臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

性別平等悖論（the Gender-equality Paradox）是近幾年被廣泛討論的社會現象，多項研究都發現在愈富裕、女性相對男性勞動參與率愈高、客觀性別平等程度愈高的國家，男性和女性之間的人格特質、社會偏好和職業選擇的差異反而更顯著。然而，現有的研究多使用跨國資料集，缺乏個體層級的資料支持，在控制文化因素後，同一國家內個體的經濟條件是否會加深其性別刻板印象仍未有定論，亦即經濟富裕者是否比經濟弱勢者持有更深的性別刻板印象，這一點尚待進一步探討。本研究使用高中學生的風險偏好、性別刻板印象程度與居住地區等資料，探討個體層級的風險偏好是否存在性別平等悖論現象，以及家庭經濟條件對性別刻板印象的影響。資料分析顯示高中學生的風險偏好存在性別差異，但是並未發現支持性別平等悖論存在的直接證據。另一方面，在性別刻板印象上發現男生的經濟條件與性別刻板印象呈現正向趨勢，具有經濟與文化資本優勢的男生對「男理工，女人文」的性別刻板印象更深，女生的家庭經濟條件和性別刻板印象程度則沒有顯著的關聯。

The Gender-equality Paradox has been widely discussed in recent years as a social phenomenon. Numerous studies have found that in wealthier countries, where women have higher labor force participation rates relative to men and greater levels of objective gender equality, the differences between men and women in personality traits, social preferences, and occupational choices become more pronounced. However, most of the studies use cross-national datasets and lack support from individual-level data. It is yet to be determined whether socioeconomically advantaged individuals hold stronger gender stereotypes than socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals within the same culture environment. This study used data on high school students' risk preferences, the extent of gender stereotypes, and residential areas to investigate whether the Gender-equality Paradox exists in individual level and the effect of family economic conditions on gender stereotyping. The data analysis showed that there were gender differences in the risk preferences of high school students, but no direct evidence was found to support the existence of the Gender-equality Paradox. On the other hand, regarding gender stereotypes, the results show a positive correlation between family economic conditions and gender stereotypes among male students. Male students with economic and cultural capital advantages exhibit higher degree of gender stereotypes. In contrast, no significant relationship is found between family economic conditions and the degree of gender stereotypes among female students.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
目次 iii
圖次 v
表次 vi
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻回顧 4
2.1 性別平等悖論研究概述 4
2.2 性別平等悖論的成因 5
2.2.1 本質論 5
2.2.2 建構論 6
2.3 文獻回顧總結 7
第三章 資料來源與變數說明 9
3.1 變數說明與資料處理 9
3.1.1 風險偏好 9
3.1.2 內隱關聯測驗（Implicit Association Test，IAT） 10
3.2.3 經濟條件與家庭資產狀況 13
第四章 結果 15
4.1 敘述統計 15
4.1.1 風險偏好性別差異 15
4.1.2 性別刻板印象之性別差異 16
4.2 經濟條件對風險偏好性別差異的影響 18
4.3 經濟條件對內隱性別態度的影響 23
4.3.1 經濟條件對女生內隱性別態度的影響 26
4.3.2 經濟條件對男生內隱性別態度的影響 26
第五章 結論 28
參考文獻 30
附錄 34
IAT各回合說明 34
補充圖表 36

行政院性別平等會（2023）。2023年性別圖像。https://gec.ey.gov.tw/Page/8996A23EDB9871BE
行政院性別平等會（2015）。重要性別統計資料庫。https://www.gender.ey.gov.tw/gecdb/
黃鴻文、王心怡（2010）。教育分流與性別再製: 二班高中女生學生文化之民族誌研究。台灣教育社會學研究，10（1），127-174。
楊巧玲（2005）。性別化的興趣與能力: 高中學生類組選擇之探究。台灣教育社會學研究，5（2），113-153。
蔡麗玲（2017）。關注科技領域的性別平等—從性別偏見到性別意識。台灣社會學會通訊，86，24-26。
財政部財政資訊中心（2022）。108年度綜合所得稅申報核定統計專冊。https://www.fia.gov.tw/WEB/fia/ias/isa108/ISA108.html
池伯尉、尤素娟、劉錦添（2021）。為何女生不讀理工, 男生不讀人文？—大學入學考生資料之實證。經濟論文叢刊，49（2），263-306。
黃秀雯、王采薇（2019）。男女有別, 學習表現也有別？國際素養評量結果再思性別刻板印象威脅。School Administrators，（122）。
Tsai, F.-H.（2023）。高中生擔任代表的意願性別差異。國立臺灣大學經濟學系學位論文，2023，1-95。
孫旻暐、陳語箴（2013）。性別刻板印象與知覺重要他人意向對高中女生在科系選擇的影響與角色機制。教育與心理研究，36（2），57‒85。
Almås, I., Cappelen, A. W., Salvanes, K. G., Sørensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2016). Willingness to compete: Family matters. Management Science, 62(8), 2149-2162.
Amir, D., Jordan, M. R., & Rand, D. G. (2018). An uncertainty management perspective on long-run impacts of adversity: The influence of childhood socioeconomic status on risk, time, and social preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 217-226.
Bonin, H., Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2007). Cross-sectional earnings risk and occupational sorting: The role of risk attitudes. Labour Economics, 14(6), 926-937.
Breda, T., Jouini, E., Napp, C., & Thebault, G. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 31063-31069. https://doi.org/doi:10.1073/pnas.2008704117
Breen, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997). Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and society, 9(3), 275-305.
Buser, T., Peter, N., & Wolter, S. C. (2017). Gender, competitiveness, and study choices in high school: Evidence from Switzerland. American economic review, 107(5), 125-130.
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. S. (2014). Personality characteristics and the decisions to become and stay self-employed. Small Business Economics, 42, 787-814.
Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American journal of sociology, 114(4), 924-976.
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic literature, 47(2), 448-474.
Eagly, A. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Psychology Press.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Fishbaugh, L. (1981). Sex differences in conformity: Surveillance by the group as a determinant of male nonconformity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 40(2), 384.
Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2004). Is trust a risky decision? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55(4), 447-465.
Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(6), 1464.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(2), 197.
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American economic review, 92(5), 1644-1655.
Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV: What we know (so far) about the method.
Mac Giolla, E., & Kajonius, P. J. (2019). Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding. International journal of psychology, 54(6), 705-711.
Moakler Jr, M. W., & Kim, M. M. (2014). College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and demographic factors. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(2), 128-142.
Schmitt, D. P., Long, A. E., McPhearson, A., O'Brien, K., Remmert, B., & Shah, S. H. (2017). Personality and gender differences in global perspective. International journal of psychology, 52, 45-56.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological science, 29(4), 581-593.
Zhao, F., Zhang, Y., Alterman, V., Zhang, B., & Yu, G. (2018). Can math-gender stereotypes be reduced? A theory-based intervention program with adolescent girls. Current Psychology, 37, 612-624.