The case for academic hazing as a rational choice: An economic approach

Abstract In several countries, academic hazing is an integration program for higher education students that is undertaken by older students in a relationship of domination and submission. Academic hazing can involve humiliation and violence, which has aroused concern worldwide amongst institutions and policymakers. Institutional responses and academic research thus far have failed to look at the behavior of participants in academic hazing as a rational choice. We argue that within an economic framework in which students compare costs and benefits, the decision in respect of participation is rational, and we test this framework empirically. Furthermore, we apply the contingent valuation method in order to elicit the value of an alternative integration program without the emotional costs associated with humiliating activities. The elicited value is non-negligible, thus confirming that students would indeed support an alternative program, in particular first year-students. This result lays the grounds for institutional intervention. Additionally, we find that first-year students underestimate how long participation in hazing takes at the expense of other activities. This paper illustrates how a seemingly irrational phenomenon can be understood as being rational within an economic approach. The results call for and give strength to institutional efforts to replace current anachronistic academic hazing practices in countries in which academic hazing is a social and institutional problem.