臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究以台灣千禧世代為研究對象，使用華人家庭動態資料庫 (PSFD) 1999年至2022年之長期追蹤資料，探討個人於大學時期形成的「職涯願景」(涵蓋自我實現、報酬待遇與穩定保障三個向度)與「五大人格特質」(外向活躍、親和合作、勤勉盡責、情緒穩定與開放傾向)，是否顯著影響其成年初期薪資表現。其中，成年初期薪資係以受訪者年滿25歲後首次就業之實質月薪做為衡量標準。
實證分析分為兩個階段進行。第一階段使用有序Probit模型(Ordered Probit Model)，檢視青少年教育投入、出生年、性別、家庭結構與父母背景等因素對三類職涯願景之形塑效果。第二階段則使用最小平方法 (OLS)，依序納入職涯願景、人格特質、以及職涯願景與人格特質之交乘項，並控制工作經驗與家庭背景對薪資的影響。
第一階段結果顯示，出生年在三類職涯願景模型中均呈現穩定負向影響，顯示較晚出生者較普遍有較低程度的職涯願景偏好傾向。父母參與學校活動頻率與自我實現職涯願景呈負向相關。父親教育年數與自我實現職涯願景呈正向關係，母親教育年數則呈負向關係，顯示父母親對子女的自我實現職涯願景的形塑效果不同且成反向關聯。此外，父親從事基層勞力職業者，其子女偏好高穩定保障職涯願景的機率較高。
第二階段結果顯示，在尚未納入交乘項的模型中，報酬待遇職涯願景與較高薪資呈現正向關係。自模型3起，模型納入職涯願景與人格特質之交乘項，此時職涯願景與人格特質的低階項係數，分別表示其他交乘變數取0時的條件關係，因而不再適合與未納入交乘項之模型作一般主效果的顯著性比較。交乘項結果顯示，「自我實現職涯願景×親和合作」、「自我實現職涯願景×情緒穩定」，以及「報酬待遇職涯願景×親和合作」均呈現正向關係。這表示隨著相關人格特質分數提高，該類職涯願景與薪資之間的關係朝較正向的方向改變，亦即職涯願景與薪資之間的關係，因人格特質不同而有所差異。
本論文研究之結果提供以下兩項政策與實務意涵：首先，在高等教育與職涯輔導實務上，結果顯示職涯願景對薪資的實質回報高度依存於個人的人格特質（如親和合作與情緒穩定）。因此，大專院校之職涯輔導機制不應僅停留在引導學生建立高遠的職涯目標或薪資期望，更應結合心理與軟實力培養，協助學生評估自身性格優勢，調整願景與特質之適配度，以強化其進入勞動市場後的適應力與薪資成長潛力。
另外，在青年就業與家庭政策方面，研究發現年輕世代整體形成高強度職涯願景的機率顯著下降，且基層勞力家庭子女更傾向追求「穩定保障」而非「自我實現」。這反映出結構性經濟環境與家庭資源限制可能壓縮了青年對未來的想像空間。政策制定者應針對社經背景較為不利的青年，提供更多元之職場體驗、跨領域探索資源與風險緩衝機制，減緩家庭背景帶來的職業選擇侷限，從而促進社會階層流動與人力資源之優化配置。

This study examines whether career aspirations formed during the college-age period and Big Five personality traits are associated with early-career earnings among Taiwan’s millennial generation. The analysis draws on longitudinal data from the Panel Study of Family Dynamics (PSFD) covering the period from 1999 to 2022. Career aspirations are measured along three dimensions: self-realization, rewards, and security. The Big Five personality traits include extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness. Early-career earnings are measured using respondents’ real monthly earnings at the first full-time employment spell observed after age 25. Nominal earnings are adjusted to 2021 prices and transformed using the natural logarithm.
The empirical analysis consists of two stages. The first stage employs Ordered Probit models to examine whether adolescent educational investment, birth year, gender, family structure, and parental background are associated with the formation of self-realization, reward-oriented, and security-oriented career aspirations. The second stage uses Ordinary Least Squares models, sequentially introducing the three career aspiration scores, the five personality traits, interaction terms between career aspirations and personality traits, and additional controls for work experience, occupational position, and family background. Robustness checks are conducted using median-dichotomized career aspiration indicators and relative career aspiration measures.
The first-stage results show that birth year is negatively associated with all three dimensions of career aspirations. Respondents born in later years are less likely to fall into higher categories of self-realization, reward-oriented, and security-oriented aspirations. Parental participation in school activities is negatively associated with self-realization aspirations. Paternal education is positively associated with self-realization aspirations, whereas maternal education shows a negative association. In addition, respondents whose fathers worked in elementary occupations are more likely to report stronger security-oriented aspirations. These findings suggest that young people’s views of desirable job characteristics may be shaped by cohort position, parental educational background, and the work experiences observed within their families.
In the second-stage analysis, reward-oriented aspirations are positively associated with earnings in models without adding interaction terms. Once the interaction terms are introduced, the coefficients on the lower-order aspiration and personality terms represent conditional associations evaluated when the interacting variables equal zero, rather than average main effects. The substantive interpretation therefore focuses on the interaction terms. The interactions between self-realization aspirations and agreeableness, between self-realization aspirations and emotional stability, and between reward-oriented aspirations and agreeableness are positive. These findings indicate that the association between college-age career aspirations and early-career earnings varies according to personality traits. Specifically, higher levels of agreeableness or emotional stability strengthen the positive association between self-realization aspirations and earnings. Likewise, higher level of agreeableness also enhances the positive association between reward-oriented aspirations and earnings.
The robustness analysis provides partial support for the main findings. Models using median-dichotomized aspirations indicators reproduce the positive interactions between self-realization aspirations and agreeableness and between self-realization aspirations and emotional stability. By contrast, models based on relative indicators of career aspirations do not yield statistically significant main or interaction effects. Thus, the main findings demonstrate partially robustness to alternative measurement strategies, but also indicate that results depend on how career aspirations are operationalized.
Overall, the findings suggest that career aspirations formed during the college-age years, before full entry into the labor market, are not directly or uniformly reflected in early-career earnings. Instead, the association between aspirations and earnings is shaped by personality traits and subsequent occupational positions. These results have implications for higher education and career guidance. Career services may be enhanced by integrating career exploration with personality-informed counseling and the development of communication, cooperation, emotional regulation, and other workplace-related skills. For young people from families with limited socioeconomic resources, increased access to workplace experience, internships, career information, mentoring, and transition support may broaden the range of feasible occupational choices. Policies should avoid treating personality traits as fixed labels or attributing labor-market outcomes solely on individuals. Instead, they should combine individual capability development with efforts to reduce structural barriers to occupational mobility and early-career earnings.

頁次
致謝 I
中文摘要 II
Abstract IV
目錄 VI
表目錄 VIII
圖目錄 IX
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻回顧 6
第一節 青少年職涯願景之形成機制與早期職場表現 6
第二節 人格特質在勞動市場中的角色與調節效應 9
第三節 台灣千禧世代的青年職涯發展與研究定位 12
第三章 研究方法與資料 14
第一節 實證模型與估計方法 14
第二節 資料、樣本篩選與變數定義 17
第三節 敘述性統計與圖表分析 25
第四章 實證結果與討論 34
第一節 職涯願景形塑模型估計結果 34
第二節 成年初期薪資模型估計結果 36
第三節 穩健度檢定 39
第五章 結論 55
第一節 研究成果與政策意涵 55
第二節 研究限制與未來研究建議 59
參考文獻 64
附錄 69

一、中文文獻
1.周亭瑋（2021年4月21日）。〈6、8年級都好命！7年級「最慘對比」哭了　苦主認證：只有童年爽〉。取自https://www.ettoday.net/news/20210422/1965802.htm#ixzz7TBZl0IQs
2.行政院（2013）。《人口政策白皮書──少子女化、高齡化及移民──》。取自 https://www.ris.gov.tw/documents/data/5/2/3/5efcdc47-b155-4544-a7d6-19b3b963ffc1.pdf
3.池進通, 李鴻文, & 陳芬儀. (2008). 五大人格特質與工作績效關係之研究. 經營管理論叢, 第四卷第二期, 1-9.
4.吳慧瑛. (2007). 家庭背景與教育成就: 五個出生世代的比較分析. 人口學刊, (4), 109-143.
5.林淑慧, & 黃良志. (2013). 大專以上青年世代工作價值觀之比較研究: 高等教育發展脈絡與性別差異觀點. 應用心理研究, (8), 103-142.
6.林惠彥, & 陸洛. (2012). 工作價值之群體差異-全台代表性樣本分析. 台灣管理學刊, 12(1), 99-116.
7.張宜君. (2016). 臺灣產業轉型下的工作機會分布變遷: 1978-2012. 臺灣社會學刊, 60, 135-187.
8.張宜君. (2017). 高等教育報酬的世代差異: 勞動市場結構轉型的影響. 臺灣教育社會學研究.
9.莊奕琦, & 陳晏羚. (2012). 決定台灣私人教導支出的影響因素-父母時間與金錢投入關係. 經濟論文, 40(2), 237-268.
10.莊奕琦, & 賴偉文. (2008). 影響教育成就的因素及九年國民義務教育政策效果評析: 台灣實證. 人文及社會科學集刊, 20(1), 25-65.
11.許聖章, 李菁慧, & 謝蕙竹. (2021). 台灣三代代間所得流動之探討. 經濟論文, 49(4), 651-690.
12.許碧峰. (2021). 台灣不同世代之終身薪資軌跡. 經濟論文, 49(2), 285-319.
13.陳佳蓉, & 李浩仲. (2021). 社會變遷與子女教育支出決策-產業轉型, 教育擴張下的台灣圖像. 經濟論文, 49(4), 609-649.
14.程姿螢, 張詠婷, & 宋曜廷. (2016). 大專學生工作價值組合量表之編製及信效度研究. 教育心理學報, 48(1), 91-112.
15.關秉寅, 彭思錦, & 崔成秀. (2022). 臺灣高教擴張對年輕世代薪資及職業聲望的影響: 反事實的分析. 人文及社會科學集刊, 31(4), 555-599.
二、英文文獻
1.Alderotti, G., Rapallini, C., & Traverso, S. (2023). The Big Five personality traits and earnings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 94, 102570.
2.Ashby, J. S., & Schoon, I. (2010). Career success: The role of teenage career aspirations, ambition value and gender in predicting adult social status and earnings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 350-360.
3.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
4.Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. National Bureau of Economic Research.
5.Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Osborne, M. (2001). Incentive-enhancing preferences: Personality, behavior, and earnings. American Economic Review, 91(2), 155-158.
6.Chu, C. C., Xie, Y., & Yu, R. R. (2007). Effects of sibship structure revisited: Evidence from intrafamily resource transfer in Taiwan. Sociology of Education, 80(2), 91-113.
7.Collischon, M. (2020). The returns to personality traits across the wage distribution. Labour, 34(1), 48-79.
8.Dæhlen, M. (2005). Change in job values during education. Journal of Education and Work, 18(4), 385-400.
9.Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1-12.
10.Fletcher, J. M. (2013). The effects of personality traits on adult labor market outcomes: Evidence from siblings. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 89, 122-135.
11.Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(3), 411-482.
12.Heineck, G., & Anger, S. (2010). The returns to cognitive abilities and personality traits in Germany. Labour Economics, 17(3), 535-546.
13.Johnson, M. K. (2002). Social origins, adolescent experiences, and work value trajectories during the transition to adulthood. Social Forces, 80(4), 1307-1340.
14.Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2002). Educational pathways and work value trajectories. Sociological Perspectives, 45(2), 113-138.
15.Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 42(1), 124-143.
16.Kan, K., & Tsai, W. D. (2005). Parenting practices and children’s education outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 24(1), 29-43.
17.Kohn, M. L., Schooler, C., & Miller, J. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social stratification.
18.Kozák, M., & von Soest, T. (2024). Adolescent work values and adult attainment in key social domains two decades later: Evidence from a population-based longitudinal study of Norwegian men and women. Journal of Education and Work, 37(5-6), 403-419.
19.Lin, Y. L., & Kang, C. Y. (2023). The impact of labor market risk on youth career preparation for sustainable development: Evidence from Taiwan. Sustainability, 15(8), 6857.
20.Lindsay, P., & Knox, W. E. (1984). Continuity and change in work values among young adults: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Sociology, 89(4), 918-931.
21.McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.
22.Mortimer, J. T., & Lorence, J. (1979). Work experience and occupational value socialization: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Sociology, 84(6), 1361-1385.
23.Nyhus, E. K., & Pons, E. (2005). The effects of personality on earnings. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(3), 363-384.
24.Peng, S. C., & Kuan, P. Y. (2024). The Transition to Adulthood: The Case of the Millennial Generation in Taiwan. 人口學刊, (8), 33-78.
25.Schoon, I., & Parsons, S. (2002). Teenage aspirations for future careers and occupational outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(2), 262-288.
26.Shanahan, M. J. (2000). Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: Variability and mechanisms in life course perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 667-692.
27.Sortheix, F. M., Chow, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2015). Work values and the transition to work life: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 162-171.
28.Staff, J., Harris, A., Sabates, R., & Briddell, L. (2010). Uncertainty in early occupational aspirations: Role exploration or aimlessness? Social Forces, 89(2), 659-683.
29.Super, D. E. (1980). A life span, life space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16(3), 282-298.