multidimensional model of assessment of economic … omar fernando cortés peña et al. / procedia -...

6
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1623 – 1628 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect 1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.638 WCES 2014 Multidimensional Model of Assessment of Economic Thinking in College Students Omar Fernando Cortés Peña a *, Raimundo Abello Llanos Ph.D. b , Marianela Denegri Coria Ph.D. c , Andrés Manuel Pérez-Acosta Ph.D. d a COLCIENCIAS, National Doctoral Program. Universidad del Norte, Doctoral Program in Psychology. Corporación Universidad de la Costa – CUC, Faculty of Psychology, Editor of Journal Cultura Educación Sociedad – CES, Calle 58 # 55-66, Barranquilla Colombia. b Director of Research, Development and Innovation, Group for Research in Human Development, Universidad del Norte, Colombia. c Director of the Center for Economic and Consumer Psychology, CEPEC-UFRO, Universidad de la Frontera, Chile. d Director of Journal Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, E. C. Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Colombia. Abstract The Economic Thinking in undergraduates is a strategic aspect of research in the framework of higher education, given its critical impact on the development of skills and professional standards expected in front of the Scientific and Technological Innovation. The main contribution of this study focuses on the development of a Multidimensional Model of Assessment of Economic Thinking, from the perspective of Self-Organizing Systems. The methodology has an approach empirical-analytic. In relation to the instruments and results correspond to a perspective of Adaptative System based in Item Response Theory (IRT), Complexity Theory and Fractal Models (L-system) about the competence in solving economic problems, knowledge of financial aspects, responsible consumption, sustainable development, and the attitudes to understanding the economic world. Keywords: Economic Thinking; Economic Socialization Model; Perspective Theory; Complexity Theory; Self-Organized Systems; Item Theory Response (IRT); Computerized Adaptive Test; Chaos Theory; Fractal Models. 1. Introduction The theoretical basis of this proposal which involves an approximation of conceptual and empirical integration are: Economic Socialization Model of Denegri (Denegri et al., 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011), Bounded Rationality Theory in Social Science (Simon, 2000), the advances in Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky 1992), research in * Omar Fernando Cortés Peña. Tel.: +57 (5) 3362207; Fax: +57 (5) 3362200. E-mail address: [email protected] © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014

Upload: trandien

Post on 01-Nov-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 1623 – 1628

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.638

WCES 2014

Multidimensional Model of Assessment of Economic Thinking in College Students

Omar Fernando Cortés Peñaa *, Raimundo Abello Llanos Ph.D.b, Marianela Denegri Coria Ph.D.c, Andrés Manuel Pérez-Acosta Ph.D.d

a COLCIENCIAS, National Doctoral Program. Universidad del Norte, Doctoral Program in Psychology. Corporación Universidad de la Costa – CUC, Faculty of Psychology, Editor of Journal Cultura Educación Sociedad – CES, Calle 58 # 55-66, Barranquilla – Colombia.

b Director of Research, Development and Innovation, Group for Research in Human Development, Universidad del Norte, Colombia. c Director of the Center for Economic and Consumer Psychology, CEPEC-UFRO, Universidad de la Frontera, Chile.

d Director of Journal Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, E. C. Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Colombia.

Abstract The Economic Thinking in undergraduates is a strategic aspect of research in the framework of higher education, given its critical impact on the development of skills and professional standards expected in front of the Scientific and Technological Innovation. The main contribution of this study focuses on the development of a Multidimensional Model of Assessment of Economic Thinking, from the perspective of Self-Organizing Systems. The methodology has an approach empirical-analytic. In relation to the instruments and results correspond to a perspective of Adaptative System based in Item Response Theory (IRT), Complexity Theory and Fractal Models (L-system) about the competence in solving economic problems, knowledge of financial aspects, responsible consumption, sustainable development, and the attitudes to understanding the economic world. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014.

Keywords: Economic Thinking; Economic Socialization Model; Perspective Theory; Complexity Theory; Self-Organized Systems; Item Theory Response (IRT); Computerized Adaptive Test; Chaos Theory; Fractal Models.

1. Introduction

The theoretical basis of this proposal which involves an approximation of conceptual and empirical integration are: Economic Socialization Model of Denegri (Denegri et al., 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011), Bounded Rationality Theory in Social Science (Simon, 2000), the advances in Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky 1992), research in

* Omar Fernando Cortés Peña. Tel.: +57 (5) 3362207; Fax: +57 (5) 3362200.

E-mail address: [email protected]

© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014

1624 Omar Fernando Cortés Peña et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 1623 – 1628

Self-organizing Economy and Consumer Expertise of Krugman (1996, 2000, 2006) on the impact of trust and expertise in consumer behavior and dynamic settings, and their contributions on self-organizing nonlinear systems in economy. Loewenstein’s research (Loewenstein, 1988; Loewenstein & Prelec, 1992; Hsee, Loewenstein, Blount & Bazerman, 1999; Frederick, Loewenstein & O'Donoghue, 2002; Berns, Laibson & Loewenstein, 2007) on the intertemporal analysis applied in the processes of decision and choice and the temporal discounting function in terms of economic behavior impact. Finally, the research about the analysis of intelligent consumer behavior beyond the free-will from the perspective of Sandoval, Caycedo & López (2008). The Figure 1, presents an integrated approach of the main references mentioned.

Fig. 1. Theory and Referents of Multidimensional Model of Economic Thinking Source: Authors

From the perspective of Economic Socialization Model of Denegri et al (2005) in the figure 2, in Colombia has

been identified, as a central antecedent the study of Amar, Abello, Denegri & Llanos (2007) about "Economic Thinking in College Students". It was found that only 24% of students reached the level of inferential economic thinking and no difference compared to the academic program to which they belong, as well as the fact that the group presents a difference compared to the level of economic thinking, in comparison with the international context. Other applications of the model in understanding the economic world are identified in the studies of Gempp et al. (2007), Amar, Abello, Denegri, Llanos & Suarez (2008) and Herrera et al. (2011).

Fig. 2. Economic Socialization Model Source: Denegri (2005). http://www.psicologiaeconomica.com.

Medina & Sandoval (2011, p.436) about of Behavioral Perspective Model suggest that “From original BPM model remains a radical behavioral view of general behavior explanation and the purchase behavior in particular, namely: (a) an interactionist view behavior - environment, from strengthening and / or weakening of behavior, and (b) a level of analysis focuses on the situatedness and historicity as key factors for the prediction and control of human behavior and technology development that implies for that (Foxall, 2007)”, (see fig. 3).

MULTIDIMENSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

ECONOMIC THINKING (CORTES, 2010 - 2014)

ECONOMIC MODELS SELF-ORGANIZED SYSTEMS AND

CONSUMER EXPERTISE (KRUGMAN, 2000 - 2008)

INTELLIGENT CONSUMER BEHAVIOR (SANDOVAL, CAYCEDO

& LOPEZ, 2008)

INTERTEMPORAL CHOICE AND TEMPORAL

DISCOUNTING FUNCTION (LOEWENSTEIN, 1999 -

2007)

MAXIMIZATION ECONOMIC MODELS

BOUNDED RATIONALITY THEORY

SIMON (1978 - 2000)

ECONOMIC SOCIALIZATION MODEL (DENEGRI ET AL., 1997 -

2004)

CLASSIC MODELS VS.

NEOCLASSICAL MODELS

PROSPECT THEORY (KAHNEMAN &

TVERSKY, 1981, 1987, 1992)

1625 Omar Fernando Cortés Peña et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 1623 – 1628

Fig. 3. Behavioral Perspective Model (BPM)

Source: Medina & Sandoval (2011, p.432), Modified of original source in Foxall (2007); Foxall (2009).

From the theoretical and empirical referents presented below is illustrated in Figure 4, the Multidimensional Model of Assessment of Economic Thinking; with its key components of cognitive skills in macro and micro problems solving, knowledge about financial aspects, responsible consumption and sustainable development, and attitudes to understanding the economic world (Cortés, 2011).

Fig. 4. Multidimensional Model of Assessment of Economic Thinking

Source: Authors Within the theoretical and methodological articulation in the Multidimensional Model of Assessment of

Economic Thinking, has joined the analytical perspective derived from Complexity Theory and the Self-organized systems, represented in the figure 5 (Goldstein, 1998; Morin, 2007; Schneider & Sorners 2006; Barberousse, 2008).

Fig. 5. Mathematical and Scientific Roots of Emergence

Source: Goldstein (1998, p. 55)

In addition Bloch (2012) provides new arguments that strengthen the present study, with your approach from complexity theory and chaos theory in front the analysis of fractals and nonlinear dynamics, for explain the implications in the practice and research in psychology. In this case, within of geometrics models has been identified the explanatory potential of fractal "L-System, designed by Aristid Lindenmayer in 1968 to model cell development.

1626 Omar Fernando Cortés Peña et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 1623 – 1628

In this model, the cells are represented by symbols and cell subdivision is modelled by replacing these symbols with strings of symbols" (McWorter, 1997, p.1, see fig. 6).

Fig. 6. L-system or Lindenmayer System. Lindenmayer (1968)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-system#Examples_of_L-systems

2. Methodology

The methodological approach was developed with an approach empirical-analytic. The central instrument of pilot phase is the "Multidimensional Scale of Assessment of Economic Thinking (MSAET)" (Cortés, Denegri, Abello & Pérez-Acosta, 2011) with a pilot sample of 100 college students. This instrument was designed from the Scales of attitudes towards money, debt patterns, habits and practices of consumption, cognitive skills in economic problems solving and an adjusted version of TAE (Denegri et al., 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011). The results correspond to the pilot phase a perspective of Adaptative System based in Item Response Theory (Rasch, 1963; Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1983; Avendaño & Medellín, 2001; Reise, Ainsworth, & Haviland, 2005; Cortés, 2008), Computerized Adaptive Test (Van der Linden & Glass, 2007; Van der Linden, 2008), Complexity Theory and Fractal Models (L-System and Fractional Brownian Motion).

3. Results

The results of pilot phase includes the psychometric analysis from IRT and an analysis derived from Fractal Models from the perspective of L-system, designed to illustrate the multidimensional perspective of functional integration of the components of Economic Thinking of college students develop. The figure 7, illustrates the Test Characteristic Curve with a Logyt Function from the framework of IRT.

Fig. 7. Test Characteristic Curve

Source: Authors Figures 8 and 9, were derived from the pilot phase with the CONQUEST software and to identify the fractal

nature exhibiting the characteristic curves within the alternatives of the items, and the joint analysis of the information functions of the items (Logyt (Ɵ), Normal (Ƶ) and Fractional Brownian Motion in Fractal Dimension).

1627 Omar Fernando Cortés Peña et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 1623 – 1628

Fig. 8. Characteristic Curve(s) by Score Source: Authors

Fig. 9. Item Information Function

Source: Authors

Finally, the figure 10 illustrates the diagram of performance adjusted from Computerized Adaptive Test, applied to set of 32 items of assessment of economic thinking. In the implementation of the CAT, all subjects have the same starting point, but each of them has a particular route of his performance than traditional measurement methods. The diagram identifies approximate L-System fractal model.

Fig. 10. Diagram of Performance in Computerized Adaptive Test Applied to Economic Thinking

Source: Authors

4. Conclusion

The multidimensional assessment of economic thinking is a constant challenge facing the integration of theory and practice in psychology, from an interdisciplinary perspective with implications and new approaches a level epistemological, conceptual, methodological and analytical. In this sense, the use of the fractal models allows the generation of functional alternatives for interpretation and understanding of the results of psychological measurement and assessment in the horizon of economic behavior.

Acknowledgements The authors thank to National Doctoral Program COLCIENCIAS, Universidad del Norte, Universidad de la Frontera, Universidad del Rosario, Corporación Universidad de la Costa, WCES - 2014 Organizing Committee, to the experts from different disciplines who have contributed to the development of the research project, and finally to their families for their invaluable support. References

Amar J., Abello R., Denegri M., & Llanos M. (2007). Pensamiento Económico en Jóvenes Universitarios. Revista Latinoamericana de

Psicología. 39 (2), 363 – 373. Amar J., Abello R., Denegri M., Llanos M., & Suarez R. (2008). Estrategias de Socialización Económica en Padres de Familia. Revista de

Economía del Caribe, 1, 156 – 183. Avendaño, B., & Medellín, E. (2001). Consideraciones sobre las teorías de medición: un ejemplo de aplicación bajo la Teoría de Respuesta al

Ítem. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 5, 87-98.

1628 Omar Fernando Cortés Peña et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 1623 – 1628

Barberousse P. (2008). Fundamentos Teóricos del Pensamiento Complejo de Edgar Morin. Revista Electrónica Educare, 12(2), 95-113. Berns, G., Laibson, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Intertemporal choice - toward an integrative framework. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 482-

488. Bloch D. (2012). Complexity, Chaos, and Nonlinear Dynamics: A New Perspective on Career Development Theory. The Career Development

Quarterly, 53(3), 194-207. Doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2005.tb00990.x. Cortés O. (2008). Aportes de la Teoría de Respuesta al Ítem y los Modelos de Caos y Fractales en el Diseño de Test Adaptativos Informatizados.

Conference in Methods of Measurement and Assessment Applied. Konrad Lorenz Fundación Universitaria, Bogotá: Colombia. Cortés, O. (2011). Comportamiento proambiental y pensamiento económico en la construcción del desarrollo sostenible. Cultura, Educación,

Sociedad – CES, 2(1), 43-55. Denegri M. (2005). Introducción a la Psicología Económica. Retrieved from: http://www.psicologiaeconomica.com Denegri M., & Palavecinos M. (2003). Género y Alfabetización Económica. Psicología desde el Caribe, 12, 76 – 97. Denegri M., Lara M., Córdova G., & Del Valle C. (2008). Prácticas de Ahorro y Uso del Dinero en Preadolescentes Chilenos. Revista

Universum, 23(1), 24 - 38. Denegri M., Palavecinos M., Gempp R., & Caprile C. (2005). Socialização econômica em famílias chilenas de classe média: ¿educando cidadãos

ou consumidores? Psicologia & Sociedade. 17 (2), pp. 88-98. Foxall, G. (2009). Interpreting consumer choice: The Behavioral Perspective Model. Routledge Interpretive Marketing Research, Vol. 10.

Abingdon: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. Foxall, G., Oliveira-Castro, J., James, V., & Schrezenmaier, T. (2007). Consumer Behaviour Analysis and the Behavioural Perspective Model.

Management Online Review. Retrieved from: http://www.morexpertise.com/browse_articles.php?cat=1&page=13. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic

Literature. 40, 351-401. Gempp, R., Denegri, M., Caripan, N., Catalán, V., Hermosilla, S., & Caprile, C. (2007). Desarrollo del test de alfabetización económica para

adultos: TAE-A-25. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 41(3), 275-284. Goldstein J. (1998). Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49-72. Hambleton R., & Swaminathan H. (1983). Item Response Theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Herrera M., Estrada C., & Denegri (2011) La alfabetización económica, hábitos de consumo, actitud hacia el endeudamiento y su relación con el

bienestar psicológico en funcionarios públicos de la ciudad de punta arenas. MAGALLANIA, 39(1), 83-92. Hsee, C., Loewenstein, G., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review

and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125 (5), 576-590. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.576. Krugman, P. (1996). The Self-Organizing Economy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Krugman, P. (2000). How complicated does the Model Have to Be? Oxford Review Economic Policy, 16(4), 33-42. Krugman, P., & Wells R. (2006). Economics, New York: Worth Publishers. Loewenstein, G. (1988). Frames of mind in intertemporal choice. Management Science, 34, 200-214. Loewenstein, G., & Prelec D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics,

107(2), 573-597. McWorter W. (1997). Fractint L-Systems Definition. Retrieved from: http://www.nahee.com/spanky/www/fractint/lsys/define.html. Medina, I., & Sandoval, M. (2011). Behavioral Perspective Model: Conceptual Analysis and Review. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología,

43(3), 429 – 441. Morin, E. (2007). Complejidad restringida y Complejidad generalizada o las complejidades de la Complejidad. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana,

12(38), 107-119. Rasch G. (1963). Probabilistic Models for some intelligence and attainment test. Copenhague: Denmarks Paedagogiske Institut. Reise, S., Ainsworth, A., & Haviland, M. (2005). Item Response Theory: Fundamentals, Applications and Promise in Psychological Research.

American Psychological Society, 14 (2), 95 – 101. Sandoval, M., Caycedo, C., & López-López, W. (2008). El consumo inteligente más allá del libre albedrío: una visión desde el autocontrol.

FOCAD. 3ed. Retrieved: http://www.morellpsicologia.com/guias/007-FOCAD-01.pdf. Schneider M., & Sorners M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of Complexity Theory for leadership research. The

Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 351–365. Doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006. Simon H. (2000). Bounded Rationality in Social Science: Today and Tomorrow. Mind & Society, 1(1), 25 – 39. Tversky A., & Kahneman D. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainly. Journal of Risk and Uncertainly,

5, 297 – 323. Van der Linden J. (2008). Using Response Times for Item Selection in Adaptive Testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33

(1), 5-20. Doi: 10.3102/1076998607302626. Van der Linden J., & Glass A. (2007). Statistical Aspects of Adaptive Testing. Handbook of Statistics, 26, 25 – 38. Doi: 10.1016/S0169-

7161(06)26025-5.