The Impact of Peers with Severe Sickness Experience on Students’ Mental Health

Liping Chen; Jiada Lin; Zhihan Zhou

doi:10.1515/bejeap-2024-0334

40% Rabatt

auf Fachbücher bei De Gruyter Brill *

Artikel

The Impact of Peers with Severe Sickness Experience on Students’ Mental Health

Liping Chen , Jiada Lin und Zhihan Zhou

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 18. November 2025

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet

Aus der Zeitschrift The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

Abstract

This study, using data from the China Education Panel Survey, examines the impact of peers with severe sickness experience within the classroom on the mental health of middle school students. To address endogeneity issues and establish causal inference, we focus on a sample of schools where students are randomly assigned to classes. Our results indicate that a one standard deviation increase in the share of peers with severe sickness experience in the classroom reduces students’ standardized indexes of mental health by 0.07 standard deviations. To explore potential mechanisms, we examine the classroom environment and teachers’ teaching behavior. Our findings indicate that exposure to peers with severe sickness experience deteriorates the classroom environment, but no significant effect is found on teachers’ teaching behavior.

Keywords: mental health; peer effect; severe sickness experience; random class assignment

JEL Classifications: I15; I25; J13

Corresponding author: Jiada Lin, International School of Business and Finance, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China, E-mail: jiada.lin0@gmail.com

All authors are in alphabetical order and contributed equally to the paper and could be treated as the joint first author.

Funding source: National Social Science Fund of China

Award Identifier / Grant number: No. 23 & ZD183

Conflict of interest: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Research funding: This work is funded by the Major Program of the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 23 & ZD183).

Appendix A: Additional Figures and Tables

see Figures A1 and A2, Tables A1–A12.

Figure A1:

Distribution of the number and share of students with severe sickness experience. Note. Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. The figures plot the distributions of the number and share of students with severe sickness experience.

Figure A2:

Placebo test. Note. Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. The figure plots the distribution of mental health index coefficients and corresponding p-values from 1,000 regressions, each conducted after randomly reassigning the share of peers with severe sickness experience across classes within each school. The vertical dashed lines represent the baseline estimates for the corresponding outcomes (Columns 3 and 7 of Table 3).

Table A1:

Comparison of average health and academic outcomes between students with severe sickness experience and students who repeated a grade in primary school.

	Students with severe sickness experience(1)	Students who repeated a grade in primary school(2)
*Panel A. Mental health*
Average index	−0.337	−0.127
PCA index	−0.338	−0.126
*Panel B. Physical health*
Physical health (self-report)	0.576	0.685
Physical health (parents’ assessments)	0.547	0.673
Height-for-age	−0.247	−0.242
*Panel C. Test scores*
Chinese	−0.083	−0.219
Mathematics	−0.134	−0.179
English	−0.083	−0.267

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. The sample used here is identical to that in the main analysis. Variable definitions and construction details are provided in Section 3.

Table A2:

Characteristics of random sample and full CEPS sample.

	Random sample	Full CEPS sample
	(1)	(2)
Panel A. School characteristics
# of schools	63	112
Type of schools
Public school	92.06 %	92.86 %
Private school	7.94 %	7.14 %
Rank of schools
Medium and below	19.05 %	21.43 %
Top middle ranking	57.14 %	59.82 %
Top	23.81 %	18.75 %
School principal
Gender (Male = 1)	79.37 %	82.57 %
Education	5.52	5.41
Working experience	24.76	24.56
Whether school principal graduated from a normal college (Yes = 1)	100 %	99.07 %
Panel B. Class characteristics
# of classes	194	438
Head teacher characteristics
Age	37.53	37.16
Gender (Male = 1)	31.96 %	34.02 %
Education	5.44	5.39
Working experience	15.85	15.87
Marital status (Married = 1)	90.72 %	89.24 %
Student characteristics
Age	13.91	13.90
Gender (Male = 1)	49.73 %	51.53 %
Minority (Yes = 1)	10.90 %	8.73 %
Local student (Yes = 1)	81.27 %	82.04 %
Whether fathers have a college education or above (Yes = 1)	21.30 %	15.39 %
Whether mothers have a college education or above (Yes = 1)	18.49 %	12.91 %
Low-income family (Yes = 1)	15.32 %	21.31 %

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS.

Table A3:

Principal components of the mental health index.

Component	Eigenvalue	Difference	Proportion	Cumulative
Factor1	3.27	2.70	0.65	0.65
Factor2	0.57	0.11	0.11	0.77
Factor3	0.45	0.09	0.09	0.86
Factor4	0.36	0.02	0.07	0.93
Factor5	0.35		0.07	1.00

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS.

Table A4:

Contribution of each variable and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy.

Variable	Factor1	Uniqueness	KMO
Blue	0.83	0.32	0.86
Depressed	0.82	0.33	0.85
Unhappy	0.84	0.29	0.86
Perceiving life as meaningless	0.74	0.45	0.89
Sad	0.81	0.34	0.87
Overall			0.86

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS.

Table A5:

The correlation between severe sickness experience and student characteristics.

	Severe sickness experience
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)
Age	0.014**											0.010
	(0.006)											(0.006)
Gender		0.003										−0.002
		(0.006)										(0.006)
Minority			−0.002									−0.003
			(0.013)									(0.013)
Local student				0.003								0.006
				(0.009)								(0.009)
Only child					−0.002							0.000
					(0.006)							(0.007)
Owing computer						−0.016*						−0.012
						(0.009)						(0.009)
Suspension in primary school							0.125***					0.122***
							(0.023)					(0.022)
Grade repetition in primary school								0.022*				0.009
								(0.013)				(0.013)
Whether fathers have a college education or above									−0.003			0.002
									(0.008)			(0.008)
Whether mothers have a college education or above										−0.008		−0.006
										(0.008)		(0.009)
Low-income family											0.030***	0.027**
											(0.011)	(0.011)
School-grade fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
R ²	0.076	0.075	0.075	0.075	0.075	0.075	0.082	0.075	0.075	0.075	0.076	0.084
Observations	7,348	7,348	7,348	7,348	7,348	7,348	7,348	7,348	7,348	7,348	7,348	7,348

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. The dependent variable is a dummy indicating whether a student experienced severe sickness before primary school. All regressions include school-grade fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at the class level. ***, **, and *denote statistical significance at the 1 %, 5 %, and 10 % level, respectively.

Table A6:

The correlation between severe sickness experience and students’ human capital performance.

	Average index of mental health	PCA index of mental health	Physical health (self-report)	Physical health (parents’ assessments)	Height-for-age	Chinese	Mathematics	English
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)
Severe sickness experience	−0.397***	−0.397***	−0.154***	−0.179***	−0.154***	−0.097**	−0.158***	−0.098**
	(0.045)	(0.044)	(0.022)	(0.020)	(0.058)	(0.046)	(0.046)	(0.043)
School-grade fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
R ²	0.011	0.011	0.061	0.102	0.064	0.001	0.002	0.001
Observations	7,348	7,348	7,291	7,229	7,116	7,154	7,157	7,157

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. Each column presents the results from a separate regression. All regressions include school-grade fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at the class level. ***, **, and *denote statistical significance at the 1 %, 5 %, and 10 % level, respectively.

Table A7:

Permutation test.

	(1)
Age	0.472
Gender	0.476
Minority	0.246
Local student	0.461
Only child	0.478
Owning computer	0.456
Suspension in primary school	0.293
Grade repetition in primary school	0.329
Whether fathers have a college education or above	0.347
Whether mothers have a college education or above	0.335
Low-income family	0.417

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS.

Table A8:

The correlation between mental health and student characteristics.

	Average index	PCA index
	(1)	(2)
Age	−0.048**	−0.048**
	(0.021)	(0.021)
Gender	0.044*	0.049*
	(0.025)	(0.025)
Minority	−0.036	−0.037
	(0.053)	(0.053)
Local student	0.051	0.052
	(0.039)	(0.039)
Only child	0.003	0.003
	(0.029)	(0.029)
Owing computer	−0.005	−0.005
	(0.034)	(0.034)
Suspension in primary school	−0.091	−0.090
	(0.064)	(0.064)
Grade repetition in primary school	−0.125**	−0.124**
	(0.048)	(0.048)
Whether fathers have a college education or above	0.069*	0.067
	(0.042)	(0.042)
Whether mothers have a college education or above	0.038	0.039
	(0.045)	(0.045)
Low-income family	−0.156***	−0.157***
	(0.036)	(0.036)
School-grade fixed effects	Yes	Yes
R ²	0.010	0.010
Observations	6,758	6,758

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. The dependent variables are average index and PCA index of mental health. All regressions include school-grade fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at the class level. ***, **, and *denote statistical significance at the 1 %, 5 %, and 10 % level, respectively.

Table A9:

The effects of peers without severe sickness experience on the mental health of students with severe sickness experience.

	Average index	PCA index
	(1)	(2)
Share of peers without severe sickness experience	0.092	0.095
	(0.113)	(0.113)
Student controls	Yes	Yes
Class controls	Yes	Yes
School-grade fixed effects	Yes	Yes
R ²	0.160	0.159
Observations	590	590

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. Each column presents the results from a separate regression. Student controls include students’ age and dummy variables indicating gender, minority, local student, only child, whether they own computer, whether they were suspended in primary school, whether they repeated a grade in primary school, whether fathers have a college education or above, whether mothers have a college education or above, and whether they come from a low-income family. Class controls include head teacher’s age, gender, education, working experience, marital status, and whether the class is large. All regressions include school-grade fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at the class level. ***, **, and *denote statistical significance at the 1 %, 5 %, and 10 % level, respectively.

Table A10:

The effects of the number of peers with severe sickness experience on students’ mental health.

	Average index	PCA index
	(1)	(2)
Number of peers with severe sickness experience	−0.019**	−0.019**
	(0.008)	(0.008)
Student controls	Yes	Yes
Class controls	Yes	Yes
School-grade fixed effects	Yes	Yes
R ²	0.012	0.012
Observations	6,758	6,758

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. Each column presents the results from a separate regression. Student controls include students’ age and dummy variables indicating gender, minority, local student, only child, whether they own computer, whether they were suspended in primary school, whether they repeated a grade in primary school, whether fathers have a college education or above, whether mothers have a college education or above, and whether they come from a low-income family. Class controls include head teacher’s age, gender, education, working experience, marital status, and whether the class is large. All regressions include school-grade fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at the class level. ***, **, and *denote statistical significance at the 1 %, 5 %, and 10 % level, respectively.

Table A11:

Tests for sample attrition.

	Attrition dummy
	(1)
Share of peers with severe sickness experience	0.010
	(0.016)
School-grade fixed effects	Yes
R ²	0.092
Observations	7,741

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. Each column presents the results from a separate regression. All regressions include school-grade fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at the class level. ***, **, and *denote statistical significance at the 1 %, 5 %, and 10 % level, respectively.

Table A12:

The effects of peers with severe sickness experience on detail items of mental health.

	Blue	Depressed	Unhappy	Perceiving life as meaningless	Sad
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Share of peers with severe sickness experience	−0.086**	−0.071*	−0.065	−0.107**	−0.074**
	(0.035)	(0.037)	(0.040)	(0.046)	(0.033)
Student controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Class controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
School-grade fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
R ²	0.062	0.068	0.065	0.051	0.062
Observations	6,758	6,758	6,758	6,758	6,758

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. Each column presents the results from a separate regression. Student controls include students’ age and dummy variables indicating gender, minority, local student, only child, whether they own computer, whether they were suspended in primary school, whether they repeated a grade in primary school, whether fathers have a college education or above, whether mothers have a college education or above, and whether they come from a low-income family. Class controls include head teacher’s age, gender, education, working experience, marital status, and whether the class is large. All regressions include school-grade fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at the class level. ***, **, and *denote statistical significance at the 1 %, 5 %, and 10 % level, respectively.

Appendix B: Additional Analysis for 9th Grade Sample

The differential effects between the 7th- and 9th-grade samples may reflect potential selection issues. To address this concern, we restrict the analysis to 9th-grade students and conduct two balance tests to assess the randomness of classroom assignment, following the procedures outlined in Section 4.2. First, we re-estimate the balance test based on the student pre-determined characteristics. If non-random selection is present, we would expect a significant correlation between the share of peers with severe sickness experience and students’ pre-determined characteristics. However, as shown in Column 2 of Table B1, and consistent with the results in Column 2 of Table 2, most of the characteristics of 9th-grade students are not significantly correlated with the share of peers with severe sickness experience once school-by-grade fixed effects are included. These findings suggest that student characteristics are balanced across classrooms with varying proportions of peers with severe sickness experience, supporting the assumption of random classroom assignment within the 9th-grade sample.

Second, we follow the methodology of Gong et al. (2021) and Chung and Zou (2023) and conduct a permutation test using a resampling approach to further assess the randomness of student assignment in the 9th-grade sample. As shown in Table B2, all p-values exceed 0.1, providing additional evidence that students in 9th grade are randomly assigned to classrooms. This finding suggests that potential selection or shuffling across classrooms is unlikely to bias the assignment process and does not threaten the validity of our results.

Another potential explanation for the differential effects observed between the 7th- and 9th-grade samples could be related to student transfers across classrooms or schools. However, as outlined in Section 2 on the institutional background, middle school admission in China follows the completion of primary education and is determined by household registration. Upon entering the 7th-grade, students are generally assigned to classes through a random allocation process, aiming for an equitable distribution of students across all classes. Moreover, under the compulsory education system, class transfers are generally prohibited except under special circumstances. Given these institutional features, we believe that school or class transfers are unlikely to occur frequently in our sample, thereby limiting the scope for selection bias.

To further address this concern, we examine the potential for class reassignment, particularly among 9th-grade students. Unfortunately, the available data do not allow us to directly observe class-switching behavior for 9th graders, because information on their class status in 7th and 8th grade is unavailable. However, we conduct a related analysis using data from the 7th-grade sample. CEPS conducted a follow-up survey one year later, when the original 7th-grade students advanced to 8th-grade. We use this follow-up data and calculate the proportion of students who changed either their class or school between 7th- and 8th-grade. The results indicate that such transitions are relatively rare. According to official CEPS data, the 7th-grade sample includes 10,279 students, 830 of whom either transferred to a different school or changed classes within the same school by 8th grade, thereby yielding a transfer rate of 8.1 %. In our estimation sample, which is restricted to students randomly assigned to classrooms, the transfer rate falls further to 5.9 %. These low levels of mobility suggest that class and school changes between 7th- and 8th-grade are limited. On the basis of this evidence, we reasonably assume a similarly limited degree of school and class switching in the 9th-grade.

Furthermore, we conduct additional analyses to assess whether exposure to peers with severe sickness experience influences students’ tracking status. We construct a binary variable, “untrackable,” which takes the value 1 if a student cannot be tracked owing to a class or school transfer or for other unspecified reasons, and 0 otherwise. Then, we examine whether the proportion of peers with severe sickness experience in 7th-grade predicts students’ tracking status. The results in Table B3 show no significant relationship, indicating that the presence of such peers does not affect the likelihood of class or school transfers. This result alleviates concerns that our findings for the 9th-grade sample may be driven by selection bias.

In summary, evidence from the transfer rate analysis and regression results suggests that class and school transfers are unlikely to account for the observed effects of peers with severe sickness experience in the 9th-grade sample.

Table B1:

Balance tests for pre-determined characteristics of 9th grade sample.

	Share of peers with severe sickness experience
	(1)	(2)
Age	0.225**	0.013*
	(0.105)	(0.007)
Gender	0.047	−0.011
	(0.044)	(0.009)
Minority	1.166***	−0.015
	(0.360)	(0.012)
Local student	0.106	0.028
	(0.107)	(0.017)
Only child	−0.582***	0.011
	(0.138)	(0.011)
Owning computer	−0.756***	0.024
	(0.182)	(0.017)
Suspension in primary school	0.250***	0.016
	(0.092)	(0.024)
Grade repetition in primary	0.722***	−0.020
school	(0.137)	(0.012)
Whether fathers have a	−0.400***	0.015
college education or above	(0.109)	(0.012)
Whether mothers have a	−0.402***	0.004
college education or above	(0.108)	(0.011)
Low-income family	0.634***	0.032
	(0.170)	(0.031)
School-grade fixed effects	No	Yes
Observations	3,147	3,147

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS. In Columns 1 and 2, each cell represents a single regression of the share of peers with severe sickness experience on the corresponding variables. Column 1 presents results without school-grade fixed effects, while Column 2 reports results with school-grade fixed effects included. Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at the class level. ***, **, and *denote statistical significance at the 1 %, 5 %, and 10 % level, respectively.

Table B2:

Permutation test for the 9th grade sample.

	9th grade sample
	(1)
Age	0.461
Gender	0.464
Minority	0.201
Local student	0.454
Only child	0.476
Owning computer	0.484
Suspension in primary school	0.257
Grade repetition in primary school	0.295
Whether fathers have a college education or above	0.330
Whether mothers have a college education or above	0.301
Low-income family	0.396

Data are from the 2013–2014 CEPS.

Table B3:

The effects of peers with severe sickness experience on students’ tracking status.

	Untrackable
	(1)
Share of peers with severe sickness experience	0.012
	(0.014)
Student controls	Yes
Class controls	Yes
School-grade fixed effects	Yes
R ²	0.129
Observations	3,611

Data are from the 2013–2014 and the 2014–2015 CEPS. Each column presents the results from a separate regression. Student controls include students’ age and dummy variables indicating gender, minority, local student, only child, whether they own computer, whether they were suspended in primary school, whether they repeated a grade in primary school, whether fathers have a college education or above, whether mothers have a college education or above, and whether they come from a low-income family. Class controls include head teacher’s age, gender, education, working experience, marital status, and whether the class is large. All regressions include school-grade fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at the class level. ***, **, and *denote statistical significance at the 1 %, 5 %, and 10 % level, respectively.

References

Anelli, M., K. V. Shih, and K. Williams. 2023. “Foreign Students in College and the Supply of STEM Graduates.” Journal of Labor Economics 41 (2): 511–63. https://doi.org/10.1086/719964.Suche in Google Scholar

Angrist, J. D. 2014. “The Perils of Peer Effects.” Labour Economics 30 (2014): 98–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2014.05.008.Suche in Google Scholar

Bietenbeck, J. 2020. “The Long–Term Impacts of Low–Achieving Childhood Peers: Evidence from Project Star.” Journal of the European Economic Association 18 (1): 392–426. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvy049.Suche in Google Scholar

Bietenbeck, J. 2024. “Do Motivated Classmates Matter for Educational Success?” The Economic Journal 135 (665): 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueae060.Suche in Google Scholar

Bifulco, R., J. M. Fletcher, and S. L. Ross. 2011. “The Effect of Classmate Characteristics on Post-Secondary Outcomes: Evidence from the Add Health.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3 (1): 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.3.1.25.Suche in Google Scholar

Billings, S. B., and M. Hoekstra. 2019. Schools, Neighborhoods, and the Long-Run Effect of Crime-Prone Peers. National Bureau of Economic Research. No. w25730.10.3386/w25730Suche in Google Scholar

Black, S. E., P. J. Devereux, and K. G. Salvanes. 2013. “Under Pressure? The Effect of Peers on Outcomes of Young Adults.” Journal of Labor Economics 31 (1): 119–53. https://doi.org/10.1086/666872.Suche in Google Scholar

Brown, B. B., and J. Larson. 2009. “Peer Relationships in Adolescence.” In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology: Contextual Influences on Adolescent Development, edited by R. M. Lerner, and L. Steinberg, 74–103. New York: John Wiley and Sons.10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004Suche in Google Scholar

Bubonya, M., D. A. Cobb–Clark, and M. Wooden. 2017. “Mental Health and Productivity at Work: Does what You Do Matter?” Labour Economics 46 (2017): 150–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2017.05.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Burke, M. A., and T. R. Sass. 2013. “Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement.” Journal of Labor Economics 31 (1): 51–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/666653.Suche in Google Scholar

Callander, E. J., and D. J. Schofield. 2018. “Psychological Distress Increases the Risk of Falling into Poverty Amongst Older Australians: The Overlooked Costs–of–Illness.” BMC Psychology 6 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-018-0230-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Carrell, S. E., and M. L. Hoekstra. 2010. “Externalities in the Classroom: How Children Exposed to Domestic Violence Affect Everyone’s Kids.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2 (1): 211–28. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.2.1.211.Suche in Google Scholar

Carrell, S. E., M. Hoekstra, and E. Kuka. 2018. “The Long–Run Effects of Disruptive Peers.” The American Economic Review 108 (11): 3377–415. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160763.Suche in Google Scholar

Case, A., A. Fertig, and C. Paxson. 2005. “The Lasting Impact of Childhood Health and Circumstance.” Journal of Health Economics 24 (2): 365–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.09.008.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, L. W., B. W. Chung, and G. H. Wang. 2025. “Composition of Peer Mothers and Gender Norms: Class Randomization and Short-Run Effects.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 234 (2025): 107008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107008.Suche in Google Scholar

Chung, B. W. 2020. “Peers’ Parents and Educational Attainment: The Exposure Effect.” Labour Economics 64 (2020): 101812, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2020.101812.Suche in Google Scholar

Chung, B. W., and J. Zou. 2023. “Understanding Spillover of Peer Parental Education: Randomization Evidence and Mechanisms.” Economic Inquiry 61 (3): 496–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13141.Suche in Google Scholar

Currie, J., M. Stabile, P. Manivong, and L. L. Roos. 2010. “Child Health and Young Adult Outcomes.” Journal of Human Resources 45 (3): 517–48. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhr.2010.0013.Suche in Google Scholar

Currie, J., and T. Vogl. 2013. “Early–Life Health and Adult Circumstance in Developing Countries.” Annual Review of Economics 5 (1): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-081412-103704.Suche in Google Scholar

Dewan, P., T. Ray, A. R. Chaudhuri, and K. Tater. 2024. “Gender Peer Effects in High Schools: Evidence from India.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 220 (2024): 470–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2024.02.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Eisenberg, D., E. Golberstein, J. L. Whitlock, and M. F. Downs. 2013. “Social Contagion of Mental Health: Evidence from College Roommates.” Health Economics 22 (8): 965–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2873.Suche in Google Scholar

Feld, J., and U. Zölitz. 2017. “Understanding Peer Effects: On the Nature, Estimation, and Channels of Peer Effects.” Journal of Labor Economics 35 (2): 387–428. https://doi.org/10.1086/689472.Suche in Google Scholar

Feng, S., Y. Tan, Z. Wang, and Q. Zhang. 2024. “Spatial Structure of Peer Networks and Academic Achievement Based on a Random Control Trial Experiment.” China and World Economy 32 (3): 67–97, https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12532.Suche in Google Scholar

Flores, M., and B. L. Wolfe. 2022. “Childhood Health Conditions and Lifetime Labor Market Outcomes.” American Journal of Health Economics 8 (4): 506–33. https://doi.org/10.1086/721573.Suche in Google Scholar

Giulietti, C., M. Vlassopoulos, and Y. Zenou. 2022. “Peers, Gender, and Long–Term Depression.” European Economic Review 144 (2022): 104084, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2022.104084.Suche in Google Scholar

Glewwe, P., and E. A. Miguel. 2007. “The Impact of Child Health and Nutrition on Education in Less Developed Countries.” Handbook of Development Economics 4 (2007): 3561–606.10.1016/S1573-4471(07)04056-9Suche in Google Scholar

Gong, J., Y. Lu, and H. Song. 2018. “The Effect of Teacher Gender on Students’ Academic and Noncognitive Outcomes.” Journal of Labor Economics 36 (3): 743–78. https://doi.org/10.1086/696203.Suche in Google Scholar

Gong, J., Y. Lu, and H. Song. 2021. “Gender Peer Effects on Students’ Academic and Noncognitive Outcomes: Evidence and Mechanisms.” Journal of Human Resources 56 (3): 686–710. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.56.3.0918-9736r2.Suche in Google Scholar

Greenberg, P. E., A. A. Fournier, T. Sisitsky, C. T. Pike, and R. C. Kessler. 2015. “The Economic Burden of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder in the United States (2005 and 2010).” The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 76 (2): 155–62. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.14m09298.Suche in Google Scholar

Hu, F. 2018. “Migrant Peers in the Classroom: Is the Academic Performance of Local Students Negatively Affected?” Journal of Comparative Economics 46 (2): 582–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2017.11.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Huang, W., M. Luo, Y. P. Song, Y. P. Wang, and H. T. Wu. 2025. “Poverty Spillovers in Human Capital Formation: Evidence from Randomized Class Assignments in China.” Journal of Public Economics 244 (2025): 105334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2025.105334.Suche in Google Scholar

Huang, B., and R. Zhu. 2020. “Peer Effects of Low–Ability Students in the Classroom: Evidence from China’s Middle Schools.” Journal of Population Economics 33 (4): 1343–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-020-00780-8.Suche in Google Scholar

Kessler, R. C., P. Berglund, O. Demler, R. Jin, K. R. Merikangas, and E. E. Walters. 2005. “Lifetime Prevalence and age-of-onset Distributions of DSM-IV Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.” Archives of General Psychiatry 62 (6): 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593.Suche in Google Scholar

Kline, P. 2000. The Handbook of Psychological Testing, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Lavy, V., M. D. Paserman, and A. Schlosser. 2012. “Inside the Black Box of Ability Peer Effects: Evidence from Variation in the Proportion of Low Achievers in the Classroom.” The Economic Journal 122 (559): 208–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02463.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Lavy, V., and A. Schlosser. 2011. “Mechanisms and Impacts of Gender Peer Effects at School.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3 (2): 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.3.2.1.Suche in Google Scholar

Lazear, E. P. 2001. “Educational Production.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (3): 777–803. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530152466232.Suche in Google Scholar

Lei, Z. 2022. “Short–Run and Long–Run Effects of Peers from Disrupted Families.” Journal of Population Economics 35 (3): 1007–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-021-00839-0.Suche in Google Scholar

Lund, C., M. De Silva, S. Plagerson, S. Cooper, D. Chisholm, J. Das, et al.. 2011. “Poverty and Mental Disorders: Breaking the Cycle in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.” The Lancet 378 (9801): 1502–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60754-x.Suche in Google Scholar

Lundborg, P., A. Nilsson, and D. O. Rooth. 2014. “Adolescent Health and Adult Labor Market Outcomes.” Journal of Health Economics 37 (2014): 25–40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2014.05.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Mangiavacchi, L., L. Piccoli, and C. Rapallini. 2021. “Personality Traits and Household Consumption Choices.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 21 (2): 433–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2020-0189.Suche in Google Scholar

Manski, C. F. 1993. “Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem.” The Review of Economic Studies 60 (3): 531–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/2298123.Suche in Google Scholar

McLeod, J. D., and K. Kaiser. 2004. “Childhood Emotional and Behavioral Problems and Educational Attainment.” American Sociological Review 69 (5): 636–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900502.Suche in Google Scholar

Padilla-Romo, M., and C. Peluffo. 2023. “Violence-Induced Migration and Peer Effects in Academic Performance.” Journal of Public Economics 217 (2023): 104778, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2022.104778.Suche in Google Scholar

Sacerdote, B. 2001. “Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (2): 681–704. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530151144131.Suche in Google Scholar

Smith, J. P. 2009. “The Impact of Childhood Health on Adult Labor Market Outcomes.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 91 (3): 478–89. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.91.3.478.Suche in Google Scholar

Wang, H. N., and R. Zhu. 2019. “China’s Only Children and Their Spillover Effects on Academic Performance in the Classroom.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 19 (4): 20190058. https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2019-0058.Suche in Google Scholar

Wang, H., and R. Zhu. 2021. “Social Spillovers of China’s Left–Behind Children in the Classroom.” Labour Economics 69 (2021): 101958, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2020.101958.Suche in Google Scholar

World Health Organization. 2020. “World Mental Health Day: An Opportunity to Kick–Start a Massive Scale–Up in Investment in Mental Health.” https://www.who.int/news/item/.Suche in Google Scholar

Xu, D., Q. Zhang, and X. Zhou. 2022. “The Impact of Low-Ability Peers on Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Outcomes: Random Assignment Evidence on the Effects and Operating Channels.” Journal of Human Resources 57 (2): 555–96. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.57.2.0718-9637r2.Suche in Google Scholar

Yi, J., J. J. Heckman, J. Zhang, and G. Conti. 2015. “Early Health Shocks, Intra–Household Resource Allocation and Child Outcomes.” The Economic Journal 125 (588): F347–F371. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12291.Suche in Google Scholar

Zhao, L., and Z. Zhao. 2021. “Disruptive Peers in the Classroom and Students’ Academic Outcomes: Evidence and Mechanisms.” Labour Economics 68 (2021): 101954, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2020.101954.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2024-09-25

Accepted: 2025-10-27

Published Online: 2025-11-18

Sie haben derzeit keinen Zugang zu diesem Inhalt.

https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2024-0334

Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel

mental health; peer effect; severe sickness experience; random class assignment