one would expect (or at least hope) that additional

understanding would lead to positive impressions about the subject matter, possibly

explaining why those with more education see the world and human nature in a more

positive light. In a similar vein, additional understanding acquired through education

reveals the interconnectedness of individuals to the world around them, and thus might

lead them to believe that morality is not an island unto each individual, but the interplay

of judgments made from different individuals’ perspectives. It is probably least surprising

that educational attainment makes people less likely to believe science breaks down

 

  21

morals, since understanding of the scientific method reveals a process that does not

judge, but which only seeks truth.

Examination of the parameter estimates for controls applied to the regressions (as

reported in Table 4a) reveals age, gender, and the urbanicity of one’s childhood

environment to all be statistically significant predictors of whether individuals believe the

world is evil. More interesting, however, is that it appears that the religion one is raised in

is not statistically significant in determining one’s perception of the world.8 If one is

inclined to believe that educational attainment affects how one perceives the world by

adding to individuals’ understanding of it, then these results would as a corollary suggest

that raising a child in religion does not add to that child’s understanding of the world.

While it is tempting to believe that all educational attainment is equally associated

with perceptions of morality, Table 5a suggests that there is a particularly strong

association with college education. Like the results for educational attainment overall,

college education is statistically significant in every regression it is included in, and the

parameter estimates are even more sizable. This comports with the traditional conception

of college as a place where horizons are broadened, both in and out of the classroom. By

contrast, postgraduate education is not a statistically significant predictor of any of the

component variables examined, possibly because most postgraduate education involves a

narrowing of focus. Likewise, nowhere is elementary education a statistically significant

predictor, likely due to its focus on basic skills, and its provincial environment. High

school education, by contrast, may expand understanding in some regards but not others,

leading to differing levels of association and significance amongst the variables analyzed.

                                                                                                               8 The parameter estimate of the effect of being raised as a Protestant was weakly significant (p < 10%). There was no statistically significant effect of an individual being raised as a Catholic, as a Jew, or without religion.

 

  22

Moral Reasoning   Educational attainment also exhibited statistically significant relationships with

variables that shed light on moral reasoning. People with more formal education bent

toward modes of thinking that apply cost-benefit analysis and weighing of multiple

factors to reach the optimal moral outcome: The parameter estimates reported in Table 3

indicate that more education leaves people more likely to view morality in shades of gray

rather than strictly in terms of black or white (by one percentage point per year of formal

education). Those with more formal education were also less likely to believe that sinners

should necessarily be punished (by two percentage points per year), or that the immoral

acts of one individual corrupt society as a whole (by 0.7 percentage points per year).

Results were robust to the inclusion of controls.

If one accepts that education increases individuals’ abstract reasoning abilities and

the number of perspectives that one analyzes situations from, it would follow that the

more educated one is, the more likely he or she would apply more complex modes of

thinking. In other words, it seems plausible that as one becomes more educated, one sees

more facets of a given situation, and therefore must balance more factors in passing

judgment. Hence, he or she will reflect on the evaluation process as one of distinguishing

shades of gray, rather than applying black and white labels. It then follows that the more

educated one is, the less likely he or she would be to indiscriminately punish those that

have done wrong, but instead would consider the totality of the situation to determine

whether incapacitation or rehabilitation is a more appropriate response to the behavior

than retribution or deterrence.

 

  23

Educational attainment did not exhibit a statistically significant relationship with

whether an individual believes that dissenters should be treated leniently. This could be

the result of a limited sample size (and lack of control for year fixed effects, since all

responses were from a single year), but could also reflect that the response to this

question not only reflects reasoning, but an attitude towards nonconformity that does not

fall squarely within any of the categories of morality analyzed here.

Controls applied to the regressions (as reported in Table 4b) were almost

universally not statistically significant predictors of whether individuals believe morality

has shades of gray.9 This is unsurprising, as none of the controls applied appear to be

obvious candidates to affect one’s abstract reasoning abilities.

Analysis of the relationship between educational attainment at different levels and

moral reasoning (as reported in Table 5b) reveals college education as the driver of the

cumulative association between education and moral reasoning. This seems plausible,

given that advanced abstract reasoning and the careful balancing of factors in analysis are

most typically associated with higher education. However, given this mode of analysis,

one would also expect statistically significant parameter estimates for the association

between postgraduate education and the variables in this category, but this level of

education only had a significant relationship with whether individuals believed that a

sinner should be punished, and not with whether the individual believed morality has

shades of gray. Furthermore, no level of education had a statistically significant

relationship with whether individuals believed one immoral person corrupts society,

                                                                                                               9 Whether an individual lived on a farm while growing up was the only exception, with a parameter estimate, statistically significant at the 5% level, indicating those individuals were four percentage points less likely to believe morality has shades of gray.

 

  24

making it difficult to interpret the baseline regression that suggests overall educational

attainment has a significant relationship with this variable.

Moral Attitudes towards Private Actions   In general, the results listed in Table 3 indicate that individuals with more formal

education demonstrated a greater propensity to accept private behavior without moral

opprobrium. Holding other variables in the model constant, additional formal education

made individuals less likely to believe that premarital or homosexual sex was wrong (by

0.7 and 2.3 percentage points, respectively, per year of education) and more likely to

agree that gay couples should have the right to marry (by 1.4 percentage points per year).

Those with more formal education were also more likely to believe that a woman should

have the right to have an abortion for any reason that she chooses (by two percentage

points per year), and that it is sometimes okay for a grown man to hit another grown man

(by 1.8 percentage points per year). These parameter estimates were all statistically

significant at the 1% level or greater, and were largely robust to the inclusion of controls.

The results here are more than plausible, given the preceding analysis of

educational attainment’s relationship with moral reasoning, as well as with perceptions of

the nature of morality. Educational attainment exposes one to new information and

knowledge, and improves one’s capacity for abstract reasoning, to the effect that

individuals with greater levels of education are prone to a more positive outlook on

human nature, and have a greater tendency to employ complex modes of analysis. Hence,

a person with more education is likely to be more sympathetic to individuals whose

behaviors differ from their own. The more educated one is, the more one might reason

that private behavior by good-natured human beings should be allowed to proceed

 

  25

without moral criticism. Or alternatively, more education could lead one to reason that,

although personally not fond of a particular behavior, maximizing utility requires

maximum accommodation of personal freedom in private behaviors.10

Unlike the previous categories of morality, many of the control variables included

in the regressions were statistically significant predictors of the component morality

variables within this category. Table 4c reports full OLS regression results pertaining to

whether an individual believes that a woman has a right to an abortion for any reason.

Parameter estimates for mother’s education, father’s education, the number of siblings

one has, relative family income as a child, the religion one was raised in, and the

urbanicity of one’s childhood environment were all statistically significant at the 5%

level or greater. This may be because moral attitudes towards abortion, unlike reasoning

or perceptions of morality, may be more prone to impact from preconceived viewpoints

associated with one’s childhood environment. Interestingly, gender was not a statistically

significant predictor of the dependent variable here, indicating that women – holding

other factors in the model constant – are no more likely to believe in their own right to an

abortion than men are.

As was found in the analysis of the relationship between different levels of

education and previous categories of morality, education at the college level is

particularly and consistently related to moral attitudes towards private behaviors (as

reported in Table 5c). Additionally, and unlike the analysis of the previous categories of

morality, postgraduate education is observed to have a strong and statistically significant

                                                                                                               10 The only component variable in this category of morality not exhibiting a statistically significant relationship with educational attainment was whether individuals believe that a terminal patient has the right to die. The lack of a relationship could be explained by the fact that utilitarian calculus is more difficult to apply to the freedom to end one’s life; it might suggest that any time a person’s life is on balance more painful than enjoyable, he or she should end it.

 

  26

relationship as well. In fact, both college and postgraduate education parameter estimates

are statistically significant at the 1% level or greater for every component variable within

the category,11 and exhibit relationships larger in magnitude than the baseline estimates

for cumulative educational attainment (as reported in Table 3). A possible explanation for

this phenomenon is that while postgraduate education does not necessarily lead one to

acquire additional analytical skills, it calls upon individuals to apply those analytical

skills in more exacting ways. An individual with a postgraduate education may be no

more likely to apply utilitarian reasoning, but when called upon to do so, does so more

thoroughly and precisely.

Moral Attitudes towards Responsibility and Loyalty   The results in this category of morality are decidedly mixed. At first glance it

might appear that, from the results in Table 3, individuals with more formal education

tend to exhibit higher levels of social responsibility.12 Education is a statistically

significant predictor of whether an individual believes a friend has a right to false

testimony (an additional year of education is associated with a 1.2 percentage point

decrease in the likelihood one believes a friend has such a right), and of whether an

individual would tell the police the truth against a friend’s wishes (an additional year is

associated with a 1.3 percentage point increase in the likelihood an individual would tell

the truth). Education was also a statistically significant predictor of whether one agrees

                                                                                                               11 There was one exception: The impact of college education was not significant for whether individuals believed that premarital sex was wrong, but was significant for whether individuals believed that a terminal patient has the right to die. 12 The variables in this category are related to “social” responsibility in that the survey questions (to which the variable responses refer) arguably ask the respondent to weigh responsibility to society (in reducing the pain of others, telling police the truth, or acting morally in one’s economic dealings) against responsibility to self, family, and friends (being ambivalent to others’ suffering, helping a friend out of a jam, or taking economic care of oneself and one’s family to the exclusion of moral principles).

 

  27

that there is no morality in the way one makes money (an additional year is associated

with a 2.9 percentage point decrease in the likelihood one agrees with such a statement).

However, a number of caveats must be addressed regarding the results listed in

Table 3. First, year fixed effects were not included for three of the four component

variables within this category, because the relevant survey questions were only asked in

one year. Second, controls for the respondent’s family income at age 16 were not applied,

because responses to the relevant survey question were missing for all individuals who

had valid data on the dependent variables. Third, the results of regressions examining

education at different levels and these variables (as reported in Table 5d) do not align

well with the results of regressions examining cumulative educational attainment and

these variables (Table 3). Particularly, not a single level of education exhibited a

statistically significant relationship with whether individuals believe that a friend has a

right to false testimony or with whether individuals would tell the police the truth against

a friend’s wishes.13 Lastly, although educational attainment exhibited a statistically

significant (and sizable) relationship with whether an individual believes that there is

morality in the way one makes money, both cumulatively and specifically at the high

school and college levels, regressions on this variable did not include controls for place

of birth (for the respondent, his or her parents, or grandparents), because the question was

only asked in the first three years of the GSS (1972-1974), when place of birth questions

had not yet been added to the survey. This is worrisome for two reasons: First, all the

observations are from a limited time period, and thus may not accurately reflect current-

                                                                                                               13 Conversely, while there was no statistically significant impact of cumulative educational attainment on whether a individual feels personal responsibility for reducing pain, postgraduate education exhibited a sizable (six percentage points per year) and statistically significant (at the 1% level) impact on this component variable.

 

  28

day attitudes towards this issue. Second, and more poignantly, Table 4d reveals that

controls for whether parents and grandparents were born in the US may be of appreciable

impact on variables in this category.

Furthermore, there is no overriding logical reason to believe that there is, or is

not, an impact of educational attainment on moral attitudes towards responsibility and

loyalty. The relationships observed in previously examined categories were logically

justified by reasoning that education provides individuals with exposure to new

information and knowledge, and with additional analytical skills, leading to a more

positive outlook on the world and increasing the likelihood of applying utilitarian thought

processes. But while utilitarian reasoning typically bends towards private ordering and

personal freedom with regards to behaviors that primarily have an impact only on the

individuals taking part in them, it has less of a conclusive impact on behaviors in which

an individual must weigh their social responsibility (e.g., telling the police the truth or

making money in a scrupulous way) against personal responsibility (e.g., loyalty to a

friend, or providing for oneself and one’s family, whatever the cost).

Moral Attitudes towards Government

The results of OLS regressions, reported in Table 3, on component variables

within this category of morality, suggest a strong link between educational attainment

and moral attitudes towards government. Particularly, individuals with more formal

education were less likely to approve of the death penalty (by one percentage point for

every additional year of education), to agree that cheating the government by lying on

benefits applications was not that reprehensible (by 0.7 percentage points per year), or to

support their country if they believed their country’s actions were wrong (by 4.1

 

  29

percentage points per year). Parameter estimates were generally robust to the inclusion of

controls. 14

That education would alter individuals’ attitudes towards government is quite

plausible. Additional education not only provides new information, knowledge, and

analytical reasoning skills, but it often specifically informs students as to the nature of

their government, how it functions, and what the relationship between government and

governed is supposed to entail. It follows that individuals with more years of education

will develop different viewpoints on what powers government can legitimately wield

(death penalty), how their actions as citizens impact government (cheating on taxes or

government benefits applications), and whether they should support or question their

government’s actions.

Table 4e provides full OLS regression results examining the dependent variable

representing whether individuals would support their country, even if they believed their

country’s actions were wrong. Interestingly, the only independent variables (other than

education) exhibiting statistically significant associations with the dependent variable

were age, and a dummy for whether the individual was not raised with religion. Older

people were more likely to support their country even when they considered its actions to

be wrong, suggesting that as individuals age, their tendency to voice dissent wanes. This

comports with anecdotal evidence that protests and other anti-government activity are

more likely to be spawned and attended by youth. Variables indicating whether the

individual, his parents, or her grandparents were born outside of the US did not exhibit a

significant association, which is notable because it suggests that immigrants to the US

                                                                                                               14 Statistically significant parameter estimates for the death penalty variable did not appear until parental status controls were added to the regression.

 

  30

either do not have different attitudes than Americans towards government support

(whether bending towards allegiance or dissent), or they do not retain attitudes brought

from their place of origin.

As was found in the other categories of morality, analysis of educational

attainment at different levels (reported in Table 5e) accords the bulk of the impact of

educational attainment on attitudes towards government to college education in

particular. Parameter estimates for the college education variable were statistically

significant in every regression, and larger in magnitude than the estimates for cumulative

educational attainment. This is believable given that college is the level of education

where students are most likely to learn about the nature of their government, how it

functions, and what the relationship between government and governed is supposed to

entail. Postgraduate education also had a marked impact on whether an individual

approves of the death penalty and whether an individual would support their country, but

not on whether an individual considered cheating (on taxes or government benefits

applications) reprehensible. This suggests, reasonably, that the most advanced levels of

education impact what people believe is the appropriate province of government and

when dissent towards government action is appropriately registered, but not whether they

believe cheating (with respect to government) is bad. Such a divide comports with an

understanding of postgraduate education as focused on advanced theoretical analysis,

rather than practical issues of ethics in one’s relations with government.

A final note regarding Table 5e pertains to the reported (and statistically

significant) relationships between high school education and whether an individual

approves of the death penalty, as well as whether an individual believes that cheating on

 

  31

one’s taxes is reprehensible. These relationships are sizable, and flow in the opposite

direction of the relationships between college education and those dependent variables.

With respect to the death penalty, this may reflect that high school education provides

more information about the extent of government power (with a tacit understanding that

governmental power is legitimate), and less about the appropriate limits on it. With

respect to the issue of cheating on one’s taxes, a ready explanation is not available;

further investigation is warranted.

Moral Attitudes towards Economic Inequality  

After balancing the results of all OLS regressions examining this category of

morality, it does not appear as though educational attainment has any meaningful

relationship with individuals’ attitudes towards economic inequality. Table 3 reports that

educational attainment has no statistically significant association with three of the five

component variables within this category. Specifically, changes in years of formal

education appear to have no effect on whether individuals believe income inequality in

the US is too large, or on their attitudes towards the fact that wealthier people receive

better health care and education. In fact, as reported in Table 4f, the only statistically

significant predictors of attitudes towards inequality in the US were gender (males were

12 percentage points less likely to believe that inequality was too large) and whether the

respondent was born in the US (foreign born respondents were 16 percentage points more

likely to believe that income inequality was too large). Not a single level of education (as

reported in Table 5f) had a statistically significant relationship with these three dependent

variables.

 

  32

However, educational attainment did have a statistically significant (at the 1%

level) and sizable relationship with the other two component variables within the

category: Each year of education was associated with a 1.7 percentage point reduction in

likelihood that a respondent believed that the government should reduce inequality, and

with a 1.4 percentage point reduction in likelihood that a respondent believed that the

government should help the poor. Furthermore, the parameter estimates were robust to

the inclusion of controls. Variables isolating different levels of educational attainment

also exhibited statistically significant associations with these dependent variables, at the

high school, college, and postgraduate levels. But the different levels were not consistent

in the direction of their associations: While parameter estimates for high school and

college education had the same negative sign as – and were an order of magnitude larger

than – the parameter estimates for cumulative educational attainment, the parameter

estimates for postgraduate education had a positive sign. This means that while high

school and college education are associated with a reduced likelihood that an individual

will believe that the government should reduce inequality or help the poor, postgraduate

education is associated with an increased likelihood of believing that the government

should intervene.

In light of the mixed results, it would be easy to say that the analysis as to this

category of morality was inconclusive. But reflecting on the discussion of education’s

relationship with other categories of morality (particularly moral attitudes towards private

actions and moral attitudes towards government), it is more reasonable to conclude that

the variables with which educational attainment had a relationship were more indicative

of attitudes towards government and its appropriate role, rather than towards a state of

 

  33

inequality. This comports with the consistent relationships between educational

attainment and variables within that category (moral attitudes towards government).

Furthermore, the phenomenon of different levels of education exhibiting associations

with the dependent variable in opposite directions, as reported here, was also reported for

the variable examining attitudes toward cheating on taxes, included in that category.

Finally, education’s relationship with attitudes towards government proceeds rationally

from the observation that education informs individuals about the appropriate role and

powers of government. The same cannot be said for education and the propriety of a

given level of economic inequality. In sum, recategorizing the dependent variables

associated with government action towards inequality as reflective of attitudes towards

government, rather than attitudes towards inequality, reinforces the conclusion reached

earlier – that educational attainment has a meaningful relationship with attitudes towards

government. It also allows one to state with less equivocality that educational attainment

does not have a meaningful relationship with attitudes towards inequality, as suggested

by the lack of a statistically significant relationship between educational attainment and

the remaining three dependent variables in this category.

VI. Conclusion Education has long been presumed to be associated with moral development. A

variety of issues in the development, implementation, and consequences of education

policy would benefit from knowledge of whether such an association in fact exists, and

what it implies. There are a multitude of channels through which education might affect

morality: direct transfer of moral information; exposure to new (non-moral) information,

 

  34

concepts, or modes of thinking; improvements in logical reasoning abilities; by

generation of varied social interactions. Conversely, there are reasons to believe that

simple educational attainment might not affect moral attitudes: It is possible that only the

content of one’s education (and not the extent of it) determines moral attitudes; attitudes

may harden at a young age and be unaffected by continued education; non-school social

interactions or other life events may dominate the shaping of one’s morality.

To address this question, I used General Social Survey data covering the period

from 1972 through 2010 to estimate the relationship between educational attainment and

morality. I find that educational attainment has a statistically significant and sizable

relationship with perceptions of the nature of morality, with moral reasoning, with moral

attitudes towards private action, and with moral attitudes towards government.

Educational attainment does not appear to have any meaningful relationship with moral

attitudes towards inequality, and the results are too mixed to interpret whether there is a

relationship with moral attitudes towards responsibility. Additionally, I find that college

education is the driver of most statistically significant relationships between education

and the moral categories where relationships were noted. Elementary education, by

contrast, never appears to have a relationship with morality. Postgraduate education was a

statistically significant predictor of moral attitudes towards private actions; it also was

associated with moral attitudes towards government, but in some cases in a different

direction than college education was. Statistically significant relationships between high

school education and morality were too few and inconsistently observed to draw

conclusions from.

 

  35

The policy implications of these results are varied. On the one hand, the results

seem to indicate that policy makers should not be overly concerned about any potential

effects on morality when crafting early childhood education policies that increase

attainment. The evidence that suggests that elementary school education has no effect on

morality would seem to logically extend to even earlier formal education: In general, it

appears that education’s relationship with morality is weaker with more rudimentary and

provincial education. On the other hand, policies designed to improve college attendance

and graduation rates should be designed and pursued with potential shifts in morality in

mind. Furthermore, if moral development is a desired end of education, policy makers

and experts might examine why high school education seems to fail in impacting

individuals’ moral attitudes. On a more cynical note, professional politicians will want to

take notice of the way educational attainment shapes moral attitudes, and thus political

ideology.

There are a multitude of ways this study could be improved upon, which would

allow one to estimate with more certainty whether there is a causal effect of educational

attainment on morality. In particular, by using the non-public use version of the GSS

data, geographic fixed effects could be added at a much more granular level, and perhaps

a valid instrument could be applied (as in Dee’s 2004 study).

Further research into the effects of college education is particularly warranted. It

would be valuable to know if the observed relationship between morality and college

attainment is in fact driven by attainment, or whether matriculation or graduation has a

disproportionate impact on the relationship. It would also be helpful to know whether the

relationship varies with the type of institution attended (e.g., comparing the impact of

 

  36

attending a religious institution to the impact of attending a secular one). Lastly, it would

be useful, if possible, to design a procedure to disentangle the impact of attainment in

general from the impact of instruction in specific subject matter.

 

  37

TABLE 1: SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR VARIABLES INCLUDED IN “MORALITY”  

Variable N

Percentage Responding

“Yes” or “Agree” Nature of Morality

World is Evil 11,569 24.6% Human Nature is Good 8,814 77.4% Morality is a Personal Matter 8,141 75.4% Science Breaks Down Morals 1,408 32.8%

Moral Reasoning Morality has Shades of Gray 8,180 83.7% Sinners Should be Punished 7,869 47.4% One Immoral Person Corrupts Society 8,200 62.1% Dissenters Should be Treated Leniently 1,201 79.0%

Moral Attitudes towards Private Actions Premarital Sex is Wrong 31,864 37.2% Homosexual Sex is Wrong 31,059 71.6% Gays Have Right to Marry 6,022 38.2% Woman Has Right to Abortion 30,173 40.4% Terminal Patient has Right to Die 26,479 67.6% Sometimes Okay to Hit Another 18,126 66.3%

Moral Attitudes towards Responsibility Personal Responsibility for Reducing Pain 1,390 62.3% Friend Has Right to False Testimony 1,099 12.5% Tell Police Truth Against Friend's Wishes 966 87.7% No Morality in Way One Makes Money 4,328 24.7%

Moral Attitudes towards Government Approve of Death Penalty 43,890 72.5% Not that Bad to Cheat on Taxes 2,460 15.6% Not that Bad to Cheat Government 2,508 5.2% Support Country if Country was Wrong 1,980 42.8%

Moral Attitudes towards Inequality Government Should Reduce Inequality 21,521 58.1% Government Should Help the Poor 14,386 54.5% Income Inequality in US is Too Large 4,074 78.5% Just that Rich get Better Health Care 914 36.1% Just that Rich Kids get Better Education 945 39.6%

       

 

  38

TABLE 2: SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE VARIABLES OF INTEREST AND CONTROL VARIABLES  Variable N Mean Std. Dev. Variables of Interest

Education, Years 52,816 12.73 3.17 Elementary Education, Years 52,816 7.86 0.76 High School Education, Years 52,816 3.36 1.30 College Education, Years 52,816 1.30 1.64 Postgraduate Education, Years 52,816 0.22 0.74

Biographic and Demographic Controls Age 52,816 45.32 17.24 Male 52,816 0.441 -- White 52,816 0.818 -- Black 52,816 0.137 -- Foreign Born 52,816 0.071 --

Parental Status Controls Mother's Education, Years 44,722 10.70 3.72 Father's Education, Years 38,360 10.53 4.34 Number of Grandparents Born in US 42,603 1.15 1.60 Number of Parents Born in US 45,009 1.71 0.67

Childhood Environment Controls Number of Siblings 52,816 3.93 3.11 Family Income at Age 16 was Below Average 41,307 0.328 -- Family Income at Age 16 was Above Average 41,307 0.168 -- Raised as Protestant 52,816 0.598 -- Raised as Catholic 52,816 0.277 -- Raised as Jew 52,816 0.020 -- Not Raised in Religion 52,816 0.048 -- Lived on a Farm at age 16 52,816 0.160 -- Lived in a Small Town at Age 16 52,816 0.316 -- Lived in a Medium Sized City at age 16 52,816 0.150 -- Lived in a Suburb of a Large City at age 16 52,816 0.107 -- Lived in a Large City at Age 16 52,816 0.155 --

 

  39

TABLE 3: ESTIMATES OF EDUCATION’S IMPACT ON VARIABLES REVEALING MORALITY  

Bivariate

Regression

Add Bio/Demo Controls

Add Parent Controls

Add Childhood Controls

Add Fixed Effects

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Nature of Morality

World is Evil -0.0229*** -0.0251*** -0.0202*** -0.0206*** -0.0201***

(0.0019) (0.0020) (0.0026) (0.0036) (0.0034)

11,569 11,569 7,533 3,928 3,928

Human Nature is Good 0.0200*** 0.0191*** 0.0151*** 0.0123*** 0.0122***

(0.0026) (0.0022) (0.0031) (0.0034) (0.0035)

8,814 8,814 5,780 3,925 3,925

Morality is a Personal Matter -0.0070*** -0.0076*** -0.0080*** -0.0075*** -0.0077***

(0.0018) (0.0016) (0.0016) (0.0022) (0.0021)

8,141 8,141 5,481 5,408 5,408

Science Breaks Down Morals+ -0.0426*** -0.0384*** -0.0341*** -0.0306*** -0.0295***

(0.0058) (0.0056) (0.0068) (0.0073) (0.0073)

1,408 1,408 917 911 911

Moral Reasoning Morality has Shades of Gray 0.0083*** 0.0084*** 0.0106*** 0.0100*** 0.0097***

(0.0018) (0.0019) (0.0021) (0.0023) (0.0022)

8,180 8,180 5,519 5,442 5,442

Sinners Should be Punished -0.0314*** -0.0300*** -0.0213*** -0.0200*** -0.0195***

(0.0026) (0.0021) (0.0023) (0.0029) (0.0029)

7,869 7,869 5,293 5,222 5,222

One Immoral Person Corrupts Society -0.0088*** -0.0078** -0.0065** -0.0063** -0.0067**

(0.0018) (0.0024) (0.0021) (0.0022) (0.0024)

8,200 8,200 5,522 5,447 5,447

Dissenters Should be Treated Leniently+ 0.0082 0.0069 0.0094 0.0087 0.0091

(0.0062) (0.0052) (0.0057) (0.0058) (0.0063)

1,201 1,201 790 787 787

Moral Attitudes towards Private Actions Premarital Sex is Wrong -0.0258*** -0.0173*** -0.0105*** -0.0075*** -0.0069***

(0.0020) (0.0013) (0.0012) (0.0012) (0.0012)

31,864 31,864 17,891 13,291 13,291

Homosexual Sex is Wrong -0.0394*** -0.0344*** -0.0279*** -0.0248*** -0.0230***

(0.0039) (0.0040) (0.0049) (0.0039) (0.0037)

31,059 31,059 17,441 13,415 13,415

Gays Have Right to Marry 0.0294*** 0.0256*** 0.0180*** 0.0159*** 0.0144***

(0.0030) (0.0029) (0.0043) (0.0036) (0.0024)

6,022 6,022 4,057 3,927 3,927

Woman Has Right to Abortion 0.0335*** 0.0320*** 0.0217*** 0.0198*** 0.0198***

(0.0013) (0.0012) (0.0011) (0.0009) (0.0009)

30,173 30,173 19,643 15,504 15,504

Terminal Has Right to Die 0.0180*** 0.0117*** 0.0027 -0.0017 -0.0025

(0.0029) (0.0021) (0.0015) (0.0019) (0.0021)

26,479 26,479 17,213 12,694 12,694

Sometimes Okay to Hit 0.0277*** 0.0210*** 0.0186*** 0.0172*** 0.0177***

(0.0015) (0.0015) (0.0022) (0.0021) (0.0020)

18,126 18,126 9,102 9,070 9,070

 

  40

Bivariate Regression

Add Bio/Demo Controls

Add Parent Controls

Add Childhood Controls

Add Fixed Effects

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Moral Attitudes towards Responsibility and Loyalty

Personal Responsibility for Reducing Pain++ 0.0074 0.0092 0.0104 0.0139 0.0126

(0.0051) (0.0055) (0.0081) (0.0088) (0.0081)

1,390 1,390 889 889 889

Friend Has Right to False Testimony++ -0.0034 -0.0066* -0.0113** -0.0118** -0.0115**

(0.0029) (0.0031) (0.0041) (0.0038) (0.0037)

1,099 1,099 714 714 714

Tell Police Truth Against Friend's Wishes++ 0.0033 0.0060 0.0124** 0.0134** 0.0128**

(0.0039) (0.0036) (0.0049) (0.0051) (0.0053)

966 966 631 631 631

No Morality in Way One Makes Money+++ -0.0283*** -0.0297*** -0.0285*** -0.0286*** -0.0289***

(0.0020) (0.0025) (0.0025) (0.0029) (0.0028)

4,328 4,328 2,947 2,935 2,935

Moral Attitudes towards Government and Citizenship Approve of Death Penalty -0.0015 -0.0055 -0.0097** -0.0105** -0.0104**

(0.0043) (0.0037) (0.0040) (0.0040) (0.0040)

43,890 43,890 25,983 19,752 19,752

Not that Bad to Cheat on Taxes -0.0037 -0.0053* -0.0055* -0.0032 -0.0037

(0.0025) (0.0027) (0.0026) (0.0046) (0.0048)

2,460 2,460 1,545 793 793

Not that Bad to Cheat Government -0.0062*** -0.0061*** -0.0067*** -0.0070*** -0.0073***

(0.0010) (0.0010) (0.0011) (0.0021) (0.0022)

2,508 2,508 1,575 800 800

Support Country if Country was Wrong -0.0329*** -0.0312*** -0.0353*** -0.0421*** -0.0411***

(0.0043) (0.0045) (0.0052) (0.0098) (0.0100)

1,980 1,980 1,365 590 590

Moral Attitudes towards Economic Inequality Government Should Reduce Inequality -0.0256*** -0.0246*** -0.0175*** -0.0165*** -0.0169***

(0.0022) (0.0023) (0.0025) (0.0024) (0.0025)

21,521 21,521 14,203 10,829 10,829

Government Should Help the Poor -0.0258*** -0.0242*** -0.0148*** -0.0143*** -0.0141***

(0.0029) (0.0026) (0.0030) (0.0030) (0.0031)

14,386 14,386 8,780 6,461 6,461

Income Inequality in US is Too Large -0.0042 -0.0033 -0.0004 0.0064 0.0065

(0.0030) (0.0028) (0.0028) (0.0047) (0.0049)

4,074 4,074 2,599 1,286 1,286

Just that Rich get Better Health Care++ -0.0115** -0.0099* -0.0035 -0.0024 -0.0045

(0.0044) (0.0052) (0.0089) (0.0082) (0.0085)

914 914 574 574 574

Just that Rich Kids get Better Education++ -0.0066 -0.0061 0.0049 0.0046 0.0051

(0.0060) (0.0070) (0.0066) (0.0059) (0.0061)

945 945 583 583 583

Each parameter estimate within the table corresponds to a separate OLS regression, where the dependent variable (representing morality) is listed in the left-hand column. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the region level, are in parentheses below the parameter estimate, and the number of observations is listed below the standard error. One asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at the p < 10% level, two asterisks (**) denote significance at the p < 5% level, and three asterisks (***) denote significance at the p < 1% level. One cross (+) denotes that only region fixed effects, and not year fixed effects, were included in column (5). Two crosses (++) denote that only region fixed effects were included in column (5), and that controls for relative childhood income were not included in columns (4) and (5). Three crosses (+++) denote that controls for whether the respondent was born in the US, and the number of his parents and grandparents that were born in the US, were not included in columns (3) through (5).

 

  41

TABLE 4A: REGRESSION RESULTS FOR “WORLD IS EVIL”  

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Education, Years -0.0229*** -0.0251*** -0.0202*** -0.0206*** -0.0201***

(0.0019) (0.0020) (0.0026) (0.0036) (0.0034)

Age

-0.0027*** -0.0030*** -0.0034*** -0.0031***

(0.0003) (0.0004) (0.0004) (0.0005)

Male

0.0555*** 0.0586*** 0.0464** 0.0433**

(0.0085) (0.0101) (0.0161) (0.0165)

White

-0.0770** -0.0607 -0.0658 -0.0405

(0.0280) (0.0339) (0.0547) (0.0437)

Black

0.0259 0.0385 0.0453 0.0740

(0.0335) (0.0457) (0.0623) (0.0493)

Foreign Born

-0.0089 0.0194 -0.0230 0.0019

(0.0170) (0.0248) (0.0265) (0.0374)

Mother's Education, Years

-0.0045* -0.0060** -0.0055*

(0.0021) (0.0026) (0.0028)

Father's Education, Years

-0.0039** -0.0039 -0.0035

(0.0017) (0.0029) (0.0026)

Number of Grandparents Born in US

-0.0094 -0.0086 -0.0055

(0.0065) (0.0083) (0.0077)

Number of Parents Born in US

0.0033 -0.0064 -0.0107

(0.0113) (0.0163) (0.0166)

Number of Siblings

0.0035* 0.0030*

(0.0016) (0.0015)

Family Income at Age 16 was Below Average

0.0101 0.0113

(0.0195) (0.0196)

Family Income at Age 16 was Above Average

-0.0217 -0.0215*

(0.0121) (0.0109)

Raised as Protestant

0.0762* 0.0690*

(0.0337) (0.0320)

Raised as Catholic

0.0158 0.0200

(0.0360) (0.0334)

Raised as Jew

0.0214 0.0198

(0.0386) (0.0390)

Not Raised in Religion

0.0208 0.0136

(0.0405) (0.0413)

Lived on a Farm at age 16

-0.0550** -0.0656**

(0.0185) (0.0216)

Lived in a Small Town at Age 16

-0.0418 -0.0466*

(0.0279) (0.0253)

Lived in a Medium Sized City at age 16

-0.0349* -0.0436**

(0.0164) (0.0175)

Lived in a Suburb of a Large City at age 16

-0.0613* -0.0567*

(0.0292) (0.0286)

Lived in a Large City at Age 16

0.0099 0.0069

(0.0292) (0.0280)

Regional Fixed Effects No No No No Yes Year Fixed Effects No No No No Yes N 11,569 11,569 7,533 3,928 3,928 Parameter estimates reported in this table were obtained through OLS regressions of the variables listed in the left-hand column against a binary variable capturing whether the respondent believes the world is evil. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the region level, are listed in parentheses below parameter estimates. One asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at the p < 10% level, two asterisks (**) denote significance at the p < 5% level, and three asterisks (***) denote significance at the p < 1% level.

 

  42

TABLE 4B: REGRESSION RESULTS FOR “MORALITY HAS SHADES OF GRAY”

  (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Education, Years 0.0083*** 0.0084*** 0.0106*** 0.0100*** 0.0097***

(0.0018) (0.0019) (0.0021) (0.0023) (0.0022)

Age

-0.0002 -0.0001 0.0002 0.0002

(0.0003) (0.0005) (0.0004) (0.0005)

Male

-0.0204* -0.0224* -0.0228* -0.0219*

(0.0094) (0.0110) (0.0117) (0.0116)

White

-0.0169 -0.0238 -0.0196 -0.0390

(0.0222) (0.0201) (0.0195) (0.0244)

Black

-0.0241 -0.0311 -0.0126 -0.0230

(0.0261) (0.0226) (0.0217) (0.0260)

Foreign Born

-0.0031 -0.0377* -0.0343 0.0068

(0.0081) (0.0179) (0.0202) (0.0291)

Mother's Education, Years

-0.0014 -0.0015 -0.0016

(0.0018) (0.0018) (0.0017)

Father's Education, Years

0.0004 -0.0007 -0.0009

(0.0011) (0.0015) (0.0014)

Number of Grandparents Born in US

0.0121 0.0003 -0.0037

(0.0068) (0.0057) (0.0053)

Number of Parents Born in US

0.0054 0.0052 0.0005

(0.0064) (0.0048) (0.0058)

Number of Siblings

-0.0011 -0.0007

(0.0025) (0.0024)

Family Income at Age 16 was Below Average

-0.0080 -0.0060

(0.0080) (0.0081)

Family Income at Age 16 was Above Average

0.0054 0.0055

(0.0121) (0.0127)

Raised as Protestant

-0.0473 -0.0470

(0.0373) (0.0375)

Raised as Catholic

0.0259 0.0173

(0.0415) (0.0401)

Raised as Jew

0.0754 0.0700

(0.0462) (0.0504)

Not Raised in Religion

-0.0111 -0.0098

(0.0273) (0.0287)

Lived on a Farm at age 16

-0.0361 -0.0401**

(0.0211) (0.0164)

Lived in a Small Town at Age 16

-0.0146 -0.0173

(0.0120) (0.0105)

Lived in a Medium Sized City at age 16

-0.0128 -0.0124

(0.0195) (0.0179)

Lived in a Suburb of a Large City at age 16

-0.0005 -0.0043

(0.0150) (0.0125)

Lived in a Large City at Age 16

0.0141 0.0086

(0.0084) (0.0077)

Regional Fixed Effects No No No No Yes Year Fixed Effects No No No No Yes N 8,180 8,180 5,519 5,442 5,442 Parameter estimates reported in this table were obtained through OLS regressions of the variables listed in the left-hand column against a binary variable capturing whether the respondent believes that morality has shades of gray (as opposed to viewing moral issues in black and white). Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the region level, are listed in parentheses below parameter estimates. One asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at the p < 10% level, two asterisks (**) denote significance at the p < 5% level, and three asterisks (***) denote significance at the p < 1% level.

 

  43

TABLE 4C: REGRESSION RESULTS FOR “WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO ABORTION”  

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Education, Years 0.0335*** 0.0320*** 0.0217*** 0.0198*** 0.0198***

(0.0013) (0.0012) (0.0011) (0.0009) (0.0009)

Age

-0.0011*** -0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

(0.0002) (0.0003) (0.0003) (0.0004)

Male

0.0099 0.0023 0.0051 0.0063

(0.0072) (0.0091) (0.0104) (0.0104)

White

0.0489 0.0634* 0.0270 0.0181

(0.0428) (0.0324) (0.0298) (0.0272)

Black

0.0328 0.0865** 0.0440 0.0455

(0.0472) (0.0364) (0.0307) (0.0275)

Foreign Born

0.0186 -0.0385 -0.0208 0.0077

(0.0221) (0.0287) (0.0284) (0.0261)

Mother's Education, Years

0.0095*** 0.0067** 0.0062**

(0.0021) (0.0021) (0.0020)

Father's Education, Years

0.0098*** 0.0067*** 0.0060**

(0.0013) (0.0019) (0.0021)

Number of Grandparents Born in US

0.0208*** 0.0165** 0.0093*

(0.0061) (0.0062) (0.0042)

Number of Parents Born in US

-0.0210 -0.0079 -0.0062

(0.0126) (0.0125) (0.0120)

Number of Siblings

-0.0069** -0.0063**

(0.0022) (0.0022)

Family Income at Age 16 was Below Average

0.0222** 0.0247**

(0.0089) (0.0092)

Family Income at Age 16 was Above Average

0.0265* 0.0267*

(0.0142) (0.0141)

Raised as Protestant

-0.0069 0.0015

(0.0234) (0.0243)

Raised as Catholic

-0.0520** -0.0578***

(0.0194) (0.0167)

Raised as Jew

0.2057*** 0.1983***

(0.0267) (0.0227)

Not Raised in Religion

0.0888*** 0.0865**

(0.0255) (0.0272)

Lived on a Farm at age 16

-0.0260** -0.0151

(0.0113) (0.0113)

Lived in a Small Town at Age 16

0.0114 0.0088

(0.0094) (0.0083)

Lived in a Medium Sized City at age 16

0.0579*** 0.0550***

(0.0143) (0.0164)

Lived in a Suburb of a Large City at age 16

0.1203*** 0.1097***

(0.0193) (0.0182)

Lived in a Large City at Age 16

0.0825*** 0.0748***

(0.0167) (0.0151)

Regional Fixed Effects No No No No Yes Year Fixed Effects No No No No Yes

N 30,173 30,173 19,643 15,504 15,504 Parameter estimates reported in this table were obtained through OLS regressions of the variables listed in the left-hand column against a binary variable capturing whether the respondent believes that women have the right to have an abortion for any reason. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the region level, are listed in parentheses below parameter estimates. One asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at the p < 10% level, two asterisks (**) denote significance at the p < 5% level, and three asterisks (***) denote significance at the p < 1% level.

 

  44

TABLE 4D: REGRESSION RESULTS FOR “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR REDUCING PAIN”

  (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Education, Years 0.0074 0.0092 0.0104 0.0139 0.0126

(0.0051) (0.0055) (0.0081) (0.0088) (0.0081)

Age

0.0011 0.0009 0.0004 0.0004

(0.0008) (0.0007) (0.0008) (0.0008)

Male

-0.0650** -0.0491 -0.0403 -0.0397

(0.0244) (0.0304) (0.0315) (0.0311)

White

-0.0441 -0.1592*** -0.1833*** -0.1733***

(0.0411) (0.0350) (0.0458) (0.0451)

Black

-0.0379 -0.1567* -0.1736** -0.1516*

(0.0580) (0.0743) (0.0668) (0.0759)

Foreign Born

-0.0857** -0.0233 -0.0354 -0.0590

(0.0379) (0.0572) (0.0542) (0.0940)

Mother's Education, Years

0.0006 0.0012 0.0004

(0.0077) (0.0072) (0.0074)

Father's Education, Years

-0.0022 -0.0001 0.0017

(0.0049) (0.0046) (0.0045)

Number of Grandparents Born in US

0.0127 0.0297** 0.0349**

(0.0093) (0.0126) (0.0121)

Number of Parents Born in US

0.0813*** 0.0735*** 0.0791***

(0.0173) (0.0170) (0.0160)

Number of Siblings

0.0052 0.0045

(0.0068) (0.0071)

Raised as Protestant

0.1772 0.1793*

(0.0971) (0.0929)

Raised as Catholic

0.1144 0.1318

(0.1059) (0.1091)

Raised as Jew

0.0785 0.1025

(0.1361) (0.1459)

Not Raised in Religion

0.0580 0.0592

(0.1046) (0.1034)

Lived on a Farm at age 16

0.0895* 0.0902*

(0.0439) (0.0461)

Lived in a Small Town at Age 16

-0.0193 -0.0056

(0.0296) (0.0328)

Lived in a Medium Sized City at age 16

0.0312 0.0318

(0.0635) (0.0690)

Lived in a Suburb of a Large City at age 16

-0.0249 -0.0202

(0.0572) (0.0565)

Lived in a Large City at Age 16

-0.1315 -0.1281

(0.0782) (0.0823)

Regional Fixed Effects No No No No Yes

N 1,390 1,390 889 889 889

Parameter estimates reported in this table were obtained through OLS regressions of the variables listed in the left-hand column against a binary variable capturing whether the respondent believes that he or she has a personal responsibility for reducing pain in the world. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the region level, are listed in parentheses below parameter estimates. One asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at the p < 10% level, two asterisks (**) denote significance at the p < 5% level, and three asterisks (***) denote significance at the p < 1% level.

   

 

  45

TABLE 4E: REGRESSION RESULTS FOR “SUPPORT COUNTRY IF COUNTRY WAS WRONG”

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Education, Years -0.0329*** -0.0312*** -0.0353*** -0.0421*** -0.0411***

(0.0043) (0.0045) (0.0052) (0.0098) (0.0100)

Age

0.0028*** 0.0031*** 0.0039*** 0.0036**

(0.0005) (0.0009) (0.0010) (0.0012)

Male

0.0102 0.0225 0.0385 0.0437

(0.0121) (0.0246) (0.0315) (0.0298)

White

-0.0000 0.0084 -0.0051 -0.0004

(0.0314) (0.0435) (0.0604) (0.0668)

Black

0.0020 0.0332 -0.0543 -0.0411

(0.0325) (0.0394) (0.0939) (0.1060)

Foreign Born

0.0654** 0.0857* -0.0097 -0.0574

(0.0263) (0.0450) (0.0601) (0.1151)

Mother's Education, Years

-0.0043 -0.0077 -0.0092

(0.0041) (0.0077) (0.0079)

Father's Education, Years

0.0050 0.0004 0.0011

(0.0033) (0.0034) (0.0037)

Number of Grandparents Born in US

-0.0219 -0.0320 -0.0321

(0.0183) (0.0306) (0.0290)

Number of Parents Born in US

-0.0515 -0.0402 -0.0207

(0.0414) (0.0472) (0.0384)

Number of Siblings

-0.0057 -0.0071

(0.0099) (0.0089)

Family Income at Age 16 was Below Average

0.0173 0.0250

(0.0292) (0.0294)

Family Income at Age 16 was Above Average

0.0684 0.0554

(0.0526) (0.0524)

Raised as Protestant

-0.1619* -0.1470*

(0.0721) (0.0714)

Raised as Catholic

-0.1138* -0.0841

(0.0553) (0.0518)

Raised as Jew

-0.0002 0.0192

(0.0884) (0.0966)

Not Raised in Religion

-0.1689** -0.1710**

(0.0599) (0.0579)

Lived on a Farm at age 16

0.0190 0.0046

(0.0749) (0.0801)

Lived in a Small Town at Age 16

0.0662 0.0522

(0.0848) (0.0916)

Lived in a Medium Sized City at age 16

-0.0206 -0.0264

(0.0721) (0.0743)

Lived in a Suburb of a Large City at age 16

0.1315* 0.1093

(0.0691) (0.0780)

Lived in a Large City at Age 16

-0.0524 -0.0576

(0.0708) (0.0789)

Regional Fixed Effects No No No No Yes Year Fixed Effects No No No No Yes

N 1,980 1,980 1,365 590 590

Parameter estimates reported in this table were obtained through OLS regressions of the variables listed in the left-hand column against a binary variable capturing whether the respondent would support the country in actions that the respondent personally believes are wrong. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the region level, are listed in parentheses below parameter estimates. One asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at the p < 10% level, two asterisks (**) denote significance at the p < 5% level, and three asterisks (***) denote significance at the p < 1% level.

 

  46

TABLE 4F: REGRESSION RESULTS FOR “INEQUALITY IN US IS TOO LARGE”  

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Education, Years -0.0042 -0.0033 -0.0004 0.0064 0.0065

(0.0030) (0.0028) (0.0028) (0.0047) (0.0049)

Age

0.0002 -0.0007 -0.0007 -0.0010

(0.0003) (0.0005) (0.0009) (0.0010)

Male

-0.0691*** -0.0939*** -0.1171*** -0.1191***

(0.0113) (0.0154) (0.0268) (0.0292)

White

-0.0212 -0.0144 0.0054 0.0274

(0.0356) (0.0567) (0.0739) (0.0729)

Black

-0.0176 -0.0058 0.0123 0.0341

(0.0403) (0.0575) (0.0641) (0.0655)

Foreign Born

0.0708*** 0.0808* 0.1107** 0.1593**

(0.0215) (0.0376) (0.0405) (0.0593)

Mother's Education, Years

-0.0018 0.0005 -0.0004

(0.0025) (0.0039) (0.0038)

Father's Education, Years

-0.0042 -0.0071 -0.0081*

(0.0025) (0.0040) (0.0039)

Number of Grandparents Born in US

0.0022 0.0068 0.0095

(0.0054) (0.0129) (0.0121)

Number of Parents Born in US

-0.0089 -0.0014 -0.0050

(0.0203) (0.0348) (0.0401)

Number of Siblings

-0.0009 0.0005

(0.0032) (0.0026)

Family Income at Age 16 was Below Average

0.0485 0.0438

(0.0421) (0.0418)

Family Income at Age 16 was Above Average

-0.0270 -0.0278

(0.0468) (0.0460)

Raised as Protestant

0.0145 -0.0021

(0.0608) (0.0495)

Raised as Catholic

0.0112 -0.0086

(0.0538) (0.0493)

Raised as Jew

-0.1552 -0.1613

(0.1407) (0.1444)

Not Raised in Religion

0.0734 0.0487

(0.0929) (0.0865)

Lived on a Farm at age 16

0.0150 0.0058

(0.0456) (0.0489)

Lived in a Small Town at Age 16

-0.0116 -0.0131

(0.0450) (0.0453)

Lived in a Medium Sized City at age 16

-0.0465 -0.0558

(0.0606) (0.0593)

Lived in a Suburb of a Large City at age 16

0.0359 0.0236

(0.0421) (0.0423)

Lived in a Large City at Age 16

0.0348 0.0220

(0.0565) (0.0486)

Regional Fixed Effects No No No No Yes Year Fixed Effects No No No No Yes

N 4,074 4,074 2,599 1,286 1,286

Parameter estimates reported in this table were obtained through OLS regressions of the variables listed in the left-hand column against a binary variable capturing whether the respondent believes that inequality in the United States is too large. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the region level, are listed in parentheses below parameter estimates. One asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at the p < 10% level, two asterisks (**) denote significance at the p < 5% level, and three asterisks (***) denote significance at the p < 1% level.

 

  47

TABLE 5A: ESTIMATES OF EDUCATION’S IMPACT AT VARIOUS LEVELS ON PERCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF MORALITY  

Bivariate

Regression Add Bio/Demo

Controls Add Parent

Controls Add Childhood

Controls Add Fixed

Effects

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

World is Evil

Elementary Education -0.0075 -0.0049 -0.0117 -0.0048 -0.0013

(0.0055) (0.0071) (0.0201) (0.0166) (0.0161)

High School Education -0.0221*** -0.0311*** -0.0275** -0.0351*** -0.0340***

(0.0056) (0.0059) (0.0088) (0.0072) (0.0075)

College Education -0.0309*** -0.0321*** -0.0254*** -0.0262*** -0.0261***

(0.0043) (0.0042) (0.0037) (0.0056) (0.0054)

Post-Graduate Education -0.0101** -0.0059 -0.0025 0.0058 0.0060

(0.0040) (0.0042) (0.0041) (0.0062) (0.0063)

N 11,569 11,569 7,533 3,928 3,928

Human Nature is Good Elementary Education 0.0168* 0.0079 0.0227 0.0342 0.0328

(0.0078) (0.0064) (0.0161) (0.0191) (0.0189)

High School Education 0.0282*** 0.0312*** 0.0230** 0.0214** 0.0195*

(0.0061) (0.0060) (0.0084) (0.0085) (0.0086)

College Education 0.0183*** 0.0178*** 0.0150*** 0.0099** 0.0110**

(0.0025) (0.0023) (0.0039) (0.0038) (0.0037)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0109 0.0079 0.0052 0.0008 0.0004

(0.0062) (0.0061) (0.0061) (0.0043) (0.0047)

N 8,814 8,814 5,780 3,925 3,925

Morality is a Personal Matter Elementary Education 0.0106** 0.0083* -0.0042 -0.0062 -0.0067

(0.0037) (0.0044) (0.0063) (0.0071) (0.0071)

High School Education -0.0037 -0.0052 -0.0059 -0.0031 -0.0037

(0.0062) (0.0065) (0.0095) (0.0104) (0.0104)

College Education -0.0170*** -0.0171*** -0.0140*** -0.0139*** -0.0141***

(0.0035) (0.0034) (0.0029) (0.0028) (0.0028)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0032 0.0047 0.0021 0.0026 0.0031

(0.0058) (0.0059) (0.0074) (0.0072) (0.0071)

N 8,141 8,141 5,481 5,408 5,408

Science Breaks Down Morals+ Elementary Education 0.0110 0.0211 0.0016 0.0092 0.0059

(0.0257) (0.0242) (0.0530) (0.0529) (0.0546)

High School Education -0.0518*** -0.0416*** -0.0393 -0.0358 -0.0326

(0.0112) (0.0097) (0.0232) (0.0267) (0.0267)

College Education -0.0537*** -0.0522*** -0.0394*** -0.0372*** -0.0371***

(0.0083) (0.0089) (0.0074) (0.0071) (0.0074)

Post-Graduate Education -0.0242** -0.0288** -0.0256** -0.0199* -0.0170

(0.0095) (0.0092) (0.0088) (0.0097) (0.0097)

N 1,408 1,408 917 911 911

Each set of four parameter estimates (arranged vertically) within the table corresponds to a separate OLS regression, where the dependent variable (representing morality) is listed in the left-hand column. Standard errors, corrected for clustering at the region level, are in parentheses below the parameter estimates, and the number of observations is listed below each set of four parameter estimates and standard errors. One asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at the p < 10% level, two asterisks (**) denote significance at the p < 5% level, and three asterisks (***) denote significance at the p < 1% level. A cross (+) denotes that only region fixed effects, and not year fixed effects, were included in the regression in column (5). Two crosses (++) denote that only region fixed effects were included in column (5), and that controls for relative childhood income were not included in columns (4) and (5). Three crosses (+++) denote that controls for whether the respondent was born in the US, and the number of his parents and grandparents that were born in the US, were not included in columns (3) through (5).

 

 

  48

TABLE 5B: ESTIMATES OF EDUCATION’S IMPACT AT VARIOUS LEVELS ON MORAL REASONING

Bivariate

Regression Add Bio/Demo

Controls Add Parent

Controls Add Childhood

Controls Add Fixed

Effects

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Morality has Shades of Gray

Elementary Education 0.0126** 0.0133** 0.0067 0.0072 0.0061

(0.0052) (0.0052) (0.0054) (0.0055) (0.0058)

High School Education 0.0072 0.0071 0.0125 0.0109 0.0101

(0.0069) (0.0069) (0.0068) (0.0072) (0.0072)

College Education 0.0063** 0.0063** 0.0101** 0.0098** 0.0101**

(0.0026) (0.0027) (0.0031) (0.0036) (0.0034)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0127* 0.0130* 0.0116 0.0108 0.0100

(0.0058) (0.0058) (0.0072) (0.0069) (0.0067)

N 8,180 8,180 5,519 5,442 5,442

Sinners Should be Punished Elementary Education 0.0047 0.0025 -0.0085 -0.0092 -0.0108

(0.0074) (0.0068) (0.0059) (0.0064) (0.0063)

High School Education -0.0436*** -0.0430*** -0.0107 -0.0095 -0.0033

(0.0084) (0.0076) (0.0082) (0.0090) (0.0090)

College Education -0.0338*** -0.0303*** -0.0247*** -0.0233*** -0.0240***

(0.0053) (0.0055) (0.0046) (0.0049) (0.0052)

Post-Graduate Education -0.0326*** -0.0323*** -0.0295*** -0.0264*** -0.0271***

(0.0080) (0.0071) (0.0072) (0.0067) (0.0076)

N 7,869 7,869 5,293 5,222 5,222

One Immoral Person Corrupts Society Elementary Education 0.0057 0.0117 0.0103 0.0053 0.0082

(0.0078) (0.0067) (0.0088) (0.0090) (0.0099)

High School Education -0.0170** -0.0154* -0.0121 -0.0102 -0.0109

(0.0053) (0.0078) (0.0123) (0.0124) (0.0131)

College Education -0.0065 -0.0068 -0.0051 -0.0039 -0.0056

(0.0037) (0.0037) (0.0050) (0.0048) (0.0045)

Post-Graduate Education -0.0134* -0.0129* -0.0130 -0.0136 -0.0126

(0.0060) (0.0064) (0.0092) (0.0091) (0.0093)

N 8,200 8,200 5,522 5,447 5,447

Dissenters Should be Treated Leniently+ Elementary Education -0.0199 -0.0174 0.0060 0.0043 0.0026

(0.0205) (0.0181) (0.0305) (0.0296) (0.0300)

High School Education 0.0107 0.0080 -0.0052 0.0007 0.0001

(0.0194) (0.0184) (0.0278) (0.0261) (0.0276)

College Education 0.0039 0.0026 0.0086 0.0074 0.0077

(0.0105) (0.0104) (0.0114) (0.0108) (0.0115)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0359 0.0342 0.0235 0.0192 0.0210

(0.0198) (0.0207) (0.0222) (0.0224) (0.0225)

N 1,201 1,201 790 787 787

See notes to Table 5a.  

                     

 

  49

TABLE 5C: ESTIMATES OF EDUCATION’S IMPACT AT VARIOUS LEVELS ON MORAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS PRIVATE ACTIONS  

Bivariate

Regression Add Bio/Demo

Controls Add Parent

Controls Add Childhood

Controls Add Fixed

Effects

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Premarital Sex is Wrong Elementary Education -0.0114 -0.0051 -0.0016 -0.0052 -0.0028

(0.0062) (0.0047) (0.0076) (0.0045) (0.0035)

High School Education -0.0459*** -0.0228*** -0.0148*** -0.0094** -0.0054

(0.0036) (0.0034) (0.0040) (0.0034) (0.0039)

College Education -0.0174*** -0.0142*** -0.0039 -0.0003 -0.0011

(0.0031) (0.0025) (0.0024) (0.0034) (0.0032)

Post-Graduate Education -0.0187*** -0.0258*** -0.0260*** -0.0253*** -0.0260***

(0.0049) (0.0042) (0.0048) (0.0061) (0.0062)

N 31,864 31,864 17,891 13,291 13,291 Homosexual Sex is Wrong

Elementary Education -0.0029 0.0057 0.0182*** 0.0111** 0.0084

(0.0034) (0.0033) (0.0039) (0.0045) (0.0069)

High School Education -0.0307*** -0.0157*** -0.0019 0.0040** 0.0105***

(0.0024) (0.0021) (0.0022) (0.0017) (0.0017)

College Education -0.0563*** -0.0550*** -0.0404*** -0.0368*** -0.0352***

(0.0051) (0.0050) (0.0054) (0.0045) (0.0037)

Post-Graduate Education -0.0398*** -0.0455*** -0.0457*** -0.0465*** -0.0472***

(0.0039) (0.0035) (0.0028) (0.0047) (0.0049)

N 31,059 31,059 17,441 13,415 13,415 Gays Have Right to Marry

Elementary Education -0.0005 -0.0027 -0.0101 -0.0037 0.0051

(0.0076) (0.0074) (0.0077) (0.0094) (0.0076)

High School Education 0.0308*** 0.0170* 0.0043 -0.0008 -0.0115

(0.0082) (0.0078) (0.0097) (0.0100) (0.0106)

College Education 0.0359*** 0.0330*** 0.0214*** 0.0187*** 0.0169***

(0.0051) (0.0044) (0.0049) (0.0042) (0.0033)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0300*** 0.0359*** 0.0354*** 0.0321*** 0.0336***

(0.0062) (0.0058) (0.0066) (0.0055) (0.0052)

N 6,022 6,022 4,057 3,927 3,927 Woman Has Right to Abortion

Elementary Education 0.0072 0.0051 0.0045 0.0117** 0.0096**

(0.0054) (0.0055) (0.0048) (0.0050) (0.0042)

High School Education 0.0360*** 0.0317*** 0.0124** 0.0072 0.0058

(0.0029) (0.0023) (0.0038) (0.0044) (0.0045)

College Education 0.0413*** 0.0407*** 0.0287*** 0.0263*** 0.0273***

(0.0018) (0.0017) (0.0017) (0.0020) (0.0018)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0254*** 0.0267*** 0.0225*** 0.0222*** 0.0228***

(0.0040) (0.0039) (0.0040) (0.0055) (0.0058)

N 30,173 30,173 19,643 15,504 15,504 Terminal Patient Has Right to Die

Elementary Education 0.0295*** 0.0203*** 0.0078 0.0024 0.0009

(0.0048) (0.0036) (0.0073) (0.0075) (0.0071)

High School Education 0.0313*** 0.0216*** 0.0124** 0.0089 0.0050

(0.0040) (0.0034) (0.0053) (0.0064) (0.0064)

College Education 0.0108*** 0.0062** -0.0020 -0.0076*** -0.0076***

(0.0031) (0.0023) (0.0018) (0.0016) (0.0017)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0029 0.0025 0.0015 -0.0015 -0.0003

(0.0038) (0.0036) (0.0039) (0.0047) (0.0049)

N 1,408 1,408 917 911 911 Sometimes Okay to Hit Another

Elementary Education 0.0116* -0.0013 -0.0113 -0.0106 -0.0090

(0.0059) (0.0063) (0.0100) (0.0103) (0.0102)

High School Education 0.0444*** 0.0324*** 0.0251*** 0.0218*** 0.0232***

(0.0033) (0.0033) (0.0049) (0.0051) (0.0052)

College Education 0.0240*** 0.0220*** 0.0204*** 0.0192*** 0.0192***

(0.0035) (0.0028) (0.0039) (0.0037) (0.0037)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0082 0.0102* 0.0187*** 0.0182*** 0.0186***

(0.0053) (0.0055) (0.0044) (0.0043) (0.0044)

N 18,126 18,126 9,102 9,070 9,070

See notes to Table 5a.

 

  50

TABLE 5D: ESTIMATES OF EDUCATION’S IMPACT AT VARIOUS LEVELS ON MORAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS RESPONSIBILITY  

Bivariate

Regression Add Bio/Demo

Controls Add Parent

Controls Add Childhood

Controls Add Fixed

Effects

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Personal Responsibility for Reducing Pain++

Elementary Education -0.0016 -0.0039 0.0007 0.0071 0.0103

(0.0195) (0.0217) (0.0367) (0.0343) (0.0349)

High School Education -0.0201* -0.0181* -0.0390** -0.0327* -0.0316*

(0.0101) (0.0098) (0.0126) (0.0150) (0.0151)

College Education 0.0071 0.0096 0.0050 0.0078 0.0074

(0.0075) (0.0072) (0.0110) (0.0130) (0.0128)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0555** 0.0545** 0.0654*** 0.0665*** 0.0609***

(0.0189) (0.0195) (0.0193) (0.0186) (0.0186)

N 1,390 1,390 889 889 889

Friend Has Right to False Testimony++ Elementary Education -0.0113 -0.0120 -0.0419 -0.0409 -0.0363

(0.0224) (0.0216) (0.0269) (0.0266) (0.0278)

High School Education -0.0077 -0.0224** -0.0208 -0.0204 -0.0197

(0.0094) (0.0085) (0.0152) (0.0138) (0.0149)

College Education 0.0067 0.0027 -0.0043 -0.0058 -0.0056

(0.0056) (0.0061) (0.0084) (0.0084) (0.0079)

Post-Graduate Education -0.0216 -0.0086 -0.0089 -0.0084 -0.0096

(0.0161) (0.0166) (0.0155) (0.0158) (0.0169)

N 1,099 1,099 714 714 714

Tell Police Truth Against Friend's Wishes++ Elementary Education 0.0087 0.0143 0.0502* 0.0519* 0.0502*

(0.0181) (0.0169) (0.0225) (0.0256) (0.0257)

High School Education 0.0043 0.0116 0.0135 0.0115 0.0094

(0.0098) (0.0091) (0.0135) (0.0143) (0.0148)

College Education -0.0046 -0.0014 0.0030 0.0064 0.0072

(0.0078) (0.0074) (0.0082) (0.0071) (0.0070)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0224 0.0147 0.0175 0.0155 0.0132

(0.0133) (0.0150) (0.0153) (0.0155) (0.0155)

N 966 966 631 631 631

No Morality in Way One Makes Money+++ Elementary Education -0.0131 -0.0084 0.0104 0.0106 0.0096

(0.0087) (0.0072) (0.0188) (0.0189) (0.0191)

High School Education -0.0262*** -0.0312*** -0.0393*** -0.0401*** -0.0402***

(0.0066) (0.0071) (0.0085) (0.0087) (0.0088)

College Education -0.0463*** -0.0466*** -0.0423*** -0.0423*** -0.0424***

(0.0044) (0.0038) (0.0049) (0.0047) (0.0049)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0058 0.0071 0.0032 0.0022 0.0022

(0.0075) (0.0077) (0.0067) (0.0072) (0.0072)

N 4,328 4,328 2,947 2,935 2,935

See notes to Table 5a.  

                       

 

  51

TABLE 5E: ESTIMATES OF EDUCATION’S IMPACT AT VARIOUS LEVELS ON MORAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS GOVERNMENT  

Bivariate

Regression Add Bio/Demo

Controls Add Parent

Controls Add Childhood

Controls Add Fixed

Effects

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Approve of Death Penalty

Elementary Education 0.0211*** 0.0120 0.0161* 0.0148 0.0134

(0.0061) (0.0067) (0.0086) (0.0090) (0.0086)

High School Education 0.0212*** 0.0227*** 0.0255*** 0.0241*** 0.0239***

(0.0060) (0.0045) (0.0046) (0.0057) (0.0059)

College Education -0.0157*** -0.0199*** -0.0207*** -0.0222*** -0.0217***

(0.0034) (0.0030) (0.0026) (0.0024) (0.0024)

Post-Graduate Education -0.0272*** -0.0332*** -0.0314*** -0.0331*** -0.0327***

(0.0031) (0.0033) (0.0027) (0.0034) (0.0036)

N 43,890 43,890 25,983 19,752 19,752

Not that Bad to Cheat on Taxes Elementary Education -0.0032 -0.0023 0.0082 0.0022 -0.0051

(0.0102) (0.0092) (0.0091) (0.0148) (0.0170)

High School Education 0.0177*** 0.0097 0.0308*** 0.0480*** 0.0446***

(0.0054) (0.0056) (0.0084) (0.0110) (0.0104)

College Education -0.0189** -0.0191** -0.0263*** -0.0311*** -0.0291***

(0.0063) (0.0066) (0.0056) (0.0081) (0.0085)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0059 0.0102 0.0135 0.0268* 0.0232

(0.0103) (0.0110) (0.0080) (0.0126) (0.0133)

N 2,460 2,460 1,545 793 793

Not that Bad to Cheat Government Elementary Education 0.0053 0.0081 0.0121* 0.0224 0.0169

(0.0113) (0.0125) (0.0056) (0.0173) (0.0161)

High School Education -0.0050 -0.0087 -0.0032 -0.0025 -0.0029

(0.0052) (0.0053) (0.0062) (0.0113) (0.0117)

College Education -0.0107*** -0.0096*** -0.0107*** -0.0102** -0.0101**

(0.0024) (0.0018) (0.0021) (0.0035) (0.0036)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0005 0.0029 -0.0034 -0.0066 -0.0072

(0.0042) (0.0044) (0.0026) (0.0067) (0.0066)

N 2,508 2,508 1,575 800 800

Support Country if Country was Wrong Elementary Education -0.0267* -0.0241 -0.0243 -0.0312 -0.0325*

(0.0143) (0.0160) (0.0243) (0.0173) (0.0165)

High School Education -0.0188* -0.0105 -0.0199 -0.0275 -0.0227

(0.0096) (0.0093) (0.0171) (0.0220) (0.0218)

College Education -0.0386*** -0.0365*** -0.0384*** -0.0457*** -0.0451**

(0.0081) (0.0085) (0.0105) (0.0127) (0.0139)

Post-Graduate Education -0.0354** -0.0410*** -0.0393*** -0.0444** -0.0440**

(0.0132) (0.0116) (0.0106) (0.0165) (0.0150)

N 1,980 1,980 1,365 590 590

See notes to Table 5a.  

                       

 

  52

 TABLE 5F: ESTIMATES OF EDUCATION’S IMPACT AT VARIOUS LEVELS ON MORAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS INEQUALITY

 

Bivariate

Regression Add Bio/Demo

Controls Add Parent

Controls Add Childhood

Controls Add Fixed

Effects

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Government Should Reduce Inequality

Elementary Education -0.0069 -0.0013 0.0106 0.0164 0.0162

(0.0063) (0.0068) (0.0116) (0.0140) (0.0144)

High School Education -0.0302*** -0.0382*** -0.0363*** -0.0345*** -0.0356***

(0.0052) (0.0062) (0.0083) (0.0086) (0.0090)

College Education -0.0423*** -0.0396*** -0.0350*** -0.0344*** -0.0346***

(0.0023) (0.0022) (0.0031) (0.0029) (0.0031)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0208*** 0.0284*** 0.0329*** 0.0333*** 0.0326***

(0.0043) (0.0045) (0.0033) (0.0047) (0.0048)

N 21,521 21,521 14,203 10,829 10,829

Government Should Help Poor Elementary Education -0.0037 0.0034 0.0082 0.0115 0.0118

(0.0086) (0.0081) (0.0129) (0.0116) (0.0123)

High School Education -0.0411*** -0.0544*** -0.0415*** -0.0425*** -0.0426***

(0.0052) (0.0053) (0.0059) (0.0048) (0.0045)

College Education -0.0359*** -0.0298*** -0.0264*** -0.0235*** -0.0230***

(0.0053) (0.0038) (0.0043) (0.0053) (0.0053)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0198*** 0.0308*** 0.0317*** 0.0276*** 0.0270**

(0.0057) (0.0046) (0.0052) (0.0079) (0.0089)

N 14,386 14,386 8,780 6,461 6,461

Inequality in US is Too Large Elementary Education 0.0013 0.0048 0.0117 0.0452 0.0439

(0.0063) (0.0075) (0.0130) (0.0316) (0.0314)

High School Education 0.0100 0.0110 0.0116 -0.0030 -0.0076

(0.0095) (0.0093) (0.0115) (0.0099) (0.0108)

College Education -0.0175** -0.0169** -0.0085* -0.0053 -0.0037

(0.0062) (0.0064) (0.0045) (0.0092) (0.0094)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0079 0.0086 0.0054 0.0317 0.0330

(0.0101) (0.0096) (0.0102) (0.0184) (0.0187)

N 4,074 4,074 2,599 1,286 1,286

Just that Rich get Better Health Care++ Elementary Education -0.0206 -0.0055 -0.0314 -0.0234 -0.0105

(0.0387) (0.0405) (0.0916) (0.0906) (0.0899)

High School Education -0.0151 -0.0100 -0.0041 -0.0033 -0.0078

(0.0230) (0.0229) (0.0393) (0.0390) (0.0412)

College Education -0.0095 -0.0074 0.0026 0.0032 0.0022

(0.0106) (0.0114) (0.0169) (0.0158) (0.0164)

Post-Graduate Education -0.0080 -0.0181 -0.0099 -0.0094 -0.0158

(0.0256) (0.0269) (0.0386) (0.0403) (0.0390)

N 914 914 574 574 574

Just that Rich Kids get Better Education++ Elementary Education 0.0215 0.0360 -0.0053 -0.0076 -0.0014

(0.0320) (0.0381) (0.0971) (0.0971) (0.0938)

High School Education -0.0216 -0.0170 0.0061 0.0048 0.0105

(0.0210) (0.0204) (0.0341) (0.0378) (0.0374)

College Education -0.0101 -0.0093 0.0063 0.0066 0.0070

(0.0145) (0.0157) (0.0178) (0.0181) (0.0190)

Post-Graduate Education 0.0131 0.0024 0.0027 0.0022 -0.0016

(0.0247) (0.0245) (0.0360) (0.0373) (0.0384)

N 945 945 583 583 583

See notes to Table 5a.  

 

 

  53

Reference List Ahmadi, Ali A. and Azita Ashrafjahani (2011) “Factors Affecting Ethical Perceptions and Attitudes of Managers,” African Journal of Business Management 5(26), 10452-10461 Card, David (1999) “The Causal Effect of Education on Earnings,” Handbook of Labor Economics 3(30), 1801-1863 Dee, Thomas S. (2004) “Are There Civic Returns to Education?” Journal of Public Economics, 88(9-10), 1697–1720 Hodgkinson, Virginia A. and Weitzman, Murray S. (1988) Giving and Volunteering in the United States: Findings from a National Survey (Independent Press, 1988 ed.) Haveman, Robert H. and Barbara L. Wolfe (1993) “Children’s Prospects and Children’s Policy,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(4), 153-174 Haveman, Robert H. and Barbara L. Wolfe (2002) “Social and Nonmarket Benefits from Education in an Advanced Economy,” Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Conference Series 47, 97-131 Hersh, Richard H., Diana P. Paolitto, and Joseph Reimer (1990) Promoting Moral Growth: From Piaget to Kohlberg (Waveland Press Inc., 2d ed.) Hjalmarsson, Randi, Helena Holmlund, and Matthew J. Lindquist (2011) “The Effect of Education on Criminal Convictions and Incarceration: Causal Evidence from Micro-Data” CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP8646, available at Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1964136 Lochner, Lance and Enrico Moretti (2004) “The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests and Self-Reports,” American Economic Review 94(1), 155-189. Machin, Stephen, Olivier Marie, and Sunčica Vujić (2011) “The Crime Reducing Effect of Education,” Economic Journal 121, 463-484 McMahon, Walter W. (1999) Education and Development: Measuring the Social Benefits (Oxford University Press), 92-124, 141-151 Milligan, Kevin, Enrico Moretti, and Philip Oreopoulos (2004) “Does Education Improve Citizenship? Evidence from the U.S. and the U.K.” Journal of Public Economics 88(9-10), 1667–1695

 

  54

Moretti, Enrico (2004) “Estimating the Social Return to Higher Education: Evidence from Longitudinal and Repeated Cross-Sectional Data,” Journal of Econometrics 121, 175-212 Oreopoulos, Philip and Kjell G. Salvanes (2011) “Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(1), 159-184