過去研究顯示，認知能力和非認知能力對教育成就、勞動力市場表現和偏差行為具有一定的 影響。而最近的研究 表明，出生順序對一個人的未來發展有影響，這也表示出生順序和能力之間存在相關性。但在台灣有關出生順序對認知能力和非認知能力之影響的文獻仍十分有限。故本文使用「台灣青少年計畫」(Taiwan Youth Project, TYP) 的追蹤型資料檢視出生順序對認知能力和非認知能力的影響。在認知能力方面，本文使用國中七至九年級的班級排名和國中基本學力測驗成績進行衡量。而成癮行為、自尊和學生班級導師的客觀評價則作為非認知能力的指標，其中，成癮行為包括抽菸或飲酒、嚼食檳榔和使用藥物。實證模型採用最小平方法的一般迴歸模型，並以控制學校固定效果或班級固定效果增強估計結果的準確性。
    實證結果顯示，在控制性別、家庭背景及 其他各項解釋變數下，出生順序為老大者確實擁有較佳的認知能力，而在非認知能力方面，出生序為老大者相較於非老大者也較不易產生成癮行為，但在自尊及客觀評價上則無顯著差異。進一步考量出生順序和能力之關聯性可能導因於其他變數，如獨生子女和父母控制差異 本文進行了一系列的穩健性檢 驗並發現各階段之出生序變數效果皆與未控制前無明顯改變。此外，實證結果亦顯示，女性同樣於認知能力及外在行為上有較好表現，但於自尊上卻較男性遜色，過去的文獻指出，對女性來說，其非認知能力相較認知能力又更為重要。因此，從結果中得出的結論之一為提高女性的非認知能 力可能會有效地減少性別對個人發展的影響。而目前文獻中對於出生順序影響認知能力及非認知能力 已有一定的理解，但對出生順序如何影響的機制還需要進一步釐清。

It was demonstrated by the literature that cognitive and non-cognitive abilities have a certain influence on educational achievements, performance in the labor market and deviation behavior. Recent studies have also showed that birth order has an impact on one’s future development suggesting there is a correlation between birth-order and ability. The literature in Taiwan on the issue for the effects of birth order on both cognitive and non-cognitive ability is limited. Using the longitudinal data from the Taiwan Youth Project, the study examines the effects of birth order on cognitive and non-cognitive abilities. The class rank at 7th grade to 9th grade and basic competence test for junior high school students are used as cognitive ability measures. The addictive behavior, self-esteem inventory, and objective evaluation by student’s class teacher are used as non-cognitive ability measures, whereas addictive behaviors include smoking or drinking, chewing betel nuts, and substance use. The ordinary least squares model is used in which the school fixed effect or the class fixed effect is controlled to strengthen the accuracy of the estimated results.
    The results show that under the control of gender, family background and various other explanatory variables, the first-born child does has better cognitive abilities, and in terms of non-cognitive abilities, the first-born child is less likely to have addictive behaviors than the non-first-born child is, but there is no significant difference in terms of self-esteem and objectivity evaluation. Further considering the relationship between birth order and ability may be due to other variables, such as only child or parental control differences. The paper conducts a series of robustness checks, and find the baseline results are still held. In addition, the empirical results show that women also have better cognitive ability and external behavior, but are inferior to men in terms of self-esteem. Past literature indicates that non-cognitive ability is more important than cognitive ability for women, so one of insights from the results is that improving women’s non-cognitive abilities may be effective to reduce the impact of gender on personal development. There is a certain understanding on how birth-order affecting on cognitive and non-cognitive abilities in the literature but further research on the mechanism on how birth-order is still needed.

目錄
1 前言 .................................................................................................... 1
2 文獻回顧 ............................................................................................. 3
2.1能力與未來發展 ..................................................................................5
2.2出生順序與能力及未來發展的關係 ....................................................... 6
3 資料 ................................................................................................... 8
3.1資料來源 ........................................................................................... 8
3.2變數定義與敘述統計量 ....................................................................... 9
4 實證結果 ............................................................................................ 14
4.1實證策略 .......................................................................................... 14
4.2 出生順序與認知能力表現之關係 ......................................................... 16
4.3出生順序與非認知能力表現之關係 ....................................................... 23
4.4討論 ................................................................................................. 30
5 結論 .................................................................................................. 34
參考文獻 .............................................................................................. 49
附錄 ..................................................................................................... 54
附錄一：非認知能力變項彙整 ................................................................. 54
附錄二：非認知能力衡量方式 ................................................................. 57

表目錄
表 1：變數定義與敘述統計量 .................................................................. 38
表 2：出生順序與班級排名前五名之關係 ................................................. 39
表 3：出生順序與基測總分之關係 ........................................................... 40
表 4：出生順序與基測各科成績之關係 .................................................... 41
表 5：出生順序與成癮行為之關係 .......................................................... 42
表 6：出生順序與自尊之關係 ................................................................. 43
表 7：出生順序與導師評價之關係 ........................................................... 44
表 8：出生順序與班級成績前五名的關係 (穩健性檢驗) .............................. 45
表 9：出生順序與基測總分的關係 (穩健性檢驗) ........................................ 46
表 10：出生順序與非認知能力的關係 (穩健性檢驗) ................................... 47
表 11：出生順序與認知能力和非認知能之關係-按男女性別分析 .................. 48

教育部電子報 (2014) 第639期，「性格優勢與學業優勢，影響成功關鍵」，取自 https：：//epaper.edu.tw/windows.aspx?windows_sn=16550。
吳明燁 (2016)，《父母難為：台灣青少年教養的社會學分析》，台北市：五南。 
李文傑與吳齊殷 (2004)，「棒打出壞子？青少年暴力行為的連結機制」，《台灣社會學》，7，1-46。
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》，34，109-143。
魯慧中(2007)，「性別偏好與出生排序效果：重新檢視台灣家戶對子女教育資源之配置」，《 經濟論文叢刊 》，45卷4期，579-637。
洪兆樂(2013)，「非認知技能內涵對國中生學習成就之影響」。國立臺灣師範大學，未出版，臺北市。
辜佑華(2007)，「學校教育對學生職場表現與能力發展影響之研究：以技職院校商學院專科部為對象」。國立台灣大學生物資源暨農學院農業經濟學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
林恪亨(2010)，「人格特質對薪資影響」。國立中央大學經濟學系碩士論文，未出版，桃園縣。
Anger, S (2011), “The Intergenerational Transmission of Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Skills During Adolescence and Young Adulthood,” IZA Discussion Paper No. 5749
Barclay, K (2015), “A within-family analysis of birth order and intelligence using population conscription data on Swedish men,” Intelligence, 49, 134-143.
Becker, G. S. and N. Tomes (1979), “An Equilibrium Theory of the Distribution of Income and Intergenerational Mobility,” Journal of Political Economy, 87 (6), 1153-1189.
Black, S. E., E. Grönqvist. and B. Öckert (2018), “Born to Lead? The Effect of Birth Order on Non-Cognitive Abilities,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 100 (2), 274-286.
Booth, A. L. and H. J. Kee (2009), “Birth Order Matters：：The Effect of Family Size and Birth Order on Educational Attainment,” Journal of Population Economics, 22, 367-397
Borghans, L., A. L. Duckworth, J. J. Heckman, and B. T. Weel (2008), “The economics and psychology of personality traits.” Journal of Human Resources, 43, 972-1059.
Bu, F (2014), ‘‘Sibling Configurations, Educational Aspiration and Attainment,’’ ISER working paper, 11
Cheng, Y. H (2013), “The Role of Non-cognitive Traits in Higher Education Achievement among Economically Disadvantaged Taiwanese Youths,” Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy, 25 (4), 735-764.
Coneus, K., Gernandt, J., and Saam, M. (2011), “Noncognitive skills, school achievements and educational dropout,” Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 131 (4), 547-568.
Conley, D (2004), The Pecking Order. Pantheon Books, New York.
Covay, E., and Carbonaro, W. (2010), “After the bell：Participation in extracurricular activities, classroom behavior, and academic achievement,” Sociology of Education, 83 (1), 20-45.
Cunha, F., J. J. Heckman, L. Lochner. and D. V. Masterov (2006), “Interpreting The Evidence on Life Cycle Skill,” Handbook of the Economics of Education, 1.
Cunha, F., J. J. Heckman and S. Schennach, (2010), “Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation,”IZA Discussion Papers 4702, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., and Steffel Olson, L. (2005), “First grade and educational attainment by age 22：： A new story,” American Journal of Sociology, 110 (5), 1458-1502.
Farkas, G. (2003), “Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification processes,” Annual Review of Sociology, 29 (1), 541-562.
Farkas, G., Grobe, R. P., Sheehan, D., and Shuan, Y. (1990), “Cultural resources and school success： Gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban school district,” American Sociological Review, 55 (1), 127-142
Galton, F (1884), “Measurement of character,” The Fortnightly Review, 36, 179–185.
Goldberg, L. R (1981), “An Alternative "Description of Personality"：：The Big-Five Factor Structure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychologs, 59(6), 1216-1229.
Heckman, J. J and Y. Rubinstein (2001), “The Importance of Noncognitive Skills：： Lessons from the GED Testing Program,” American Economic review , 91 (2), 145-149.
Heckman, J. J., J. Stixrud and S. Urzua (2006), “The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior,” Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 411-482.
Hanushek, E. A. and L. Woessmann (2008), “The Role of Cognitive Skills in Economic Development,” Journal of Economic Literature, 46(3), 607-668.
Jacob, B. A. (2002), “Where the boys aren't： Non-cognitive skills, returns to school and the gender gap in higher education,” Economics of Education Review, 21 (6), 589-598.
Kautz, T., J. J. Heckman, R. Diris, B. T. Weel, and L. Borghans (2014), “Fostering and Measuring Skills： Improving Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Skills to Promote Lifetime Success,” NBER Working Paper, No. 20749.
K. Lehmann, J. Y., N. C. Ana and V. F. Marian (2018), “The Early Origins of Birth Order Differences in Children’s Outcomes and Parental Behavior,” the Journal of Human Resources, 53(1), 123-156.
Lindqvist, E. and R. Vestman (2011), “The Labor Market Returns to Cognitive and Noncognitive Ability： Evidence from the Swedish Enlistment,” American Economic Journal： Applied Economics, 3(1), 101-128.
Lleras, C. (2008), “Do skills and behaviors in high school matter? The contribution of noncognitive factors in explaining differences in educational attainment and earnings,”Social Science Research, 37 (3), 888-902.
Lundberg, S. (2013), “The College Type： Personality and Educational Inequality,” Journal of Labor Economics, 31(3), 421-442.
Lundberg, S. (2019), “Non-Cognitive Skills as Human Capital,” in C. Hulten and V. Ramey (ed.), Education, Skills, and Technical Change：Implications for Future U.S. GDP Growth, 219-243.
Mueser, P. (1979), “The effects of noncognitive traits,” In C. Jencks, M. Corcoran, S. Bartlett, D. Eaglesfleld, G. Jackson, K. McClelland, et al. (Ed.), Who gets ahead： The determinants of economic success in America：New
York, 122-158.
Pavan, R (2013), “On The Production of Skills and the Birth Order Effect,” Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, 51 (3), 699-726.
Rosenbaum, J. (2001), “Beyond college for all：： Career paths for the forgotten half,” New York：： Russell Sage Found.
Rosen, J.A., Glennie, E.J., Dalton, B.W., Lennon, J.M., and Bozick, R.N. (2010),”Noncognitive skills in the classroom: New perspectives on educational research,” Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
Segal, C. (2008), “Symposium on noncognitive skills and their development：Classroom behavior,” Journal of Human Resources, 43 (4) , 783-814.