運用界限設置分析方法探究年齡－時期－世代之效應：以臺灣個人主觀社會地位長期變遷為例

Introducing APC Bounding Analysis: An Example of the Long-Term Change of Subjective Social Status in Taiwan

10.7014/SRMA.2023100004

彭思錦(Ssu-Chin Peng)；關秉寅(Ping-Ying Kuan)

主觀社會地位 ； APC模型 ； 認定問題 ； 界限設置分析 ； subjective social status ； Age-Period-Cohort (APC) model ； the identification problem ； bounding analysis

調查研究-方法與應用

51期（2023 / 10 / 01）

161 - 204

繁體中文;英文

本文以臺灣社會個人主觀社會地位評分的長期變動為例，介紹新近發展的APC界限設置分析（Bounding Analysis）方法。所謂APC分析是探究三個時間面向－個人層次的年齡（Age），群體層次的時期（Period）和世代（Cohort）－如何影響研究者關心的應變項。由於A=P-C，當這三個解釋變項同時納入分析時，會有共線性問題。相對於其他APC分析方法，新近發展的界限設置分析應是較佳處理認定問題（identification problem）的策略。此策略能以最少的先決條件，呈現APC三者影響效應之正負方向及上下限。本研究以此APC分析方法，探析1984至2019年臺灣社會變遷基本調查資料中，以1至10分測量之主觀社會地位的長期變化。初步分析結果顯示，主觀社會地位在30至35歲之間達到高峰；在不同時期上，則呈現隨社會經濟局勢的情況而上下波動的趨勢。在世代效果上，可以發現1960-1964以後出生世代的主觀社會地位是高於先前出生的世代。

This paper introduces a newly developed APC (Age, Period, Cohort) bounding analysis to untangle the temporal dynamics that shape social change. Researchers have long grappled with the challenge of disentangling the three distinct temporal forces influencing social change: the impact of individual life experiences (Age Effect), the consequences of specific historical events (Period Effect), and the enduring influence of generational experiences (Cohort Effect). However, the inherent problem of perfect collinearity, represented by Age=Period-Cohort, has compelled researchers to seek various statistical decomposition methods to identify these effects separately. Commonly used APC analyses often seek point estimation and impose certain arbitrary assumptions, potentially compromising the reliability of the estimates. In contrast, Fosse and Winship (2019a, 2019b) introduced the bounding analysis approach as a superior strategy to address the identification problem. This method provides estimates of the lower and upper bounds for age, period, and cohort effects with minimal statistical constraints and assumptions. Researchers can effectively disentangle the complex relationships among age, period, and cohort by applying orthogonal transformation techniques. This study uses data from the Taiwan Social Change Survey (TSCS). This nationally representative dataset surveys modules of similar questions every five years to revisit major research topics like social inequality and civic behaviors. Our research analyzes 23 waves of TSCS data collected between 1984 and 2019, specifically focusing on the long-term patterns of change in subjective social status (SSS) in Taiwan. After filtering out respondents younger than 20 and older than 65 and deleting missing data, the analytical sample comprises 44,743 cases. The results of our study underscore the efficacy of the APC bounding analysis in profiling the complex and evolving dynamics of SSS. Notably, our findings reveal a non-linear relationship between age and SSS, with individuals' SSS generally peaking around 30 to 35 before gradually declining as they advance beyond 60. Cohorts also emerge as significant contributors to variations in SSS, with those born after 1964 reporting higher SSS compared to their predecessors born before the 1960s. Our analysis of the period effect highlights the dynamic nature of SSS, showing fluctuations in response to prevailing political and economic conditions during survey years. Notably, events such as the missile crisis of 1995 and the Asian financial crisis of 1997 left a noticeable imprint on individuals' SSS during the years 1995-1999. Similarly, the global financial crisis of 2008 had a discernible impact on SSS evaluations. While the bounding analysis offers a more plausible solution to the identification problem, it primarily provides descriptive insights. Building on the findings of the bounding analysis, researchers can further explore the causal mechanisms underlying the relationships between outcome variables and temporal factors.

1. 林宗弘, T. H.(2013)。失落的年代：臺灣民眾階級認同與意識形態的變遷。人文及社會科學集刊，25(4)，689-734。
   連結：
2. 蔡淑玲, Shu-ling(2004)。高等教育的擴展對教育機會分配的影響。臺灣社會學，7，47-88。
   連結：
3. 關秉寅, P. Y.,彭思錦, S.C.,崔成秀, S.G.(2019)。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。
   連結：
4. Beck, U.,Beck-Gernsheim, E.(2009).Global Generations and the Trap of Methodological Nationalism for a Cosmopolitan Turn in the Sociology of Youth and Generation.European Sociological Review,25(1),25-36.
5. Bell, A.(2020).Age Period Cohort Analysis: A Review of What We Should and Shouldn’t Do.Annals of Human Biology,47(2),208-217.
6. Bollen, K. A.,Glanville, J. L.,Stecklov, G.(2002).Economic Status Proxies in Studies of Fertility in Developing Countries: Does the Measure Matter?.Population Studies,56(1),81-96.
7. Brooks, C.,Manza, J.(1997).Social Cleavages and Political Alignments: US Presidential Elections, 1960 to 1992.American Sociological Review,62(6),937-946.
8. Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L.,Lundberg, J. B.,Kay, A. C.,Payne, B. K.(2014).Subjective Status Shapes Political Preferences.Psychological Science,24(1),15-26.
9. Burnham, K. P.,Anderson, D. R.(2004).Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection.Sociological Methods & Research,33(2),261-304.
10. Cundiff, J. M.,Matthews, K. A.(2017).Is Subjective Social Status A Unique Correlate of Physical Health? A Meta-analysis.Health Psychology,36(12),1109.
11. Demakakos, P.,Nazroo, J.,Breeze, E.,Marmot, M.(2008).Socioeconomic Status and Health: the Role of Subjective Social Status.Social Science & Medicine,67(2),330-340.
12. Duman, A.(2019).Subjective Social Class and Individual Preferences for Redistribution Crosscountry Empirical Analysis.International Journal of Social Economics,47(2),173-189.
13. Evans, M. D.,Kelley, J.(2004).Subjective Social Location: Data from 21 Nations.International Journal of Public Opinion Research,16(1),3-38.
14. Fabozzi, F. J.,Focardi, S. M.,Rachev, S. T.,Arshanapalli, B. G.(2014).The Basics of Financial Econometrics: Tools, Concepts, and Asset Management Applications.NY:John Wiley & Sons.
15. Fienberg, S. E.,Mason, W. M.(1979).Identification and Estimation of Age-period-cohort Models in the Analysis of Discrete Archival Data.Sociological methodology,10,1-67.
16. Fosse, E.,Winship, C.(2019).Bounding Analyses of Age-period-Cohort Effects.Demography,56(5),1975-2004.
17. Fosse, E.,Winship, C.(2019).Analyzing Age-period-cohort Data: A Review and Critique.Annual Review of Sociology,45,467-492.
18. Fosse, E.,Winship, C.(2018).Moore–Penrose Estimators of Age-period-cohort Effects: Their Interrelationship and Properties.Sociological Science,5,304-334.
19. Fosse, E.,Winship, C.,Daoud, A.(2020).Learning from Age-Period-Cohort Data: Bounds, Mechanisms, and 2D-APC Graphs.Age, Period and Cohort Effects,London:
20. Gidron, N.,Hall, P. A.(2017).The Politics of Social Status: Economic and Cultural Roots of the Populist Right.The British Journal of Sociology,68(S1),S57-S84.
21. Kelley, J.,Evans, M. D.(1995).Class and Class Conflict in Six Western Nations.American Sociological Review,60(2),157-178.
22. Kuan, P. Y.,Peng, S. C.(2021).Time Will Tell: Revisiting the Impact of College Expansion on Income and Occupational Prestige Mobility of Young Adults in Taiwan.Higher Education Quarterly,75(3),468-486.
23. Luo, L.(2013).Assessing Validity and Application Scope of the Intrinsic Estimator Approach to the Age-period-cohort Problem.Demography,50(6),1945-1967.
24. Luo, L.,Hodges, J.,Winship, C.,Powers, D.(2016).The Sensitivity of the Intrinsic Estimator to Coding Schemes: Comment on Yang, Schulhofer-Wohl, Fu, and Land.American Journal of Sociology,122(3),930-961.
25. Mannheim, K.(1952).The Problem of Generations.Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge,London:
26. Masters, R.,Powers, D.(2020).Clarifying Assumptions in Age-Period-Cohort Analyses and Validating Results.PloS One,15(10),e0238871.
27. O’Brien, R. M.(2011).Constrained Estimators and Age-period-cohort Models.Sociological Methods & Research,40(3),419-452.
28. Tsai, M.-C.,Chen, L.-W..When Economic Growth is Gone: The Global Generation and Disparities in Happiness in Taiwan.Social Well-Being, Development, and Multiple Modernity in Asia,Singapore:
29. Winship, C.,Harding, D. J.(2008).A Mechanism-based Approach to the Identification of Age–Period–Cohort Models.Sociological Methods & Research,36(3),362-401.
30. Yang, Y.,Land, K. C.(2013).Age-Period-Cohort Analysis: New Models, Methods, and Empirical Applications.Boca Raton:CRC press.
31. Yang, Y.,Land, K. C.(2013).Assessing the Significance of Cohort and Period Effects in Hierarchical Age-Period-Cohort Models: Applications to Verbal Test Scores and Voter Turnout in U. S. Presidential Elections.Social Forces,92(1),221-248.
32. Yang, Y.,Schulhofer-Wohl, S.,Fu, W. J.,Land, K. C.(2008).The Intrinsic Estimator for Age-Period-Cohort Analysis: What it is and How to Use it.American Journal of Sociology,113(6),1697-1736.
33. 周玉慧, Yuh-Huey,朱瑞玲, Ruey-Ling(2008)。變遷中的臺灣民眾心理需求，疏離感與身心困擾。臺灣社會學刊，41，59-96。
34. 林宗弘, Thung-hong,洪敬舒, Ching-shu,李健鴻, Chien-hung,王兆慶, Chao-ching,張烽義, Feng-yih(2011).崩世代：財團化、貧窮化與少子女化的危機.臺北=Taipei:臺灣勞工陣線協會=Taiwan Labor Front.
35. 張宜君, Yi-Chun,林宗弘, Thung-Hong(2020)。時勢造英雄？臺灣個人所得的世代差異，1992– 2017。臺灣社會學刊，68，61-120。
36. 張峯彬, Fengbin,關秉寅, Ping-yin(2012)。高教擴張、失業與主觀社會地位變遷。臺灣的社會變遷 1985∼2005：社會階層與勞動市場，臺灣社會變遷基本調查系列三之 3，臺北=Taipei:
37. 熊瑞梅, Ray-May,張峯彬, Feng-Bin,林亞鋒, Ya-Feng(2010)。解嚴後民社團參與的變遷：時期與世代的效應與意涵。臺灣社會學刊，44，55-105。