Is Being a TikToker a Sustainable Career? Evidence from a Structural Equation Model on Platform-Dependent Livelihoods and Youth Employment Policy

Phan Nhan Trung

doi:10.59653/pancasila.v4i02.2338

Authors

Phan Nhan Trung Thu Dau Mot University, Vietnam https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5920-6103

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59653/pancasila.v4i02.2338

Keywords:

platform-dependent livelihoods, youth employment policy, TikTok career sustainability, structural equation modeling, digital labor governance

Abstract

This study examines whether content creation on TikTok constitutes a sustainable career pathway for youth or merely a transient income-generating activity that requires supplementary employment. Grounded in Social Cognitive Career Theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and the Sustainable Livelihood Framework, the research addresses a critical policy gap in regulating platform-dependent livelihoods within the gig economy. A cross-sectional survey of 420 Vietnamese youth aged 18–30 who generate income through TikTok was analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation in Stata 19. The model tested six direct effects on Career Sustainability Intention (CSI), mediation through Outcome Expectations (OE), and moderation by Dual-Career Orientation (DUA). Platform Dependency Risk (PLT) emerged as the strongest predictor of career sustainability intention (β = −0.345, p < .001), followed by Self-Efficacy in Content Creation (SE, β = 0.237, p = .001), Skill Diversification (SKD, β = 0.224, p < .001), and Perceived Income Stability (INC, β = 0.216, p < .001). Bootstrap mediation analysis confirmed the SE → OE → CSI pathway as significant (p = .047). The moderation hypothesis for Dual-Career Orientation was rejected (p = .632). Only 8.1% of respondents were classified as having a sustainable career, while 22.1% were categorized as high risk. The findings provide empirical justification for government intervention in platform-dependent labor markets, including digital skills certification frameworks, platform labor regulation, social protection mechanisms for content creators, and youth career guidance policies that incorporate the realities of the creator economy. This is among the first studies to apply a full SEM framework with mediation and moderation to assess TikTok content creation as a career choice in a developing-economy context, offering evidence-based policy recommendations to regulate an emerging, largely unregulated labor sector.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abidin, C. (2021). Mapping internet celebrity on TikTok: Exploring attention economies and visibility labours. Cultural Science Journal, 12(1), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.5334/csci.140

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Anwar, M. A., & Graham, M. (2021). Between a rock and a hard place: Freedom, flexibility, precarity and vulnerability in the gig economy in Africa. Competition & Change, 25(2), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529420914473

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it? Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202129

Baber, H. (2022). Social interaction and effectiveness of the online learning—A moderating role of maintaining social distance during the pandemic COVID-19. Asian Education and Development Studies, 11(1), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-09-2020-0209

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis. University of Chicago Press.

Betz, N. E. (2008). Advances in vocational theories. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 357–374). Wiley.

Bishop, S. (2021). Influencer management tools: Algorithmic cultures, brand safety, and bias. Social Media + Society, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211003066

Chen, Z. (2023). Exploring the application scenarios and issues facing ChatGPT in China. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13587.

Cotter, K. (2019). Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society, 21(4), 895–913. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818815684

Cunningham, S., & Craig, D. (2019). Social media entertainment: The new intersection of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. NYU Press.

De Stefano, V. (2016). The rise of the “just-in-time workforce”: On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the “gig-economy.” Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), 471–504.

DFID. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Department for International Development, UK.

Duffy, B. E. (2017). (Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work. Yale University Press.

Duffy, B. E., Pinch, A., Sannon, S., & Sawey, M. (2021). The nested precarities of creative labor on social media. Social Media + Society, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211021368

Goldman Sachs. (2023). The creator economy could approach half-a-trillion dollars by 2027. Goldman Sachs Research.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Kossek, E. E. (2014). The contemporary career: A work-home perspective. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091324

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.

Hesmondhalgh, D., & Baker, S. (2020). Creative labour: Media work in three cultural industries. Routledge.

Hou, M. (2019). Social media celebrity and the institutionalization of YouTube. Convergence, 25(3), 534–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517750368

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575

Kennedy, M. (2020). “If the rise of the TikTok dance and e-boy aesthetic has taught us anything, it’s that teenage boys are just as susceptible to internet trends as teenage girls”: Moral panic, youth culture and TikTok. First Monday, 25(4).

Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Press.

Klug, D., Qin, Y., Evans, M., & Kaufman, G. (2021). Trick and please. A mixed-method study on user assumptions about the TikTok algorithm. ACM WebSci 2021, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447535.3462512

Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0

Lehdonvirta, V. (2018). Flexibility in the gig economy: Managing time on three online piecework platforms. New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12102

Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2019). Social cognitive career theory at 25: Empirical status of the interest, choice, and performance models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.06.004

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.36

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H.-B., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., Gloster, C. S., ... Treistman, D. (2018). Predictors of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics choice and persistence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 110–122.

Lin, J., Li, T., & Guo, J. (2021). Factors influencing learners’ behavior intention to use MOOCs: An empirical study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(3), 30–46.

Linan, F., & Chen, Y.-W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x

Lortie, J., & Castogiovanni, G. (2015). The theory of planned behavior in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11, 67–89.

Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(3), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12188

Nguyen, T. H., & Tran, L. T. (2023). Digital labour and youth employment in Vietnam: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Youth Studies, 26(4), 512–530.

Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275–4292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818769694

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling (pp. 147–183). Wiley.

Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820503

Simpson, E., & Semaan, B. (2021). For you, or for you? Everyday LGBTQ+ encounters with TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW3), 1–34.

Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.

StataCorp. (2025). Stata Statistical Software: Release 19. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.

Stokel-Walker, C. (2021). TikTok boom: China, the US and the superpower race for social media. Canbury Press.

Stuart, H. C., & Sorensen, A. T. (2022). Where do careers come from? Career fields as organizational structures in the creative industries. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 138–161.

Sullivan, S. E., & Mainiero, L. A. (2008). Using the kaleidoscope career model to understand the changing patterns of women’s careers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(1), 32–49.

Tran, A. N., Pham, T. H., & Nguyen, V. D. (2022). Platform economy and labor regulation in Vietnam: Policy gaps and governance challenges. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 9(3), 445–468.

Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857

van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.

Vizcaino-Verdu, A., & Abidin, C. (2022). Music challenge memes on TikTok: Understanding in-group storytelling videos. International Journal of Communication, 16, 26.

We Are Social. (2024). Digital 2024: Vietnam. We Are Social & Meltwater.

Wiklund, J., Nikolaev, B., Shir, N., Foo, M.-D., & Bradley, S. (2019). Entrepreneurship and well-being: Past, present, and future. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(4), 579–588.

Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616

Woodcock, J., & Graham, M. (2020). The gig economy: A critical introduction. Polity Press.