進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-0812200914265039
論文名稱(中文) 同儕關係對國中生抽菸、喝酒行為之影響研究
論文名稱(英文) Peer effects on Adolescent Tobacco Smoking and Alcohol Drinking: Evidence from Taiwan
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 經濟學系碩博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Economics
學年度 96
學期 2
出版年 97
研究生(中文) 林彗珊
研究生(英文) Hui-Shan Lin
學號 u5695108
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 61頁
口試委員 指導教授-蔡群立
口試委員-田維華
口試委員-賴孟寬
中文關鍵字 離散選擇互動模型  同儕效果  喝酒  抽菸 
英文關鍵字 Peer effects  Drinking  Smoking  Discrete-choice interaction model 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本研究的主要目的,是對台灣地區國中生進行抽樣問卷調查,以同一班級國中生當為同儕團體,探討男女同儕間相互影響對青少年抽菸、喝酒行為之效果。基於青少年的同儕影響具有內生性的問題,過去文獻一般皆採用聯立probit模型和工具變數,以試圖解決同儕關係之內生性影響誤差。但每一個個體在同儕團體(peer groups)之中,會透過同儕互動(peer interactions)而影響其彼此的行為決策,故最終的均衡,模型可能存在多重的均衡解(multiplicity of equilibria),如果運用聯立probit方程模型來估計,會忽略多重均衡解的存在,而導致模型會產生估計誤差。
因此,本文應用Soetevent and Kooreman (2007)所提出的離散選擇互動模型(discrete choice model with social interactions)來探討青少年男女同儕的內生互動對抽菸與喝酒之影響效果,可解決模型存在多重均衡解產生的估計誤差。本研究著重估計青少年同儕性別之相互影響的效果,共估計男同學間的相互影響、女同學間的相互影響、男同學對女同學的影響、女同學對男同學的影響效果。另外,本研究也考慮不可觀察因素(unobserved factor)對內生性所造成的問題,換言之,我們控制學校所產生的固定效果(fixed effect),再檢測同儕互動對抽菸與喝酒之影響效果。
實證結果顯示,無論在國中生抽菸、喝酒行為的影響方面,男同學間的互相影響是顯著的,而女同學間的互相影響並不顯著; 除此之外,男同學對女同學或女同學對男同學的影響效果也並不顯著。另外,在控制學校固定效果下,男女同儕相互的影響效果皆不顯著。至於其他的解釋變數,我們發現年齡愈大,青少年抽菸、喝酒機率顯著地增加。而青少年為家中長子者,其抽菸、喝酒機率相對愈低。另外,青少年每週可支配零用錢愈少,其抽菸、喝酒機率也相對降低。
英文摘要 This paper uses a sample of Taiwan junior-high school students to examine peer effects in tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking within a same class, particularly estimate intra-gender and cross-gender interaction effects. Related researches use the simultaneous probit model and instrumental variables to deal with the endogeneity problem of peer influences. But as suggested by Soetevent and Kooreman (2007), this model may not have a solution or may have multiple solutions for the estimation of a binary-choice model with endogenous peer interactions. This in turn may yield problems regarding the statistical coherence of the endogenous model. Thus, this paper uses the empirical discrete-choice interaction model suggested by Soetevent and Kooreman (2007) to conduct a test for endogenous peer interaction effects. In order to control a number of unobserved school-specific factors, this paper also estimates the peer interaction influences with school fixed effects.
The empirical results show that only boy to boy interaction is significant on both smoking and drinking. The cross-gender interactions (girl to boy, and boy to girl) and girl to girl interaction do not significantly influence the behaviors of smoking and drinking. After controlling the school-specific fixed effects, these peer interaction effects are insignificant. However, we still find the probability of smoking (drinking) significantly increases with age. The first-born child has a significantly smaller probability of smoking (drinking). The less weekly disposable allowances are less likely to enable adolescents to decrease their own tobacco and alcohol use.
論文目次 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究架構 7
第二章 文獻回顧 9
第一節 同儕效果的探討 9
一、認定社會互動的計量模型 9
二、三種不同的社會互動 10
三、實證研究中估計社會互動的偏誤問題 12
第二節 解決內生性的實證方法 15
第三章 實證模型 25
第四章 資料來源與變數說明 30
第一節 資料來源 30
第二節 變數說明與定義 31
第三節 敘述統計分析 34
第五章 實證結果 36
第一節 同儕關係對國中生抽菸、喝酒的影響效果 36
第二節 同儕關係對國中生抽菸、喝酒的影響效果(控制學校固定效果) 41
參考文獻 50
附錄一:研究問卷 56
附錄二:樣本學校校別資料 60
參考文獻 一、中文部分
1.吳銘芳:「醫生的話」,中華日報,第11版,1997年。
2.侯崇文:「家庭結構、家庭關係與青少年偏差行為之探討」,應用心理研究,第2期,頁14-48,2001年。
3.劉美媛、周碧瑟:「臺灣在校青少年飲酒比率與相關因素的探討」,臺灣公共衛生雜誌,第20卷2期,頁143-152,2001年。
4.陳怡如:「香菸廣告之接觸、認同與吸菸行為之關係─以北縣高職學生為例」,台灣大學衛生政策與管理研究所碩士論文。
5.楊雪華等:「高中生的同儕關係與吸菸行為-社會網絡觀點」,臺灣大學衛生政策與管理研究所博士論文,2002年。
6.衛生署國民健康局:國中生吸菸行為調查(Global Youth Tobacco Survey, GYTS),行政院衛生署,2006年。
7.周思源、李玫姿等:「台灣地區在校青少年吸菸、喝酒及嚼食檳榔與藥物使用之盛行率」,中台灣醫誌,第11卷,頁177-186,2006年。
8.台北市衛生局:「醫藥衛生科技新知-別茫啦!醉不上道」,台北市衛生局,2007年。
9.黃建元:「台南縣青少年吸菸盛行率調查及其相關因子之分析」,台灣家庭醫學醫學會九十三年度學術研討會,2004年。
10.行政院主計處:「九十一年臺灣地區社會發展趨勢調查─家庭生活」,行政院主計處編印,2003年。
二、西文部分
(書籍)
1.Becker, G. S., Murphy, K.M. “Social Economics: Market Behavior in a Social Environment,” The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (2000).
2.Greene, W. H. ”Econometric Analysis”, 2nd edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall (2003).
3.Maddala, G. S. "Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (1983).
(期刊)
1.Abel, E. L., Zeidenberg, P. Age, alcohol and violent death: a postmortem study. J Stud Alcohol, v.46, n.3, p.228-231. 1985.
2.Adger, H. Problems of alcohol and other drug use and abuse in adolescents. J Adolesc Health, v.12, p.606-613. 1991.
3.Adler, S. The action of specific serum on a strain of Trypanosoma cruzi. Ann Trop Med Parasitol
4.Akerlof, G. A. Social distance and social decisions. Econometrica, v.65, n.5, p.1005–1027. 1997.
5.Bartolome, Charles A. M. Equilibrium and inefficiency in a community model with peer group Effects. Journal of Political Economy, v.98, n.1, p.110- 133. 1990.
6.Bauman, K. E., Ennet, S.T. Peer influence on adolescent drug use. American Psychologist, v.49, p.820–822. 1994.
7.Bauman, K. E., Ennet, S.T. On the importance of peer influence for adolescent drug use: commonly neglected considerations. Addiction, v.91, n.2, p.185–198. 1996.
8.Becker, G. S. A Theory of Social Interactions. Journal of Political Economy, v.82, n.6, p.1063-1093. 1974.
9.Bernheim, B. D. A theory of conformity. Journal of Political Economy, v.102, n.5, p.841–877. 1994.
10.Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., Welch, I. A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, v.100, n.5, p.992–1026. 1992.
11.Bjorn, P., Vuong, Q. Simultaneous models for dummy endogenous variables: a game theoretic formulation with an application to household labor force participation. Working paper, California Institute of Technology. 1984.
12.Brock, W. A., Durlauf, S. N. Discrete choice with social interactions. Review of Economic Studies, v.68, p.235–260. 2001.
13.Case, A. C., Katz, L. F. The company you keep: the effects of family and neighborhood on disadvantaged youths. NBER Working Paper, no.3705. 1991.
14.Chaloupka, F. J., Warner, K. E. The economics of smoking. In: Culyer, A.J., Newhouse, J.P. (Eds.). Handbook of Health Economics, v.1b. pp.1539–1627. 2000.
15.Clark, A. E., Loh′Eac, Y. It wasn’t me, it was them! Social influence in risky behavior by adolescents. Journal of Health Economics, v.26, p.763-784. 2007.
16.Cohen, J. M. Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociology of Education, v.50, p.227–241. 1977.
17.Cook, P. J., Moore, M. J., Alcohol. In: Culyer, A.J., Newhouse, J.P. (Eds.). Handbook of Health Economics, v.1b. Elsevier Science, Netherlands, pp.1629–1673. 2000.
18.Crane, J. The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighbourhood effects on dropping out and teenage childbearing. American Journal of Sociology, v.96, p.1226–1259. 1991.
19.Epple, D., Romano, R. E. Competition between private and public schools, vouchers, and peer-group effects. American Economic review, v.88, n.1, p.33-62. 1998.
20.Evans, W. N., Oates, W. E., and Schwab, R. M. Measuring peer group effects: a study of teenage behavior. Journal of Political Economy, v.100, n.5, p.966–991. 1992.
21.Fergusson, D., Horwood, L. Transition to cigarette smoking during adolescence. Addictive Behavior, v.20, p.627-642. 1995.
22.Garis, D. Poverty, single-parent households, and youth at-risk behavior: an empirical study.
23.Gaviria, A., Raphael, S. School-based peer effects and juvenile behavior. Review of Economics and Statistics, v.83, n.2, p.257–268. 2001.
24.Glaeser, E. L., Sacerdote, B. I., Scheinkman, J. A. The social multiplier. Journal of the European Economic Association, v.1, p.845–853. 2003.
25.Glaeser, E. L., Scheinkman, J. A. Nonmarket interactions. In M. Dewatripoint, L. P. Hansen and S. Turnovsky (eds), Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, Eighth World Congress, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, v.I, p.339–369. 2003.
26.Glynn, T. J. From family to peer: a review of transitions of influence among drug-using youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, v.10, p.365–383. 1981.
27.Goodman, R. A., Mercy, J. A., Loya, F., Et Al. Alcohol use and interpersonal violence: alcohol detected in homicide victims. American Journal of Public Health, v.76, n.2, p.144-149. 1986.
28.Graham, J. W., Marks, G., Hansen, W.B. Social influence processes affecting adolescent substance use. Journal of Applied Psychology, v.76, p.291–298. 1991.
29.Gruber, J. Youth smoking in the United States: evidence and implications. In: Gruber, J. (Ed.). Risky Behavior Among Youths. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 2001.
30.Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R.F., Miller, J.Y. . Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention Psychological Bulletin, v.112, n.1, p.64-105. 1992.
31.Heckman, J. J. Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system. Econometrica, v.46, p.931–960. 1978.
32.Henderson, V., Mieszkowski, P., Sauvageau, Y. Peer Group Effect and Educational Production Functions. Journal of Public Economics, v.10, n.1, p.97-106. 1978.
33.Hoxby, C. Does Competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? American Economic Review, v.90, n.5, 1209-1238. 2000.
34.Kandel, D. B. Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, v.84, p.427–436. 1978.
35.Katz, L., Kling, A., Liebman, J. Moving to opportunity in Boston: early results of a randomized mobility experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, v.116, n.2, p.607-654. 2001.
36.Kawaguchi, D. Peer effects on substance use among American teenagers. Journal of Population Economics, v.17, n.2, p.351–367. 2004.
37.Kooreman, P. Time, money, peers, and parents: some data and theories on teenage behavior. Journal of Population Economics, v.20, p.9-33. 2007.
38.Krauth, B. Peer effects and selection effects on youth smoking in Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics, v.38, n.3, p.735–757. 2005.
39.Kremer, M., Levy, D.M. Peer effects and alcohol use among college students. Working Paper No. 9876.National Bureau of Economic Research. 2003.
40.Leibenstein, H. Bandwagon, snob, and veblen effects in the theory of consumer demand. Quarterly Journal of Economics, v.64, p.183–207. 1950.
41.Lewit, E. M., Coate, D., Grossman, M. The Effects of Government Regulations on Teenage Smoking. Health Economics, v.24, n.3, p.545-569. 1981.
42.Ludwig, J., Hirschfeld, P., Duncan, G. Urban poverty and juvenile crime: evidence from a randomized housing-mobility experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, , v.116, n.2, p.665-679. 2001.
43.Lundborg, P. Having the wrong friends? Peer effects in adolescent substance use. Journal of Health Economics, v.25, n.2, p.214–233. 2006.
44.Maddala, G. S. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 1983.
45.Manski, C. F. Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies, v.60, n.3, p.531–542. 1993.
46.Manski, C. F. Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, v.14, n.3, p.115–136. 2000.
47.Mauldon, J. The effect of marital disruption on children’s health. Demography, v.27, n.3, p.431-446. 1990.
48.Nakajima, R. Measuring peer effects on youth smoking behaviour. Review of Economic Studies, v.74, p.897-935. 2007.
49.Norton, E. C., Lindrooth, R.C., Ennet, S.T. Controlling for the endogeneity of peer substance use on adolescent alcohol and tobacco use. Health Economics, v.7, n.5, p.439–453. 1998.
50.O’Malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., Bachman, J. G.. Adolescent substance use. Epidemiology and implications for public policy. Pediatr Clin North Am, v.42, n.2, p.241-260. 1995.
51.Pollak, R. A. Interdependent preferences. American Economic Review, v.66, n.3, p.309–321. 1976.
52.Powell, L. M., Tauras, J.A., Ross, H. The importance of peer effects, cigarette prices and tobacco control policies for youth smoking behavior. Journal of Health Economics, v.24, n.5, p.950–968. 2005.
53.Sacerdote, B. Peer effects with random assignment: result for Dartmouth roommates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, v.116, n.2, p.681–703. 2001.
54.Skog, O. Social interaction and the distribution of alcohol consumption. Journal of Drug Issues, v.10, p.71–92. 1980.
55.Soetevent, A. R. Empirics of the identification of social interactions; an evaluation of the approaches and their results. Journal of Economic Surveys, v.20, n.2, p.193–228. 2006.
56.Soetevent, A. R., Kooreman, P. A discrete-choice model with social interactions: with an application to high school teen behavior. Journal of Applied Econometrics, v.22, p.599-624. 2007.
57.Tiebout, C. M. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, v.64, n.5, p.416-424. 1956.
58.Tyas, S. L., Pederson, L. L. Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: a critical review of the literature. Tobacco Control, v.7, p.409-420. 1998.
59.US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General . 2004.
60.Winston, G. C. Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: the Awkward Economics of Higher Education, Journal of Economic Perspectives, v.13, n.1, p.13-36. 1999.
61.Zimmerman, D. J. Peer effects in academic outcomes: evidence from a natural experiment. The Review of Economics & Statistics, v.85, n.1, p.9-23. 2003.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-08-14起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-08-14起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw