social de Following this argument our sample could be biased to a smaller share of people leaving the household.
Second there is an identification bias. As written in chapter 4, we could only identify for about 10 percent of all individuals, who obtained tertiary education, whether they left their parental household or not. This is due to the fragmentary data from the Btioedu data set, which left us creating the dummy variable only for individuals followed through their whole adolescence. Therefore it seems to be likely that our treatment variable doesn't reflect all the individuals left home before graduating.
Additionally both biases could be an explanation for the extreme reduction of the identification group from 1363 to 347 individuals in the 2015 wave.
The results regarding the personality traits summarized by the big fives are ambiguous. Only the coefficients for agreeableness and neuroticism are significant on the 1% level through all regressions in which the big fives are included. We find a negative impact on wages for both factors. An increase of one standard deviation in agreeableness and Neuroticism leads to an decrease in wages of 3%, respectively 2.8% (see Table columns). This seems to be in line with the previous literature's results. So the reverse of Neuroticism, emotionally stability has a positive impact on wages in \citealt{Heineck2011,Judge1999,Mueller_2006,Nyhus2005} and \citealt{Boudreau2001}., whereas agreeableness is associated with negative impact on wages in \citealp{Mueller_2006,Boudreau_2001} and \citealt{Heineck2010}. Additionally Conscientiousness is significant at the 10% level in the regression where we expand the mincer framework with the big five factors, even when we add the control variables. However Conscientiousness becomes non significant as soon as we integrate more personality related variables like locus of control or willingness to take risk to our regressions. We argue that the mixed results for the impact of Openness on wages in the economic literature allows to more or less ignore the non significance of Openness ( \citealt{Mueller_2006,O_Connell_2011,Heineck2008,Heineck2010,Heineck2011}). Especially since ( ) state that the strong correlation between Openness and IQ leads to a upward bias. Nonetheless our results for Conscientiousness and Extraversion don't coincide with the significant effects found for both factors in \citealt*{Heineck2010} and \citealt{Judge1999} . Only \citealt*{Nyhus2005} and \citealt{Heineck2011} state non significance for Conscientiousness respectively Extraversion.
In all our regressions that include Locus of Control as a dependent variable it shows as highly significant on the 1% level. An increase of one unit in Locus of control leads to an increase in wage by 6.44% ( see table column). This seems to be conform with findings by \citealt{Cebi_2007} and \citealt*{Heineck_2010}.
In contrast to Locus of control, the effect of the self reported own willingness to take risk shows only significantly different from zero as long as the big five are not included in the regression.
Last but not least we included last grades in school in math, German and foreign language as a proxy for cognitive ability. Note that the implementation of this proxy for cognitive skills shrinks the sample size dramatically. Nonetheless we find that only the last grades in math have a significantly different effect from zero. Because of the German grading system that goes from 1 to 6 where 1 indicates the best achievable grade the coefficient is negative. A decline of one level , indicated by an increase in the related variable by one unit, decreases wages on average by 4.35%.
Panel Regression