mental health, disruptive behavior and extrinsic motivation · adhd (bloom et al., 2012). a...
TRANSCRIPT
Mental Health, Disruptive Behavior and Extrinsic
Motivation
Peter Rohde Skova, Anders Holma
Abstract
Using a randomized controlled experiment we show how an extrinsic reward motivates
children when completing cognitive test. The experiment consisted in financial rewards on
performance in two cognitive tests. We demonstrate how the overall effect of the experiment
is in part due to heterogeneous effects for sub-groups of children. For a subsample of children
with a high degree of hyperactivity/ inattention but with no further emotional problems we find
large and significant positive effects of being in the reward group. We also find that for children
with both high levels of hyperactivity/inattention and emotional problems, the effect of being
in the reward group is negative. The heterogeneous effects that are associated with being in
the reward group is further substantiated by the fact, that we find no effect of belonging to the
reward group on a cognitive test applied four years later, for which there was no reward on
performance.
aSFI – The Danish National Centre for Social Research, Herlufs Trolle Gade 11, DK-1052 Copenhagen K;
University of Copenhagen, Department of Sociology, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Bld. 16, 1014 Copenhagen K,
Denmark. Email: [email protected], [email protected]. Telephone: +45 3369 7715
1
1 Introduction
Using a randomized controlled experiment we show the effect of a financial reward on the outcome
of cognitive tests for a random sample of Danish eleven year old children. We find a small overall
significant effect on outcomes from being in the reward group. We further show that a substantial
part of this effect is due to heterogeneous effects on a subset of children with mental health prob-
lems. For a subsample of children with a high degree of hyperactivity/ inattention, but with no
further emotional problems, we find large and significant effects of being in the reward group. We
also find that for children with both hyperactivity/inattention and emotional problems, the effect
of being in the reward group is negative. Thus our study may point to a way of affecting cogni-
tive performance of children with hyperactivity/inattention and that for this subset of children, the
effect of the incentive depends further on their overall mental health profile.
The relationship between accumulation of human capital and mental health has been given
increasingly attention during the recent years. The reason for this is that cognitive as well as non-
cognitive abilities play an integral part in education and labor market outcomes and overall health
and well-being of individuals (Cunha et al., 2010; Heckman et al., 2006; Heckman and Rubinstein,
2001). Accumulation of human capital is especially important during childhood, underlining the
importance of mental health in child development (Currie, 2009).
Two of the most common childhood mental health diagnoses are emotional problems, such as
depression and anxiety, and “disruptive behavior”, such as hyperactivity/ inattention or the more
specific diagnosis of attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Currie and Stabile, 2006,
2007; Fletcher and Wolfe, 2008). Emotional problems and hyperactivity/ inattention have impair-
ments on the overall health and well-being of individuals.
It is estimated that in 2011 around 9 per cent of US children aged 3 - 17 have symptoms of
2
ADHD (Bloom et al., 2012). A systematic review has shown that around 5 per cent of the European
children and adolescents have an ADHD diagnosis (Polanczyk et al., 2007). These estimates show
that a relatively large proportion of children have mental health problems that can affect learning
outcomes. Emotional problems and hyperactivity/ inattention can be considered as non-cognitive
skills that are pertinent to learning outcomes. Hyperactivity/ inattention, more commonly known
under the psychiatric diagnosis of ADHD, is becoming more common among children, with an
annual growth of 3 per cent between 1997 and 2006 for the US (Pastor and Reuben, 2008).
Hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems lead to lower learning outcomes for chil-
dren, which in turn affect earnings and employment (Almlund et al., 2011; Borghans et al., 2008,?;
Cunha and Heckman, 2008; Cunha et al., 2010; Currie and Stabile, 2006, 2007; Fletcher and Wolfe,
2008; Hinshaw, 1992; McLeod and Fettes, 2007; McLeod and Kaiser, 2004; Miech et al., 1999).
The lower learning outcome for children with hyperactivity/ inattention is due to the lack of the
ability to focus at the task at hand (Adams et al., 1999; Barkley et al., 2001; Epstein et al., 2011;
McInerney and Kerns, 2003; Winstanley et al., 2006). This is due to a lack of control of inhibition
and executive functions, leading to “perverted” utility functions in which the individuals seeks in-
stant gratification, in the form of small, instant rewards (Antrop et al., 2006; Levitt et al., 2012;
Marco et al., 2009; Sonuga-Barke et al., 1992; Thorell, 2007; Wilson et al., 2011). Medication to
treat the children’s hyperactivity/ inattention can be costly, and the long run effects of medication
are not yet documented (Carlson and Bunner, 1993; Currie et al., 2013). Another way of treating
children with hyperactivity/ inattention is by rewarding them. Previous research on this group of
children suggests that they can be helped to keep their attention, if they are promised a reward for
completing a given task (Aase and Sagvolden, 2006; Barkley and Cunningham, 1979; Cunning-
ham and Barkley, 1979; Epstein et al., 2011; Kohls et al., 2009; Luman et al., 2008; McInerney
3
and Kerns, 2003). This suggests that children with hyperactivity/ inattention are more responsive
to extrinsic motivation, than to intrinsic motivation.
Hyperactivity/ inattention are often associated with emotional liability, or emotional overreac-
tions, such as low frustration tolerance, hot temper or irritability (Barkley, 1997; Sobanski et al.,
2010; Wehmeier et al., 2010). This implies comorbidity between hyperactivity/ inattention and
emotional problems. Whereas the comorbidity and the description of the relationship between
emotional problems and hyperactivity/ inattention has been given much attention (e.g. Karustis
et al., 2000; Schatz and Rostain, 2006; Sobanski et al., 2010), only a few studies have used a large
scale representative sample to investigate how the relationship between extrinsic motivation, emo-
tional problems and hyperactivity/ inattention affect learning outcomes. Although children with
high levels of hyperactivity/ inattention have a higher risk of lower academic achievement, they
also tend to vary greatly in their social and academic impairments. This can be contributed to
membership of subtypes of hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems. Thus, there is a
further need to investigate the relationship between hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional prob-
lems, and how this relationship affects learning outcomes.
Our study contributes to the existing literature on learning outcomes for children with hyper-
activity/ inattention in three ways.
First, we use a randomized controlled experiment to examine how extrinsic motivation affects
learning outcomes for children with hyperactivity/ inattention problems.
Second, we use a longitudinal study of a large national birth cohort. This allows us to investi-
gate whether the effect of the reward has long run effects or whether the reward only had an effect
in conjunction with the experiment.
Third, we use a broad screening instrument for identifying children with hyperactivity/ inat-
4
tention and emotional problems. This also mean that we are using a relatively broad description of
hyperactivity/ inattention and not just the diagnosis of ADHD. One of the problems of only using
data on diagnosis is the issue of “overdiagnosis” and “underdiagnosis”. Overdiagnosis is the case
when the children are diagnosed as having a mental disorder, when the disorder is not the under-
lying issue of the child’s behavior. This might be the case when the child is performing relatively
poorly in school or displaying disruptive behavior. Underdiagnosis is case when diagnosis is not
issued to the child, i.e. to avoid social stigma (Cuffe et al., 2005; Currie and Stabile, 2006, 2007).
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the literature on intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation that we address. Section 3 presents data and measures, while section 4 discusses the ex-
perimental setup and our methodological framework. Section 5 shows the results of our estimated
models and experiments. Finally, section 6 discusses our findings and concludes our paper.
2 Intrinsic/ extrinsic motivation and mental health
In this section we briefly outline the psychological and economics literature on extrinsic and extrin-
sic motivation important for our study. First, psychologists have shown in experiments that extrin-
sic motivation “crowd out” intrinsic motivation, (Deci, 1972). Furthermore Condry and Chambers
(1978) suggest that rewards often distract attention from the process of task activity to the product
of getting a reward. In response economists have then made contributions that show incentives
framed as losses have different (positive) effect as compared to incentives framed as gains (Levitt
et al., 2012). Furthermore Bénabou and Tirole (2003) proposed reasons for why extrinsic motiva-
tion crowds out intrinsic motivation. The apparent negative correlation between reward size and
performance is due to the fact that the principal offers the highest rewards to those least likely to
5
work – or in our case – when rewards are fixed, they have the highest effect on those least likely
to work – those with low intrinsic motivation (children with hyperactivity/ inattention) (Bolle and
Otto, 2010). They also propose that rewards has larger effects (in the short run) for low ability
agents who would not exert any effort in the case of no reward.
Research into children with high hyperactivity/ inattention, suggests that these children have
deficient behavioral inhibitions, leading to more impulsive behavior, and thus more short term
goals. According to a theory of ADHD, created by Barkley (1997), the behavioral inhibitions are
atop the executive functions in the brain. According to this theory there are four executive func-
tions that are subordinate of the behavioral inhibitions. These executive functions can only work
with an intact inhibitory system. The four executive functions are spatial working memory; verbal
working memory; self-regulation of affect, motivation and arousal; and reconstitution (Barkley,
1997; Barkley et al., 2001; McInerney and Kerns, 2003; Marco et al., 2009; Sonuga-Barke et al.,
1992; Scheres et al., 2006). These four executive functions contribute to the self-regulation of
behavior. Barkley’s theory hypothesizes that these executive functions work in sequence, creating
delays in which the executive functions can direct behavior away from immediate action to longer
term goals (i.e. postpone gratification). Collectively, the processes are critical for problem-solving.
Of particular interest for, although not testable in our study is the spatial working memory. The
spatial working memory is related to tasks such as mental arithmetic, digit span and imitations of
hand movement sequences; tasks that need concentration in order to be solved (McInerney and
Kerns, 2003). This executive function is also related to the perception of time, leading to dissim-
ilar motivational sets, for children with hyperactivity/ inattention disorders, compared to children
without hyperactivity/ inattention. As children with high levels of hyperactivity/ inattention per-
ceive time differently to other children, they also have a higher need for response contingencies
6
and rewards, to keep them motivated (see McInerney and Kerns, 2003; Luman et al., 2005, for a
longer discussion on this). As an externalizing problem, hyperactivity/ inattention leads to poor
academic performance, and the internalizing nature of emotional problems leads to social prob-
lems, i.e. problems with acceptance from peers. According to research by psychologists and psy-
chiatrists emotional problems, such as anxiety and depression, have an inhibitory effect (Karustis
et al., 2000; Schatz and Rostain, 2006; Sobanski et al., 2010). Children with comorbid disorders of
hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems do not display the same levels of impulsiveness,
as the ones children with only high levels of hyperactivity/ inattention have (Garon et al., 2006).
Although children with comorbid disorders are less impulsive, they also show increased difficul-
ties in tasks that require attention, compared to children with only high levels of hyperactivity/
inattention.
Empirical findings on how extrinsic motivation affects task performance when individuals per-
form cognitive test are mixed. Some psychologists confirm earlier findings. Aase and Sagvolden
(2006) finds that there is no difference between children with ADHD and comparison children
when reinforces were given frequently. Only during infrequent reinforcement were statistically
significant differences on measures of sustained attention, but not hyperactivity and impulsiveness,
found. On the other hand some economists find that the presence of incentive payments seems to
be more important than the size of the reward (Borghans et al., 2013). This also means that we
expect an effect of the reward among the children with high levels of hyperactivity/ inattention,
as they have less intrinsic motivation, than the children who have lower levels of hyperactivity/
inattention. We expect negative effects for the children who have comorbid disorders, as they
will perceive both the tests and the rewards as being stressful. In summary it seems that extrin-
sic motivation might enhance performance during cognitive test, especially for the children with
7
hyperactivity/ inattention, and that some groups are responding more than others.
3 Data and measures
We use data from the Danish Longitudinal Study of Children (DALSC). This unique data (initially)
follows 6,000 Danish children, born in the autumn of 1995. The data is nationally representative
of children born in this period. The first data collection was initiated in 1996, when the children
were six months old. The main aim of the longitudinal study was to track the physical and mental
development of the children, while supplying information on family background (e.g. Gupta
et al., 2013). The DALSC has been supplied with follow up surveys in 1999, 2003, 2007 and
2011. The DALSC covers rich information on parents rearing practices, parental educational level,
socioeconomic status and social life within the family. The survey offers a unique insight about the
critical early life of the children and how human capital is invested in the children, as suggested
by Heckman et al. (2006) and Cunha and Heckman (2008). Combined with the comprehensive
Danish administrative registers for the entire Danish population, this data provides unique insights
into the family and the development of children.
The response rate in 2007 was about 80% of the original sample. The overall attrition for
this survey has been low, and the response rates of families with low socioeconomic status has
been declining throughout the waves of DALSC, meaning that better educated parents have a
slightly higher representation in our sample, compared to the rest of birth cohort. This does have
the implication, that we might have fewer children with hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional
problems in our sample, compared to the rest of the birth cohort.
Due to the large scale of the DALSC, a brief psychometric instrument is used to assess the
8
hyperactivity/ inattention and the emotional problems of the children. We specifically use infor-
mation from the Strength and Difficulty Questionnaire (SDQ). The SDQ, developed by Goodman
(1997), is a standardized questionnaire that has similar psychometric properties as the Child Be-
havior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach et al., 2008; Goodman and Scott, 1999). The SDQ contains
25 questions on the behavior the children may have exhibited within the previous six months. For
each child in the DALSC, the SDQ was rated by the parents, which in most cases were the mothers.
As most parents spend more time with children, than the teachers, the answers from the parents
provide a more reliable measure of the children’s behavior. The parent can answer “Not true”,
“Somewhat true” or “Certainly true” to each of the 25 questions on the SDQ.
The 25 questions are divided into five subscales of each five questions. The subscales re-
late to the children’s problems with peers, conduct disorders, hyperactivity/ inattention, emotional
problems and pro-social behavior (Goodman, 2001). The items that compose the scale for hyper-
activity/ inattention are designed to assess hyperactivity, inattention and impulsiveness, which are
the key symptoms of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV)
diagnosis of ADHD (Niclasen et al., 2012). Each of the subscales have a range in integers from 0
to 10, with 0 being no problems at all within the specific subscale and 10 indicating large problems
within the specific subscale. The validity of the SDQ has been assessed in Denmark and found to
have similar properties as those found in other Nordic countries as well as those found in Germany
and scores slightly lower than in the UK (Becker et al., 2006; Niclasen et al., 2012; Obel et al.,
2004). Although a high score on the SDQ is not the same as a clinical diagnosis, it does provide
valuable information on the difficulties that the children have.
The SDQ offers cut off scores for each subscale to assess whether the child is within a normal
range or the child is outside of what is considered the normal range of the scale. Danish 10-12-
9
year-old children are considered as having a high level of hyperactivity/ inattention (abnormal), on
the parental questionnaire, if they have a score of 5 or more points on the scale for hyperactivity/
inattention. The Danish 10-12-year-old children are considered as having emotional problems out-
side the normal range if they score 4 or more points on the scale for emotional problems (Niclasen
et al., 2012).
The children have been screened using the SDQ in each wave of the DALSC since 2003.
We therefore have information on the children’s physical and psychological well-being and non-
cognitive traits in the age of 7 and 11. In order to assess whether the measures of hyperactivity/
inattention and the emotional problems are persistent with the child, we utilize the longitudinal
structure of the data. For the SDQ subscales for hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems,
we take the average of the scores on the two SDQ-subscales at the age of 7 and 11. A child’s level
of hyperactivity/ inattention tends to vary with the child’s age (e.g. Bertrand and Pan, 2013;
Biederman et al., 2000; Elder, 2010; Evans et al., 2010; Niclasen et al., 2012). Indeed this is also
true of our data. We illustrate this by using the normative cut-off scores that was outlined earlier.
As is seen in table 1, there is some variation in the levels of hyperactivity/ inattention between the
ages 7 and 11. From the table we find that 96.28 per cent of the children who had normal levels of
hyperactivity/ inattention at age 7 are also found to have similar levels of hyperactivity/ inattention
at age 11. The table also shows that around 40 per cent of the children, who had abnormal levels
of hyperactivity/ inattention at age 7, also have abnormal levels of hyperactivity/ inattention at age
11. This suggests that for at least the children with abnormal levels of hyperactivity/ inattention,
there is a large variation between ages.
Because of this, our strategy of using the average of the scores on the two SDQ-subscales at the
age of 7 and 11, gives us a more valid estimate of the children’s level of hyperactivity/ inattention
10
and emotional problems, as we take measurement errors into account, by using this strategy. In the
cases in which we have missing observations on the SDQ-subscales at either age 7 or 11, we use
the information on the subscale without taking the average of two observations.
Information on the family income, marital status, parent’s highest educational level and sex of
the child is obtained by the Danish administrative registers. We thereby minimize the amount of
attrition due to partial answers on the surveys.
4 Experiment
Our randomized controlled experiment was conducted in conjunction with two cognitive achieve-
ment tests in 2007 when the children in the sample were approximately eleven years old. The
children were randomly selected to participate in the reward experiment before the start of the data
collection of DALSC in 2007. All children of the 6,000 children of the DALSC were eligible
for the reward experiment. We use the term “reward group” for those children who won the lot-
tery, which is those who were randomly picked to receive a reward for completing two cognitive
achievement tests. The group of children who did not win the lottery is labeled as the “control
group”. The children in the reward group were not told that there was a control group and vice
versa. This should minimize the likelihood of Hawthorne or John Henry effects, i.e. that behavior
in either of the two groups in the experiment is affected by the fact that they are participating in an
experiment (Cook et al., 1979; Levitt and List, 2011).
A total of 1,008 children out of the original 6,000 children of the DALSC were randomly
selected to participate in a reward experiment. The remaining children were not informed on the
experiment. Out of the 1,008 randomly selected children, 823 participated in the experiment. 3,901
11
children participated in the control group. The 185 children, who did not participate in the reward
group, did not participate due to usual attrition in the survey. In the reward group each child was
told that (s)he would be given an amount of money, depending on how many problems on both
tests that was solved correctly. Due to ethical concerns it was decided that the children in the
reward group was assured the equivalent of $8. The highest amount the children could earn was
equivalent of $40. The potential reward therefore has a range between $8 and $40. The children
were rewarded after all of the interviews in the DALSC had been conducted. Due to this delay in
the rewards, we are estimating the effect of the anticipation of the reward.
In our sample the children’s monthly allowances was on average $19.98 in 2007, with no
significant difference between the reward ($18.71) and the control group ($20.25). We therefore
expect that the rewardis sizeable enough to have an effect on the outcomes. The reward will yield
approximately twice the size of the average monthly allowances.
Our two main outcome variables are two cognitive achievement tests that were administered
to the children in the 2007 wave of DALSC. The first of the two tests is the Children’s Problem
Solving Test (CHIPS), which is a Raven-type progressive matrix (Kreiner et al., 2006; Hansen
et al., 2011). The CHIPS-test contains 40 problems with increasing difficulty to be solved by the
child within a timeframe of 17 minutes (McIntosh and Munk, 2013). The score on the CHIPS-test
range from 0 to 40, reflecting the total number of correct answers on the test. The CHIPS-test is a
non-verbal figure test. No child in our sample scored 40 correct answers on the CHIPS-test.
The second test that was administered to the child was a verbal test on the comprehension of
the Danish language. The language comprehension test is adapted to the 11-year old children. The
language comprehension test has been used on an older Danish cohort, born in 1954, and used in
numerous analyses of cognitive ability, educational and labor market outcomes in Denmark (e.g.
12
Holm and Jæger, 2008; McIntosh and Munk, 2007; Ørum, 1971). The language comprehension
test is a proficiency test, and it therefore entails a human capital component. The language test
contains 34 problems to be solved within a timeframe of 25 minutes. By summing the number of
correct answers from the language test, the variable ranges from 0 to 34. In relation to our sample,
however, no child has more than 33 correct answers. Both of the cognitive achievement tests are
multiple choice tests.
Besides the two cognitive achievement tests in 2007, most of the children also participated in
the follow-up wave of DALSC in 2011. In this wave of the DALSC the children were administered
part of the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) (Raven et al., 2004). The SPM consists
of five sets (A - E) of twelve questions. The SPM is a non-verbal figure test that is very similar to
the CHIPS-test (Kreiner et al., 2006; Hansen et al., 2011). In the 2011 wave of DALSC only the C
set of SPM was included for the children. This was due to time-restrictions on the overall survey.
A pilot study was conducted before the decision of only using the C set. The pilot study showed
that the C set of the SPM was the subset with most variance in the scores (Bingley et al., 2012).
There are at least three reasons as to why we consider the experiment and data ideal for studying
extrinsic motivation for children with hyperactivity/ inattention. The first reason is that, since
everyone in the reward-group was ensured at least $8, and thereby minimize the incentive to make
an extra effort, we consider the estimate a lower bound. This is due to the relatively small difference
between the base reward, given for participating in the experimental group and the value of making
an extra effort to do well on the cognitive achievement tests. Some of the participants in the reward
group might therefore see the promise of a reward as control or insulting, and therefore either
not respond to the extrinsic motivation or achieve negative outcomes, although this is still much
debated (Bénabou and Tirole, 2003; Borghans et al., 2013; Deci, 1972; Deci et al., 1999; Fryer,
13
2011; Gneezy and Rustichini, 2000; Gneezy et al., 2011). Furthermore the reward was given to the
children after the test had been administered to them, not during the test. This creates a realistic
measure of the motivation that can be achieved by applying rewards to this group of children. In
real life applications, rewards will often be given with some delay and this may be important for
students with a high discount rate and especially among children with hyperactivity/ inattention
(Bettinger and Slonim, 2007; Scheres et al., 2006, 2010). We therefore consider the experiment
transferable to real-life situations in for instance a classroom, in which the effect could also be
achieved by tokens of smaller magnitude, such as a sticker or a note on a job well done.
Second, the experiment is conducted on a nationally representative sample. This allows us to
make generalizations on the experiment.
Third, the longitudinal design of the data allows us to assess whether the effect of the reward
is temporary and only occurs in relation to the reward experiment. By using the information on
the SPM from the 2011 wave of DALSC we can investigate whether the scores on the cognitive
achievement test was successful only in conjunction with the experiment.
The descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) of the observable characteristics for
the reward group and the control group are shown in table 2. The characteristics include child’s
sex, log of family equivalent scaled income in 2007, highest parental education in 2007, mothers
marital status, the average score on the SDQ-subscales of emotional problems and hyperactivity/
inattention, as well as scores on the language comprehension test, the CHIPS-test and the Raven-
test at age 15. To control for possible innate abilities, we also control for the mothers cognitive
ability. This is done by using the D set of the SPM from the 2011 wave of DALSC for the children’s
mothers1.1We have tested whether there is a difference in including or omitting the variable on the mothers Raven-test in
the models. We find no significant difference between these models and therefore use the information on the mothers
14
The descriptive statistics show that there is no apparent difference between the two groups on
the observable characteristics.
< TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE >
In order to assess whether there are systematic difference between the reward and the control
group, we estimate a linear probability model of being in the reward group of the following form:
p(Yi = 1) = α +X′i β + εi (1)
where p(Yi = 1) represents the probability of being in the reward group, α is a constant and X′i
is a vector of observable characteristics. εi is the error-term. The results of this model are show in
table 3. As a control we estimate equation 1 for the data with all the observations we have on the
experiment, and we estimate equation 1 using the observations in which we both have observations
on the experiment and scores on the Raven-test in the follow-up wave of DALSC.
< TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE >
The results show that there are no significant differences between the reward group and the con-
trol group. This result shows that the randomization was independent of the individual’s character-
istics and that the two groups are compatible on observable characteristics and hence presumably
also on non-observable characteristics, due to the randomization2.
In the following section we estimate the effect of the reward on the two cognitive achievement
tests. Because of the experiment we can estimate unbiased results by using OLS regressions on
different subpopulations (Angrist and Krueger, 1999). The first regressions are simple regression
models using only a reward group dummy indicator:
Raven-test in our models, as a measure of innate ability.2Hence, we only include the observational characteristics for reasons of statistical efficiency.
15
YT EST SCOREi = α +DTi β1 + εi, (2)
in which YT EST SCOREi is the outcome on the cognitive achievement tests for child i, DTi is a
dummy variable indicating whether the child was in the reward group and εi is the error term in
the model. β1 measures the treatment effect of the reward on the outcome variables. The subpop-
ulations, on which we are estimating our models, are defined by using different configurations of
the mean scores on the SDQ-subscales for hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems. We
show using equation 2 how the effect of the reward changes for children with a high score of hy-
peractivity/ inattention by the score on the measure of the SDQ-subscale for emotional problems.
We further extend our regression model for the entire population to:
YT EST SCOREi = α +DTi β1 +Hiβ2 +Eiβ3 + εi, (3)
where Hi is the score on the SDQ subscale on hyperactivity/ inattention for child i and Ei is the
score on the SDQ subscale on emotional problems for child i. We make this extension to see how
much hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems affect the cognitive outcome irrespective
of the effect of the reward. We also estimate equation 3 using a set of controls to gain statistical
efficiency:
YT EST SCOREi = α +DTi β1 +Hiβ2 +Eiβ3 +X
′i β3 + εi, (4)
where X′i is a vector of controls. The controls include sex of the child, log of family equivalent
scaled income, dummies indicating highest parental educational level and marital status and cog-
nitive ability of mother. We also estimate equation 4 on subpopulations of different configurations
16
of the mean scores on the SDQ-subscales for hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems.
Estimating both equation 2 and equation 4 on subpopulations makes sure that the more efficient
estimates of the effect of the reward (on subpopulations) in equation 4 are not distorted by inter-
actions effects between subpopulations and controls. This is the case if the effect of the reward in
subpopulations in equation 2 is different from the estimated effect in equation 4.
To further substantiate our findings we estimate models in which we include interaction terms
between the reward and the mean of the SDQ subscale for hyperactivity/ inattention and the SDQ
subscale of emotional problems. As extensions of equation 4, these models have the following
form:
YT EST SCOREi =α+DTi β1+Hiβ2+Eiβ3+DT
i Hiβ4+DTi Eiβ5+HiEiβ6+DT
i HiEiβ7+X′i β8+εi (5)
The coefficient that has our main interest in the models estimated by equation 5 is the coefficient
that measures the difference in the slopes of the reward and control group, and the scores on
hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems, β7.
To test the robustness of our results, we first estimate models of equation 2 on the two cognitive
testscores, CHIPS and language test, in 2007. We then proceed by estimating a model on the C
set of the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrix (SPM), with the same children for the follow-up
wave of DALSC in 2011. A non-significant difference between the reward and control group on
the scores of the C set of the SPM, will show that the reward was only efficient in relation to the
two cognitive achievement tests, and that the children did not learn from the experiment.
17
5 Results
First, in order to assess the relationship between hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems,
we estimate pairwise correlations between the measures at the age of 7 and 11 and the composite
score of the measures for the two years. We furthermore estimate the pairwise correlations for the
cognitive achievement tests. The results are shown in table 4. The correlations show a moderate
positive correlation between the mean emotional problems and the mean of hyperactivity/ inat-
tention at the ages 7 and 11. We find correlations of the same magnitude between the measures
of hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems at the ages 7 and 11. These results show co-
morbidity between hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems, as we would expect (Adams
et al., 1999; Sobanski et al., 2010).
The table shows a negative correlation between the measures of hyperactivity/ inattention and
the cognitive achievement tests. The table also shows a negative correlation between measures
of emotional problems and the cognitive achievement tests. However, the negative correlations
between the cognitive achievement tests and the measures of emotional problems are of a slightly
lower magnitude than the corresponding measures of hyperactivity/ inattention and the achieve-
ment tests. The table also indicates a clear persistence of both cognitive achievement scores, on
the level of hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems across age.
< TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE >
In order to further examine the relationship between cognitive achievement, hyperactivity/ inat-
tention and emotional problems graphically, we create surface plots at ages 7 and 11 showing the
two cognitive achievement tests as a function of hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems.
The surfaces of the figures are created by using non-parametric LOWESS estimations (Altman,
1992; Fox, 2000). Figure 1 shows the profiles of scores on the language comprehension test that
18
was taken by the children, in relation to the reward, as a function of the mean scores of hyperac-
tivity/ inattention and emotional problems at ages 7 and 11.
The upper left panel of figure 1 shows the scores on the language comprehension test of the
reward group. The upper right panel shows the scores on the language comprehension test of the
control group. The lower panel of figure 1 shows the difference in the language comprehension
test for the two groups.
The red color shows a higher score on the language comprehension test for the children in the
reward group, while a blue color shows a lower score on the language comprehension test for the
children in the reward group, compared to the control group.
The lower panel shows that the children who have a high score on hyperactivity/ inattention, but
no emotional problems, have a stronger response to the reward, than the children who score lower
on hyperactivity/ inattention and score low on the scale for emotional problems. This indicate
that the reward have little effect on children who have few emotional problems and hyperactivity/
inattention. The lower panel of figure 1 also shows that children with a high score on emotional
problems and a low score on hyperactivity/ inattention, score lower on the language comprehension
test in the reward group than in the control group, suggesting negative effects of the reward for this
particular group of children.
<FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE >
Figure 2 shows the response surface on the CHIPS-test for the children in the reward group (up-
per left panel), the children in the control group (upper right panel) and the difference in the scores
on the CHIPS-test for the two groups (lower panel). The lower panel shows that the children who
receive a reward and have a high score on hyperactivity/ inattention and low score on emotional
problems, also have a higher score on the CHIPS-test, than the comparable group of children in the
19
control group. The figure also shows that children who have a high score on emotional problems
and a low score hyperactivity/ inattention, have lower scores on the CHIPS-test in the reward group
than in the control group. This substantiates the previous finding of potential adverse effects of the
reward for this particular group of children. This might be attributed to anxiety and a feeling of
control for this particular group of children (Deci et al., 1999; Sobanski et al., 2010; Wehmeier
et al., 2010).
The lower panel of figure 2 shows that the children who receive the reward in general scores
lower on the CHIPS-test, except for the children with high scores on hyperactivity/ inattention
and a low score on emotional problems, suggesting that the effect of the reward is local around
those children, who are hyperactive/ inattentive. This result shows that only the children with
high levels of hyperactive/ inattention responds to this extrinsic motivation. The declining, and
at certain points negative, effect of the reward, as the scores on hyperactivity/ inattention and
emotional problems rises in tandem, shows the costs of the comorbidity of hyperactive/ inattention
and emotional problems.
We do not find a difference in the scores on the CHIPS-test for the children who have a low
score on hyperactivity inattention and a low score on emotional problems. This shows us that
the size of the reward might not be of magnitude to which children that fall within this category,
responds (Gneezy et al., 2011; Gneezy and Rustichini, 2000; Kreps, 1997). The CHIPS-test is a
figure test, which is somewhat different in its form as to what the children are used to from school.
The CHIPS-test might therefore be more labor-intensive than the language comprehension test,
which contains elements that the children are used to from their schooling3 (Hansen et al., 2004).
< FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE>3Most of the children, 96 per cent, went in fourth or fifth grade when the experiment was conducted.
20
Before moving on to a statistical analysis of the significance of the differences between the
reward and the control group we further graphically substantiates that the difference between the
two groups is due toshort term effect of the reward by showing the differences between the two
groups in a non-experimental setting. Figure 3 shows the results of the response surface on the
RAVEN C-set-test for the children in the reward group (upper left panel), the children in the control
group (upper right panel) and the difference in the scores on the RAVEN-test for the two groups
(lower panel). The test was administered four years after the reward experiment and contained no
different treatment of the children who were previously in the control- and treatment group.
<FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE>
From the figure we find the same relationship between hyperactive/ inattention and emotional
problems on the one side and test scores on the other as in the two previous figures from the reward
experiment. However, in contrast to figure 1 and figure 2 we do not find any detectable differences
between reward and control group in figure 3. This finding clearly supports the interpretation that
the differences between the reward and control group across different configurations of hyperac-
tive/ inattention and emotional problems during the experiment is in fact due to extrinsic incentives
created by the reward.
To further investigate whether the differences between the reward group and the control group
for each of the two cognitive achievement tests are statistically significant, we estimate regression
models of equation 2, both for the full sample as well as conditional on children who are hyper-
active and with different configurations of emotional problems. More specifically this means that
we estimate the slope of the lower panels of figure 1 and figure 2 in the direction of hyperactivity/
inattention for fixed values of emotional problems. We also present results of estimating equation
3 for the entire sample. The results are shown in table 5 for the language test and table 7 for the
21
CHIPS-test.
< TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE>
< TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE>
From model (1) in both tables we see that the reward group on average does have a higher
score on both the language and CHIPS-test. However, only the difference for the language test is
statistically significant. We further find that both emotional problems and hyperactive/ inattention
is associated with lower scores on both cognitive tests as seen for the model (2). When we inspect
the models with interaction effects, model (3) in both tables,between different configurations of
emotional problems and hyperactive/ inattention we find that the average effect of the reward in
both tables decline, most pronounced for the CHIPS test. Thus, to some extent, the effect of the
reward is concentrated on specific subpopulations of the data. This is in line with our expectations;
a higher degree of comorbid disorders leads to a lower score on the cognitive achivement tests. To
see this more clearly and inspired from figures 1 and 2 we show regression results for hyperactive
children with different configurations of emotional problems, shown in column (4) to (9). For
both test we find that students with hyperactive/ inattention has a higher effect of the reward,
thelower the score on emotional problems. Thus it seems that rewarding children with hyperactive/
inattention has a positive effect on the effort on the cognitive tests but also that this effect depends
on their level of emotional problems such that children with hyperactive/ inattention experience
the largest effect when their level of emotional problems are low. Only the effect of the reward for
children with no emotional problems for the CHIPS-test is significant (4) in table 7, but using a
Chow-test we reject that all effects are zero (not shown) and also that they are of similar size (not
shown). The effects of the reward therefore decline over increasing emotional problems.
Table 6 shows the results of the reward on the language comprehension test, while controlling
22
for sex of child, log of family equivalent scaled income, dummies indicating highest parental
educational level and marital status and cognitive ability of the mother and table 8 shows similar
results for the CHIPS-test.
< TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE>
< TABLE 8 ABOUT HERE>
Model (1) in table 6 show that the reward had a positive and statistical significant effect on the
language comprehension test, for the full sample of children using the full set of controls (model
(1) in table 6). The estimate is in line with the estimate without controls in table 5. For the CHIPS-
test we find that using the full set of controls the effect of the reward now become statistically
significant (model (1) in table 8 for the total sample. The interaction effects between hyperactivity/
inattention, emotional problems and being in the reward group implies that the overall effect of the
reward becomes insignificant. However, while it diminished in size for the CHIPS-test it remains
about the same size for the language test. Thus, for the CHIPS test it seems that the effect of being
in the reward group is pertinent to particular subgroups of children with hyperactivity/ inattention
and emotional problems, whereas for the language test it seems that at least to some extend that
there is an overall effect that is not heterogeneous over observed characteristics.
When we move to subgroups of children with hyperactivity/ inattention and varying degrees of
emotional problems (models (3) to (8)) we find the same pattern as in tables 5 and 7; a large effect
for children with hyperactivity/ inattention and no emotional problems and a decreasing effect for
increasing values of emotional problems. However, the only statistical significant effect is for the
CHIPS-test for children with no emotional problems. We use a Chow-test to reject that all effects
are zero (not shown) and also that they are of similar size (not shown).
Our claim that the effect of the reward is causal is based on the fact that allocation into the
23
reward and control groups where random. The causal claim is supported by the analysis of attrition
from the survey in the two groups in table 3. However, we can further substantiate the claim that the
reward had a causal effect and that it was unevenly distributed among sub-populations of children
with hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems. We do this by estimating the same models
as in tables 5 to 8 using the outcome of the RAVEN C-set-test which was given to the full sample
four years after the reward experiment. Neither the control nor the reward group where given any
rewards for participating in the Raven test. The estimates are reported without controls in table 9
and with controls in table 10.
< TABLE 9 ABOUT HERE>
< TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE>
From both tables we do not find detectible differences between the reward group and the control
group. Only in the model with controls and interaction effects (model (2) in table 10) do we find
a significant effect of being in the reward group. However, this model is over-fitted and once
insignificant interaction terms (involving the reward dummy) are removed, there is no difference
between the reward and control group. This point strongly towards that the differences created by
the reward four years earlier was indeed causal. It also indicates that being in the reward group and
thus receiving an extrinsic motivation has no lasting effects.
6 Conclusion and Discussion
In this paper we have shown that offering a economic reward and thus increasing the extrinsic
motivation for completing two cognitive test has an positive effect of the overall test score on both
cognitive tests. We have further demonstrated that, especially for the CHIPS-test the effect seems
24
to be larger, if not only present, among children with hyperactivity/ inattention and only small or
none emotional problems. Our two identification strategies point to that both the overall effect
of the reward and also its specific effect for sub-populations with special mental health problems
are causal. We demonstrate this by using the two identifiaction strategiess. First, being offered
the reward was delivered through a randomized controlled trial with no subsequent significant
attrition on observed background characteristics. Second, using a test four years after the reward
experiment, without a reward shows no differences between children in reward and control group.
The results of our analyses also show that extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation has different
meanings for subgroups of children, with different mental health profiles. These findings support
other studies of the effects of extrinsic motivation on intrinsic motivation for the subgroups of
children, who have comorbid disorders.
Our finding that the reward has a large effect for children with hyperactive/ inattention for
the CHIPS-test than the language test has two interpretations. The first interpretation is that the
language test requires previous knowledge, something that may be lacking for children with high
levels of hyperactivity/ inattention. Hence, even if the reward motivates them, they do not possess
the skills to turn their motivation into a higher test score. This is different with the CHIPS-test. This
is a test, which should be context independent and therefore to a much lesser degree dependents
on learned skills. Hence, for this test it should be easier for less skilled children, such as children
suffering from hyperactive/ inattention to turn extrinsic motivation into higher test scores. The
other interpretation is one of test fatigue. The CHIPS-test is the second test in the experiment.
If taking the second test is more demanding in terms of human effort, extrinsic motivation may
be more important when completing this test. There is evidence that executing will power (to
complete a test) is exhausting (Bucciol et al., 2010) and that rewards enforcing extrinsic motivation
25
will improve performance.
We are not able to distinguish between these two hypotheses in our study, they may have the
same policy implications in terms of motivation children with hyperactive/ inattention. It would
never the less be interesting to conduct experiments that would be able to separate the two hy-
potheses.
Our results show that children with different mental helath profiles react differently to extrinsic
incentives.
26
References
Aase, H. and T. Sagvolden (2006). Infrequent, but not Frequent, Reinforcers Produce More
Variable Responding and Deficient Sustained Attention in Young Children with Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(5),
457–471.
Achenbach, T. M., A. Becker, M. Döpfner, E. Heiervang, V. Roessner, H.-C. Steinhausen, and
A. Rothenberger (2008). Multicultural Assessment of Child and Adolescent Psychopathology
with ASEBA and SDQ Instruments: Research Findings, Applications, and Future Directions.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49(3), 251–275.
Adams, J. W., M. J. Snowling, S. M. Hennessy, and P. Kind (1999). Problems of Behaviour, Read-
ing and Arithmetic: Assessments of Comorbidity Using the Strengths and Difficulties Question-
naire. British Journal of Educational Psychology 69(4), 571–585.
Almlund, M., A. L. Duckworth, J. J. Heckman, and T. D. Kautz (2011). Personality Psychology
and Economics. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Altman, N. S. (1992). An introduction to kernel and nearest-neighbor nonparametric regression.
The American Statistician 46(3), 175–185.
Angrist, J. D. and A. B. Krueger (1999). Chapter 23 Empirical strategies in labor economics.
Volume 3, Part A of Handbook of Labor Economics, pp. 1277 – 1366. Elsevier.
Antrop, I., P. Stock, S. Verté, J. R. Wiersema, D. Baeyens, and H. Roeyers (2006). ADHD and
Delay Aversion: the Influence of Non-Temporal Stimulation on Choice for Delayed Rewards.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(11), 1152–1158.
27
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral Inhibition, Sustained Attention, and Executive Functions: Con-
structing a Unifying Theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin 121(1), 65–94.
Barkley, R. A. and C. E. Cunningham (1979). The Effects of Methylphenidate on the Mother-child
Interactions of Hyperactive Children. Archives of General Psychiatry 36(2), 201–208.
Barkley, R. A., G. Edwards, M. Laneri, K. Fletcher, and L. Metevia (2001). Executive Functioning,
Temporal Discounting, and Sense of Time in Adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-
chology 29, 541–556.
Becker, A., H.-C. Steinhausen, G. Baldursson, S. Dalsgaard, M. J. Lorenzo, S. Ralston,
M. Döpfner, and A. Rothenberger (2006). Psychopathological Screening of Children with
ADHD: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a Pan-European Study. European Child
& Adolescent Psychiatry 15, i56–i62.
Bertrand, M. and J. Pan (2013, September). The Trouble with Boys: Social Influences and the
Gender Gap in Disruptive Behavior. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5(1),
32–64.
Bettinger, E. and R. Slonim (2007). Patience Among Children. Journal of Public Economics 91(1),
343–363.
Biederman, J., E. Mick, and S. V. Faraone (2000). Age-dependent Decline of Symptoms of At-
tention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Impact of Remission Definition and Symptom Type.
American Journal of Psychiatry 157(5), 816–818.
28
Bingley, P., K. B. Karlson, and A. Martinello (2012). Færdigheder og Forventninger. In M. H.
Ottosen (Ed.), 15-åriges Hverdagsliv og Udfordringer. Rapport fra femte dataindsamling af for-
løbsundersøgelsen af børn født i 1995, pp. 217–242. Copenhagen: The Danish National Centre
For Social Research.
Bloom, B., R. A. Cohen, and G. Freeman (2012). Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children:
National Health Interview Survey, 2011, Volume 254 of 10. National Center for Health Statistics.
Bénabou, R. and J. Tirole (2003). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. The Review of Economic
Studies 70(3), 489–520.
Bolle, F. and P. E. Otto (2010). A Price Is a Signal: on Intrinsic Motivation, Crowding-out, and
Crowding-in. Kyklos 63(1), 9–22.
Borghans, L., A. L. Duckworth, J. J. Heckman, and B. t. Weel (2008). The Economics and Psy-
chology of Personality Traits. Journal of Human Resources 43(4), 972–1059.
Borghans, L., H. Meijers, and B. Ter Weel (2008). The Role of Noncognitive Skills in Explaining
Cognitive Test Scores. Economic Inquiry 46(1), 2–12.
Borghans, L., H. Meijers, and B. ter Weel (2013). The Importance of Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Motivation for Measuring IQ. Economics of Education Review 34, 17 – 28.
Bucciol, A., D. Houser, and M. Piovesan (2010). Willpower in Children and Adults: a Survey of
Results and Economic Implications. International Review of Economics 57(3), 259–267.
Carlson, C. L. and M. R. Bunner (1993). Effects of Methylphenidate on the Academic Performance
of Children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Learning Disabilities. School
Psychology Review 22(2), 184–198.
29
Condry, J. and J. Chambers (1978). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning. In M. Lepper
and D. Greene (Eds.), The Hidden Cost of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of
Human Motivation, pp. 61–84. New York: John Wiley.
Cook, T. D., D. T. Campbell, and A. Day (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis
Issues for Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.
Cuffe, S. P., C. G. Moore, and R. E. McKeown (2005). Prevalence and Correlates of ADHD
Symptoms in the National Health Interview Survey. Journal of Attention Disorders 9(2), 392–
401.
Cunha, F. and J. J. Heckman (2008). Formulating, Identifying and Estimating the Technology of
Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation. Journal of Human Resources 43(4), 738–782.
Cunha, F., J. J. Heckman, and S. M. Schennach (2010). Estimating the Technology of Cognitive
and Noncognitive Skill Formation. Econometrica 78(3), 883–931.
Cunningham, C. E. and R. A. Barkley (1979). The Interactions of Normal and Hyperactive Chil-
dren with Their Mothers in Free Play and Structured Tasks. Child Development 50(1), 217–224.
Currie, J. (2009). Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise: Socioeconomic Status, Poor Health in Childhood,
and Human Capital Development. Journal of Economic Literature 47(1), pp. 87–122.
Currie, J. and M. Stabile (2006). Child Mental Health and Human Capital Accumulation: The
Case of ADHD. Journal of Health Economics 25(6), 1094 – 1118.
Currie, J. and M. Stabile (2007). Mental Health in Childhood and Human Capital. In The problems
of disadvantaged youth: An economic perspective, pp. 115–148. University of Chicago Press,
NBER, Chicago.
30
Currie, J., M. Stabile, and L. E. Jones (2013). Do Stimulant Medications Improve Educational
and Behavioral Outcomes for Children with ADHD? Working Paper 19105, National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Deci, E. L. (1972). The Effects of Contingent and Noncontingent Rewards and Controls on Intrin-
sic Motivation . Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 8(2), 217 – 229.
Deci, E. L., R. Koestner, and R. M. Ryan (1999). A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Exam-
ining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125(6),
627–668.
Elder, T. E. (2010). The Importance of Relative Standards in {ADHD} Diagnoses: Evidence Based
on Exact Birth Dates. Journal of Health Economics 29(5), 641 – 656.
Epstein, J. N., J. M. Langberg, P. J. Rosen, A. Graham, M. E. Narad, T. N. Antonini, W. B.
Brinkman, T. Froehlich, J. O. Simon, and M. Altaye (2011). Evidence for Higher Reaction
Time Variability for Children with ADHD on a Range of Cognitive Tasks Including Reward and
Event Rate Manipulations. Neuropsychology 25(4), 427–441.
Evans, W. N., M. S. Morrill, and S. T. Parente (2010). Measuring Inappropriate Medical Diagnosis
and Treatment in Survey Data: The Case of ADHD Among School-Age Children. Journal of
Health Economics 29(5), 657 – 673.
Fletcher, J. and B. Wolfe (2008). Child Mental Health and Human Capital Accumulation: The
Case of ADHD Revisited. Journal of Health Economics 27(3), 794 – 800.
Fox, J. (2000). Nonparametric Simple Regression: Smoothing Scatterplots, Volume 130. SAGE
Publications.
31
Fryer, R. G. (2011). Financial Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from Randomized
Trials. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4), 1755–1798.
Garon, N., C. Moore, and D. A. Waschbusch (2006). Decision Making in Children With ADHD
Only, ADHD-Anxious/Depressed, and Control Children Using a Child Version of the Iowa
Gambling Task. Journal of Attention Disorders 9(4), 607–619.
Gneezy, U., S. Meier, and P. Rey-Biel (2011). When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify
Behavior. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(4), 191–209.
Gneezy, U. and A. Rustichini (2000). Pay Enough or Don’t Pay at All. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 115(3), 791–810.
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry 38(5), 581–586.
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 40(11), 1337 – 1345.
Goodman, R. and S. Scott (1999). Comparing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and
the Child Behavior Checklist: Is Small Beautiful? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 27,
17–24.
Gupta, N. D., M. Deding, and M. Lausten (2013). The Effect of Low Birth Weight on Height,
Weight and Behavioral Outcomes in the Medium-run. Economics & Human Biology 11(1), 42
– 55.
Hansen, K. T., J. J. Heckman, and K. J. Mullen (2004). The Effect of Schooling and Ability on
Achievement Test Scores . Journal of Econometrics 121(1–2), 39 – 98.
32
Hansen, M., S. Kreiner, and C. R. Hansen (2011). CHIPS. Children’s Problem Solving. Manual.
Frederiksberg: HOGREFE Psykologisk Forlag.
Heckman, J. J. and Y. Rubinstein (2001). The Importance of Noncognitive Skills: Lessons from
the GED Testing Program. The American Economic Review 91(2), 145–149.
Heckman, J. J., J. Stixrud, and S. Urzua (2006). The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive
Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior. Journal of Labor Economics 24(3),
411–482.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing Behavior Problems and Academic Underachievement in
Childhood and Adolescence: Causal Relationships and Underlying Mechanisms. Psychological
Bulletin 111(1), 127.
Holm, A. and M. M. Jæger (2008). Does Relative Risk Aversion Explain Educational Inequality?
A Dynamic Choice Approach. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 26(3), 199 – 219.
Karustis, J. L., T. J. Power, L. A. Rescorla, R. B. Eiraldi, and P. R. Gallagher (2000). Anxiety and
Depression in Children with ADHD: Unique Associations with Academic and Social Function-
ing. Journal of Attention Disorders 4(3), 133–149.
Kohls, G., B. Herpertz-Dahlmann, and K. Konrad (2009). Hyperresponsiveness to Social Rewards
in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Behav-
ioral and Brain Functions 5(1), 20.
Kreiner, S., M. Hansen, and C. R. Hansen (2006). On Local Homogeneity and Stochastically
Ordered Mixed Rasch Models. Applied Psychological Measurement 30(4), 271–297.
33
Kreps, D. M. (1997). Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives. The American Economic
Review 87(2), 359–364.
Levitt, S. D. and J. A. List (2011). Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant?
An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics 3(1), 224–238.
Levitt, S. D., J. A. List, S. Neckermann, and S. Sadoff (2012, June). The Behavioralist Goes
to School: Leveraging Behavioral Economics to Improve Educational Performance. Working
Paper 18165, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Luman, M., J. Oosterlaan, D. L. Knol, and J. A. Sergeant (2008). Decision-Making in ADHD:
Sensitive to Frequency but Blind to the Magnitude of Penalty? Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry 49(7), 712–722.
Luman, M., J. Oosterlaan, and J. A. Sergeant (2005). The Impact of Reinforcement Contingencies
on AD/HD: A Review and Theoretical Appraisal. Clinical Psychology Review 25(2), 183 – 213.
Marco, R., A. Miranda, W. Schlotz, A. Melia, A. Mulligan, U. Müller, P. Andreou, L. Butler,
H. Christiansen, I. Gabriels, S. Medad, B. Albrecht, H. Uebel, P. Asherson, T. Banaschewski,
M. Gill, J. Kuntsi, F. Mulas, R. Oades, H. Roeyers, H.-C. Steinhausen, A. Rothenberger, S. V.
Faraone, and E. J. Sonuga-Barke (2009). Delay and Reward Choice in ADHD: An Experimental
Test of the Role of Delay Aversion. Neuropsychology 23(3), 367–380.
McInerney, R. J. and K. A. Kerns (2003). Time Reproduction in Children With ADHD: Motivation
Matters. Child Neuropsychology 9(2), 91–108. PMID: 12815512.
34
McIntosh, J. and M. D. Munk (2007). Scholastic Ability vs Family Background in Educational
Success: Evidence from Danish Sample Survey Data. Journal of Population Economics 20(1),
101 – 120.
McIntosh, J. and M. D. Munk (2013). It’s All About the Money: Why So Many Danish Children
Do Poorly on Proficiency Tests. Working paper, Aalborg University.
McLeod, J. D. and D. L. Fettes (2007). Trajectories of Failure: The Educational Careers of Chil-
dren with Mental Health Problems. American Journal of Sociology 113(3), 653–701.
McLeod, J. D. and K. Kaiser (2004). Childhood Emotional and Behavioral Problems and Educa-
tional Attainment. American Sociological Review 69(5), 636–658.
Miech, R. A., A. Caspi, T. E. Moffitt, B. R. E. Wright, and P. A. Silva (1999). Low Socioeconomic
Status and Mental Disorders: A Longitudinal Study of Selection and Causation during Young
Adulthood. American Journal of Sociology 104(4), 1096–1131.
Niclasen, J., T. W. Teasdale, A.-M. N. Andersen, A. M. Skovgaard, H. Elberling, and C. Obel
(2012, 02). Psychometric Properties of the Danish Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire: The
SDQ Assessed for More than 70,000 Raters in Four Different Cohorts. PLoS ONE 7(2), e32025.
Obel, C., E. Heiervang, A. Rodriguez, S. Heyerdahl, H. Smedje, A. Sourander, l. O. Guõmunds-
son, J. Clench-Aas, E. Christensen, F. Heian, K. S. Mathiesen, P. Magnússon, U. Njarõvík,
M. Koskelainen, J. A. Rønning, K. Stormark, and J. Olsen (2004). The Strengths and Diffi-
culties Questionnaire in the Nordic Countries. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 13,
ii32–ii39.
35
Pastor, P. N. and C. A. Reuben (2008). Diagnosed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and
Learning Disability: United States, 2004-2006. Technical Report 237, National Center for
Health Statistics.
Polanczyk, G., M. de Lima, B. Horta, J. Biederman, and L. Rohde (2007). The Worldwide Preva-
lence of ADHD: A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis. American Journal of Psy-
chiatry 164(6), 942–948.
Raven, J., J. C. Raven, and J. H. Court (2004). Manual for Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices
and Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, Texas: Harcourt Assessment.
Ørum, B. (1971). Social Baggrund, Intellektuelt Niveau og Placering i Skolesystemet. Copen-
hagen: The Danish National Centre for Social Research.
Schatz, D. B. and A. L. Rostain (2006). ADHD With Comorbid Anxiety: A Review of the Current
Literature. Journal of Attention Disorders 10(2), 141–149.
Scheres, A., M. Dijkstra, E. Ainslie, J. Balkan, B. Reynolds, E. Sonuga-Barke, and F. X. Castel-
lanos (2006). Temporal and Probabilistic Discounting of Rewards in Children and Adolescents:
Effects of Age and ADHD Symptoms. Neuropsychologia 44(11), 2092 – 2103.
Scheres, A., C. Tontsch, A. L. Thoeny, and A. Kaczkurkin (2010). Temporal Reward Discounting
in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: The Contribution of Symptom Domains, Reward
Magnitude, and Session Length. Biological Psychiatry 67(7), 641 – 648.
Sobanski, E., T. Banaschewski, P. Asherson, J. Buitelaar, W. Chen, B. Franke, M. Holtmann,
B. Krumm, J. Sergeant, E. Sonuga-Barke, A. Stringaris, E. Taylor, R. Anney, R. P. Ebstein,
M. Gill, A. Miranda, F. Mulas, R. D. Oades, H. Roeyers, A. Rothenberger, H.-C. Steinhausen,
36
and S. V. Faraone (2010). Emotional Lability in Children and Adolescents with Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Clinical Correlates and Familial Prevalence. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 51(8), 915–923.
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., E. Taylor, S. Sembi, and J. Smith (1992). Hyperactivity and delay aversion
- i. the effect of delay on choice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 33(2), 387–398.
Thorell, L. B. (2007). Do Delay Aversion and Executive Function Deficits Make Distinct Con-
tributions to the Functional Impact of ADHD Symptoms? A Study of Early Academic Skill
Deficits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 48(11), 1061–1070.
Wehmeier, P. M., A. Schacht, and R. A. Barkley (2010). Social and Emotional Impairment in
Children and Adolescents with ADHD and the Impact on Quality of Life. Journal of Adolescent
Health 46(3), 209 – 217.
Wilson, V. B., S. H. Mitchell, E. D. Musser, C. F. Schmitt, and J. T. Nigg (2011). Delay Dis-
counting of Reward in ADHD: Application in Young Children. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 52(3), 256–264.
Winstanley, C. A., D. M. Eagle, and T. W. Robbins (2006). Behavioral Models of Impulsivity in
Relation to ADHD: Translation Between Clinical and Preclinical Studies. Clinical Psychology
Review 26(4), 379 – 395.
37
Table 1: Level of hyperactivity/ inattention for children aged 7 and 11.
Hyperactivity/ inattention age 11
Hyperactivity/ inattention age 7 Normal level ofhyperactivity/ inattention
Abnormal level ofhyperactivity/ inattention Total
Normal level ofhyperactivity/ inattention 96.28 3.72 100
Abnormal level ofhyperactivity/ inattention 59.85 40.15 100
N 4,093 306 4,399
38
Tabl
e2:
Mea
nsan
dSt
anda
rdde
viat
ions
.A
llR
ewar
dgr
oup
Con
trol
grou
p
NM
ean
Stan
dard
devi
atio
nN
Mea
nSt
anda
rdde
viat
ion
NM
ean
Stan
dard
devi
atio
n
Rew
ard-
grou
p4,
724
0.17
40.
379
Sex
(1=
girl
)4,
724
0.48
20.
500
823
0.48
10.
500
3,90
10.
482
0.50
0L
ogof
fam
ilyeq
uiva
lent
scal
edin
com
e4,
673
12.1
160.
432
814
12.1
170.
398
3,85
912
.116
0.43
9M
othe
r’s
Rav
en-t
est
3,87
39.
529
2.43
368
19.
562
2.38
83,
192
9.52
22.
443
Hig
hest
pare
ntal
educ
atio
nL
ower
seco
ndar
y4,
682
0.09
40.
292
818
0.08
70.
282
3,86
40.
095
0.29
4U
pper
seco
ndar
y4,
682
0.03
00.
172
818
0.02
10.
143
3,86
40.
032
0.17
7Vo
catio
nalt
rain
ing
4,68
20.
418
0.49
381
80.
416
0.49
33,
864
0.41
80.
493
Low
erte
rtia
ryed
ucat
ion
4,68
20.
077
0.26
781
80.
072
0.25
93,
864
0.07
80.
268
Inte
rmed
iate
tert
iary
educ
atio
n4,
682
0.24
20.
428
818
0.25
70.
437
3,86
40.
238
0.42
6H
ighe
rter
tiary
educ
atio
n4,
682
0.13
90.
346
818
0.14
80.
355
3,86
40.
138
0.34
5M
othe
r’s
mar
itals
tatu
sin
2007
Nuc
lear
fam
ily4,
692
0.70
70.
455
818
0.73
60.
441
3,87
40.
701
0.45
8M
othe
rliv
ing
with
new
part
ner
4,69
20.
123
0.32
981
80.
112
0.31
63,
874
0.12
60.
332
Sing
lem
othe
r4,
692
0.17
00.
375
818
0.15
20.
359
3,87
40.
173
0.37
9Sc
ore
onat
tain
men
ttes
tsL
angu
age
scor
e4,
655
20.9
555.
158
807
21.3
544.
958
3,84
820
.872
5.19
6C
HIP
S-sc
ore
4,70
929
.082
5.38
581
929
.358
5.49
73,
890
29.0
245.
360
Rav
en-s
core
atag
e15
3,94
68.
303
2.13
769
18.
359
2.13
23,
255
8.29
12.
138
Aver
age
scor
eon
SDQ
,ata
ges
7an
d11
Em
otio
nalp
robl
ems
4,72
32.
132
1.73
682
32.
043
1.72
63,
900
2.15
11.
738
Hyp
erac
tivity
/ina
ttent
ion
4,72
32.
662
2.24
582
32.
547
2.11
13,
900
2.68
62.
272
39
Table 3: Linear probability model of allocation into reward and control group.
Independent variable Reward groupReward group
balanced sample
Sex (1= girl) 0.002 0.004
(0.013) (0.013)
Log of family equivalent scaled income -0.026 -0.023
(0.018) (0.018)
Highest parental education
Lower secondary (ref.)
Upper secondary -0.053 -0.056
(0.043) (0.043)
Vocational training 0.004 0.001
(0.025) (0.026)
Lower tertiary education -0.016 -0.022
(0.033) (0.033)
Intermediate tertiary education 0.005 -0.003
(0.027) (0.028)
Higher tertiary education 0.009 -0.001
(0.030) (0.031)
Mother’s marital status in 2007
Nuclear family (ref.)
Mother living with new partner -0.021 -0.020
(0.020) (0.021)
Single mother -0.040∗∗ -0.031
(0.020) (0.021)
Average score on SDQ
Emotional problems -0.005 -0.007∗
(0.004) (0.004)
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.003 -0.002
(0.003) (0.003)
Mother’s Raven-test 0.001 0.001
(0.003) (0.003)
Constant 0.501∗∗ 0.478∗∗
(0.215) (0.218)
N 3,829 3,695
Standard errors in parentheses∗ p < 0.05 , ∗∗ p < 0.01 , ∗∗∗ p < 0.001
40
Tabl
e4:
Cor
rela
tions
betw
een
mea
sure
sof
emot
iona
lpro
blem
s,hy
pera
ctiv
ity/i
natte
ntio
nan
dco
gniti
veac
hiev
emen
tte
sts.
CH
IPS-
scor
eL
angu
age-
scor
eR
aven
-tes
t
Mea
nof
emot
iona
lpr
oble
ms
age
7an
d11
Mea
nof
hype
ract
ivity
/in
atte
ntio
nag
e7
and
11
Hyp
erac
tivity
/in
atte
ntio
nag
e7
Em
otio
nal
prob
lem
sag
e7
Hyp
erac
tivity
/in
atte
ntio
nag
e11
Em
otio
nal
prob
lem
sag
e11
Mot
her’
sR
aven
-tes
t
CH
IPS-
scor
e1
Lan
guag
e-sc
ore
0.449∗∗∗
1
Rav
en-t
est
0.393∗∗∗
0.293∗∗∗
1M
ean
ofem
otio
nal
prob
lem
sat
age
7an
d11
-0.11
1∗∗∗
-0.15
8∗∗∗
-0.09
7∗∗∗
1
Mea
nof
hype
ract
ivity
/in
atte
ntio
nat
age
7an
d11
-0.20
5∗∗∗
-0.25
8∗∗∗
-0.12
6∗∗∗
0.285∗∗∗
1
Hyp
erac
tivity
/in
atte
ntio
n,ag
e7
-0.15
9∗∗∗
-0.18
9∗∗∗
-0.07
9∗∗∗
0.238∗∗∗
0.918∗∗∗
1
Em
otio
nal
prob
lem
s,ag
e7
-0.07
7∗∗∗
-0.08
7∗∗∗
-0.06∗∗∗
0.869∗∗∗
0.201∗∗∗
0.203∗∗∗
1
Hyp
erac
tivity
/in
atte
ntio
n,ag
e11
-0.20
6∗∗∗
-0.26
7∗∗∗
-0.14
7∗∗∗
0.276∗∗∗
0.906∗∗∗
0.619∗∗∗
0.148∗∗∗
1
Em
otio
nal
prob
lem
sag
e,11
-0.10
7∗∗∗
-0.17
0∗∗∗
-0.10
7∗∗∗
0.873∗∗∗
0.288∗∗∗
0.206∗∗∗
0.450∗∗∗
0.300∗∗∗
1
Mot
her’
sR
aven
-tes
t0.1
68∗∗∗
0.159∗∗∗
0.164∗∗∗
-0.03
1∗∗
-0.04
0∗∗∗
-0.03
1∗-0
.013
-0.03
8∗∗
-0.04
3∗∗∗
1∗
p<
0.1
,∗∗
p<
0.05
,∗∗∗
p<
0.01
41
Figure 1: Score on language test as a function of hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems.Separate for reward and control groups, and difference in scores between the two groups.
42
Figure 2: Score on CHIPS-test as a function of hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems.Separate for reward and control groups, and difference in scores between the two groups.
02
46
8
02
46
8
0
10
20
30
40
Mean ofEmotional Problemsat age 7 and 11
Reward group
Mean ofHyperactivity/ Inattention
at age 7 and 11
CH
IPS
−sc
ore
02
46
8
0
5
100
10
20
30
40
Mean ofEmotional Problemsat age 7 and 11
Control group
Mean ofHyperactivity/ Inattention
at age 7 and 11
CH
IPS
−sc
ore
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
01
23
45
67
89
−10
−5
0
5
10
Mean ofEmotional Problemsat age 7 and 11
Difference in scores for Reward & Control group
Mean ofHyperactivity/ Inattention
at age 7 and 11
CH
IPS
−sc
ore
43
Figure 3: Score on the C set of the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrix at age 15 as a functionof hyperactivity/ inattention and emotional problems. Separate for reward and control groups, anddifference in scores between the two groups.
02
46
8
02
46
8
0
5
10
15
Mean ofEmotional Problemsat age 7 and 11
Reward group
Mean ofHyperactivity/ Inattention
at age 7 and 11
Rav
en−
scor
e
02
46
8
0
5
100
5
10
15
Mean ofEmotional Problemsat age 7 and 11
Control group
Mean ofHyperactivity/ Inattention
at age 7 and 11
Rav
en−
scor
e
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
01
23
45
67
89
−10
−5
0
5
10
Mean ofEmotional Problemsat age 7 and 11
Difference in scores for Reward & Control group
Mean ofHyperactivity/ Inattention
at age 7 and 11
Rav
en−
scor
e
44
Table 5: Results of OLS regressions on language comprehension test. Full sample and modelswith children with hyperactivity/ inattention and different configurations of emotional problems.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Fullsample
Fullsample
Fullsample
withinteractions
Emotionalproblems=0
Emotionalproblems=1
Emotionalproblems=2
Emotionalproblems=3
Emotionalproblems=4
Emotionalproblems=5
Independent variables Language Language Language Language Language Language Language Language Language
Reward group 0.483∗∗ 0.371∗ 0.539 1.969 1.119 -1.079 1.292 1.052 -0.521(0.200) (0.192) (0.461) (1.481) (1.287) (1.234) (1.194) (1.528) (2.615)
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.271∗∗∗ -0.222∗∗∗
(0.044) (0.077)Emotional problems -0.539∗∗∗ -0.536∗∗∗
(0.034) (0.058)Reward*Emotional problems -0.006
(0.018)Reward*Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.186
(0.191)Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention 0.070
(0.148)Reward*Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention 0.006
(0.046)Constant 20.872∗∗∗ 22.881∗∗∗ 22.812∗∗∗ 18.914∗∗∗ 19.381∗∗∗ 19.338∗∗∗ 19.250∗∗∗ 18.226∗∗∗ 18.188∗∗∗
(0.083) (0.137) (0.191) (0.705) (0.429) (0.498) (0.462) (0.615) (0.766)Adjusted R2 0.001 0.074 0.074 0.010 -0.001 -0.001 0.001 -0.005 -0.014N 4,655 4,654 4,654 75 198 166 160 111 70Standard errors in parentheses∗ p < 0.1 , ∗∗ p < 0.05 , ∗∗∗ p < 0.01
45
Table 6: Results of OLS regressions on language comprehension test. Full sample and modelswith children with hyperactivity/ inattention and different configurations of emotional problems.With controls.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Fullsample
Fullsample
withinteractions
Emotionalproblems=0
Emotionalproblems=1
Emotionalproblems=2
Emotionalproblems=3
Emotionalproblems=4
Emotionalproblems=5
Independent variables Language Language Language Language Language Language Language Language
Reward group 0.409∗∗ 0.404 1.056 1.261 -1.265 0.884 2.271 -0.016(0.201) (0.481) (1.398) (1.392) (1.317) (1.299) (1.945) (2.929)
Sex (1=girl) 0.860∗∗∗ 0.865∗∗∗ 2.201 0.300 0.803 1.591∗ 1.504 2.727(0.155) (0.156) (1.634) (0.951) (0.998) (0.937) (1.459) (1.890)
Log of familyequivalent scaled income
0.548∗∗ 0.552∗∗ 2.669 0.152 -0.139 1.647 0.637 1.526(0.218) (0.219) (2.115) (1.296) (1.327) (1.491) (1.944) (2.064)
Highest parental educationLower secondary (ref.)Upper secondary 2.316∗∗∗ 2.320∗∗∗ 2.986 3.727 2.472 -2.338 -4.151 2.815
(0.527) (0.527) (3.839) (2.640) (2.821) (2.601) (6.515) (4.975)Vocational training 1.151∗∗∗ 1.146∗∗∗ 1.174 0.762 0.526 0.868 -1.657 -0.670
(0.314) (0.314) (2.014) (1.726) (1.558) (1.359) (2.076) (2.619)Lower tertiary education 1.612∗∗∗ 1.603∗∗∗ -1.492 1.497 -2.239 -0.230 -4.675 4.650
(0.406) (0.406) (3.780) (2.123) (2.198) (1.885) (3.317) (4.247)Intermediate tertiary education 2.086∗∗∗ 2.081∗∗∗ 2.359 4.267∗∗ 3.374∗ -0.369 2.142 0.742
(0.337) (0.338) (2.210) (1.965) (2.003) (1.660) (2.450) (3.217)Higher tertiary education 3.358∗∗∗ 3.359∗∗∗ 1.030 5.300∗∗ 3.255 4.504∗∗ 1.638 2.570
(0.374) (0.374) (2.497) (2.266) (2.545) (2.011) (3.027) (3.705)Mother’s marital status in 2007Nuclear family (ref.)Mother living with new partner 0.425∗ 0.420∗ 4.527∗ -0.018 0.740 -0.397 0.616 -3.772
(0.251) (0.251) (2.331) (1.404) (1.382) (1.207) (1.767) (2.811)Single mother 0.705∗∗∗ 0.712∗∗∗ 0.196 0.767 -0.289 2.078 1.243 -0.023
(0.249) (0.250) (2.419) (1.470) (1.429) (1.431) (2.010) (2.410)Mother’s Raven-test 0.249∗∗∗ 0.248∗∗∗ 0.203 0.199 0.771∗∗∗ 0.450∗ 0.427 0.756
(0.032) (0.032) (0.254) (0.202) (0.217) (0.252) (0.258) (0.644)Emotional problems -0.405∗∗∗ -0.401∗∗∗
(0.037) (0.063)Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.265∗∗∗ -0.224∗∗∗
(0.047) (0.082)Reward*Emotional problems -0.075
(0.200)Reward*Hyperactivity/ inattention 0.107
(0.153)Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.005
(0.020)Reward*Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.019
(0.048)Constant 11.435∗∗∗ 11.326∗∗∗ -16.659 13.699 12.952 -6.162 6.314 -8.186
(2.665) (2.672) (25.843) (15.539) (15.917) (17.726) (23.141) (25.282)
N 3,776 3,776 61 159 137 129 87 53Adjusted R2 0.132 0.132 0.034 0.059 0.117 0.093 0.044 0.007Standard errors in parentheses∗ p < 0.1 , ∗∗ p < 0.05 , ∗∗∗ p < 0.01
46
Table 7: Results of OLS regressions on CHIPS-test. Full sample and models with children withhyperactivity/ inattention and different configurations of emotional problems.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Fullsample
Fullsample
Fullsample
withinteractions
Emotionalproblems=0
Emotionalproblems=1
Emotionalproblems=2
Emotionalproblems=3
Emotionalproblems=4
Emotionalproblems=5
Independent variables CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS
Reward group 0.333 0.253 0.012 3.510∗∗∗ 0.045 -1.021 -0.469 -0.368 -4.812(0.207) (0.203) (0.486) (1.286) (1.463) (1.089) (1.407) (1.620) (2.993)
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.451∗∗∗ -0.399∗∗∗
(0.036) (0.061)Emotional problems -0.163∗∗∗ -0.094
(0.046) (0.081)Reward*Emotional problems 0.227
(0.201)Reward*Hyperactivity/ inattention 0.152
(0.155)Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.016
(0.019)Reward*Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.096∗∗
(0.048)Constant 29.024∗∗∗ 30.587∗∗∗ 30.409∗∗∗ 27.254∗∗∗ 27.781∗∗∗ 28.021∗∗∗ 27.617∗∗∗ 26.737∗∗∗ 26.955∗∗∗
(0.086) (0.144) (0.202) (0.608) (0.495) (0.437) (0.564) (0.661) (0.921)Adjusted R2 0.000 .0.044 0.045 0.079 -0.005 -0.001 -0.005 -0.008 0.021N 4,709 4,708 4,708 76 201 174 168 114 74Standard errors in parentheses∗ p < 0.1 , ∗∗ p < 0.05 , ∗∗∗ p < 0.01
47
Table 8: Results of OLS regressions on CHIPS-test. Full sample and models with children withhyperactivity/ inattention and different configurations of emotional problems. With controls.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Fullsample
Fullsample
withinteractions
Emotionalproblems=0
Emotionalproblems=1
Emotionalproblems=2
Emotionalproblems=3
Emotionalproblems=4
Emotionalproblems=5
Independent variables CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS
Reward group 0.372∗ -0.411 2.906∗∗ 0.572 0.572 -1.175 -0.933 -1.183(0.214) (0.513) (1.436) (1.583) (1.583) (1.568) (2.067) (3.310)
Sex (1=girl) 0.882∗∗∗ 0.896∗∗∗ 2.892∗ 0.524 0.524 2.177∗ 1.148 -1.327(0.166) (0.166) (1.676) (1.103) (1.103) (1.149) (1.584) (2.100)
Log of familyequivalent scaled income 0.332 0.367 1.001 1.920 1.920 0.648 -1.120 1.299
(0.233) (0.234) (2.166) (1.505) (1.505) (1.831) (2.124) (2.322)Highest parental educationLower secondary (ref.)Upper secondary 1.296∗∗ 1.249∗∗ 2.557 3.031 3.031 -2.347 -7.720 5.716
(0.561) (0.561) (3.947) (3.085) (3.085) (2.975) (7.171) (5.698)Vocational training 0.580∗ 0.537 3.001 2.183 2.183 -1.369 -2.717 2.842
(0.333) (0.333) (2.067) (2.009) (2.009) (1.675) (2.275) (2.821)Lower tertiary education 1.142∗∗∗ 1.111∗∗∗ -1.003 2.679 2.679 -2.143 -1.221 5.408
(0.429) (0.429) (3.887) (2.481) (2.481) (2.301) (3.657) (4.354)Intermediate tertiary education 1.129∗∗∗ 1.087∗∗∗ 2.994 3.833∗ 3.833∗ -0.157 -1.612 0.900
(0.358) (0.358) (2.273) (2.296) (2.296) (2.052) (2.697) (3.525)Higher tertiary education 2.043∗∗∗ 2.020∗∗∗ 1.368 4.300 4.300 1.213 -0.316 3.908
(0.397) (0.397) (2.566) (2.614) (2.614) (2.488) (3.327) (4.158)Mother’s marital status in 2007Nuclear family (ref.)Mother living with new partner 0.134 0.120 1.503 2.576 2.576 0.041 1.062 -0.330
(0.268) (0.267) (2.394) (1.635) (1.635) (1.482) (1.927) (3.001)Single mother 0.365 0.370 -1.655 2.324 2.324 1.995 1.301 0.964
(0.266) (0.266) (2.482) (1.705) (1.705) (1.765) (2.188) (2.631)Mother’s Raven test 0.312∗∗∗ 0.313∗∗∗ 0.041 0.340 0.340 0.709∗∗ 0.319 1.777∗∗∗
(0.034) (0.034) (0.261) (0.236) (0.236) (0.307) (0.285) (0.573)Emotional problems -0.325∗∗∗ -0.276∗∗∗
(0.040) (0.067)Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.162∗∗∗ -0.115
(0.050) (0.088)Reward*Emotional problems 0.472∗∗
(0.213)Reward*Hyperactivity/ inattention 0.260
(0.162)Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.016
(0.021)Reward*Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.134∗∗∗
(0.050)Constant 21.986∗∗∗ 21.444∗∗∗ 12.660 -1.822 -1.822 13.085 39.013 -7.748
(2.849) (2.852) (26.457) (18.041) (18.041) (21.777) (25.266) (28.687)
N 3,817 3,817 62 163 163 132 90 56Adjusted R2 0.082 0.084 0.001 0.011 0.011 0.031 .-0.043 0.109Standard errors in parentheses∗ p < 0.1 , ∗∗ p < 0.05 , ∗∗∗ p < 0.01
48
Table 9: Results of OLS regressions on Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrix at age 15. Full sampleand models with children with hyperactivity/ inattention and different configurations of emotionalproblems.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Fullsample
Fullsample
Fullsample
withinteractions
Emotionalproblems=0
Emotionalproblems=1
Emotionalproblems=2
Emotionalproblems=3
Emotionalproblems=4
Emotionalproblems=5
Independent variablesRaven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15
Reward group 0.070 0.030 0.298 0.475 -0.225 -0.052 -1.034∗ -1.186 -0.075(0.088) (0.087) (0.207) (0.546) (0.629) (0.506) (0.539) (0.715) (0.861)
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.107∗∗∗ -0.073∗∗∗
(0.016) (0.027)Emotional problems -0.091∗∗∗ -0.052
(0.020) (0.035)Reward*Emotional problems -0.046
(0.086)Reward*Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.069
(0.066)Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.010
(0.009)Reward*Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention 0.000
(0.021)Constant 8.235∗∗∗ 8.717∗∗∗ 8.608∗∗∗ 8.125∗∗∗ 7.975∗∗∗ 7.822∗∗∗ 7.817∗∗∗ 7.936∗∗∗ 7.932∗∗∗
(0.037) (0.063) (0.087) (0.280) (0.212) (0.207) (0.216) (0.295) (0.280)Adjusted R2 -0.000 0.020 0.021 -0.003 -0.005 -0.006 0.018 0.019 -0.016N 4,270 4,185 4,185 76 177 155 143 94 66Standard errors in parentheses∗ p < 0.1 , ∗∗ p < 0.05 , ∗∗∗ p < 0.01
49
Table 10: Results of OLS regressions on Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrix at age 15. Fullsample and models with children with hyperactivity/ inattention and different configurations ofemotional problems. With controls.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Fullsample
Fullsample
withinteractions
Emotionalproblems=0
Emotionalproblems=1
Emotionalproblems=2
Emotionalproblems=3
Emotionalproblems=4
Emotionalproblems=5
Independent variablesRaven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15Raven
at age 15
Reward group 0.047 0.316 0.570 -0.355 0.004 -0.974∗ -1.011 -0.019(0.087) (0.207) (0.605) (0.645) (0.527) (0.523) (0.802) (0.834)
Sex (1=girl) -0.278∗∗∗ -0.274∗∗∗ -0.254 -0.455 0.030 -0.389 -0.802 0.963∗
(0.068) (0.068) (0.704) (0.445) (0.414) (0.408) (0.614) (0.562)Log of familyequivalent scaled income 0.013 0.013 0.400 -0.895 0.710 0.104 -0.247 -0.866
(0.095) (0.095) (0.743) (0.569) (0.541) (0.651) (0.874) (0.619)Highest parental educationLower secondary (ref.)Upper secondary 0.803∗∗∗ 0.799∗∗∗ 0.186 1.769 -1.693 -1.776∗ -1.090 -0.341
(0.228) (0.228) (1.758) (1.260) (1.200) (1.018) (2.848) (2.260)Vocational training 0.458∗∗∗ 0.451∗∗∗ 0.873 0.516 0.577 -0.145 0.191 -0.109
(0.135) (0.135) (0.880) (0.814) (0.630) (0.594) (0.823) (0.807)Lower tertiary education 0.688∗∗∗ 0.677∗∗∗ 2.068 1.652 0.753 0.422 -0.206 0.418
(0.175) (0.175) (1.489) (1.025) (0.901) (0.833) (1.422) (1.233)Intermediate tertiary education 0.705∗∗∗ 0.700∗∗∗ 0.907 0.725 0.673 0.793 1.007 1.593∗
(0.145) (0.145) (0.927) (0.916) (0.779) (0.744) (1.023) (0.930)Higher tertiary education 1.198∗∗∗ 1.198∗∗∗ 0.917 0.845 0.663 -0.384 0.760 2.147∗
(0.161) (0.161) (1.056) (1.023) (1.064) (0.908) (1.305) (1.162)Mother’s marital status in 2007Nuclear family (ref.)Mother living with new partner 0.114 0.118 0.557 0.300 0.112 0.252 0.509 1.035
(0.110) (0.110) (1.057) (0.668) (0.559) (0.534) (0.757) (0.904)Single mother 0.141 0.141 -0.679 -0.075 0.605 0.414 0.657 -0.786
(0.107) (0.107) (0.828) (0.681) (0.591) (0.613) (0.842) (0.681)Mother’s Raven-test 0.119∗∗∗ 0.118∗∗∗ 0.129 0.136 0.188∗∗ 0.393∗∗∗ 0.135 0.332∗∗
(0.014) (0.014) (0.116) (0.092) (0.091) (0.108) (0.113) (0.149)Emotional problems -0.091∗∗∗ -0.052∗
(0.016) (0.027)Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.080∗∗∗ -0.039
(0.020) (0.035)Reward*Emotional problems -0.035
(0.086)Reward*Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.083
(0.065)Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention -0.011
(0.009)Reward*Emotional problems*
Hyperactivity/ inattention 0.002
(0.021)Constant 6.858∗∗∗ 6.752∗∗∗ 1.405 16.985∗∗ -3.153 2.823 9.337 14.374∗
(1.153) (1.156) (9.050) (6.737) (6.502) (7.732) (10.386) (7.649)
N 3,969 3,969 70 168 151 137 93 61Adjusted R2 0.066 0.067 -0.064 .-0.005 0.016 0.113 0.009 0.194Standard errors in parentheses∗ p < 0.1 , ∗∗ p < 0.05 , ∗∗∗ p < 0.01
50