IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v29y2000i1p118-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Heteroscedastic Generalized Extreme Value Discrete Choice Model

Author

Listed:
  • LANGCHE ZENG

    (The George Washington University)

Abstract

Of the commonly used discrete choice models, the probit class allows flexible covariance structures for disturbances but is computationally burdensome for problems with more than a few alternatives. The generalized extreme value (GEV) class, including the widely used logit and nested logit models, has the advantage of computational ease but suffers in general from the restriction of homoscedastic disturbances. This article generalizes the GEV class to allow heteroscedastic disturbances across decision makers as well as across choice alternatives. The resulting models include the heteroscedastic extreme value model as a special case, which is a generalized logit model with heteroscedasticity across choice alternatives. Particular attention is paid to the heteroscedastic logit and nested logit models because of their widespread use in practice. An empirical application reanalyzing data from the 1980 presidential election tests the hypothesis of information-induced heteroscedasticity across voters and finds support for a heteroscedastic logit model that reveals stronger effects of voter information on the turnout decision than suggested by the original standard logit model in Ordeshook and Zeng.

Suggested Citation

  • Langche Zeng, 2000. "A Heteroscedastic Generalized Extreme Value Discrete Choice Model," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 29(1), pages 118-144, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:29:y:2000:i:1:p:118-144
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124100029001006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124100029001006
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124100029001006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    2. Small, Kenneth A, 1987. "A Discrete Choice Model for Ordered Alternatives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 409-424, March.
    3. McFadden, Daniel, 1989. "A Method of Simulated Moments for Estimation of Discrete Response Models without Numerical Integration," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 995-1026, September.
    4. Falaris, Evangelos M, 1987. "A Nested Logit Migration Model with Selectivity," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(2), pages 429-443, June.
    5. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1984. "Convenient specification tests for logit and probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 241-262, July.
    6. Yatchew, Adonis & Griliches, Zvi, 1985. "Specification Error in Probit Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(1), pages 134-139, February.
    7. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the Multinomial Probit Model," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1gf1t128, University of California Transportation Center.
    8. Harvey, A C, 1976. "Estimating Regression Models with Multiplicative Heteroscedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(3), pages 461-465, May.
    9. Bhat, Chandra R., 1995. "A heteroscedastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 471-483, December.
    10. Saul D. Hoffman & Greg J. Duncan, 1988. "A Comparison of Choice-Based Multinomial and Nested Logit Models: The Family Structure and Welfare Use Decisions of Divorced or Separated Women," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 23(4), pages 550-562.
    11. Horowitz, Joel, 1981. "Identification and diagnosis of specification errors in the multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 345-360, October.
    12. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1985. "A Nested Logit Model of Energy Conservation Activity by Owners of Existing Single Family Dwellings," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(2), pages 205-211, May.
    13. Fishe, Raymond P H & Idson, Todd L, 1990. "Information-Induced Heteroscedasticity in Price Expectations Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(2), pages 304-312, May.
    14. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-12, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paap, Richard & van Nierop, Erjen & van Heerde, Harald J. & Wedel, Michel & Franses, Philip Hans & Alsem, Karel Jan, 2005. "Consideration sets, intentions and the inclusion of "don't know" in a two-stage model for voter choice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 53-71.
    2. Michel Bierlaire, 2006. "A theoretical analysis of the cross-nested logit model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 287-300, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    2. Tinessa, Fiore & Marzano, Vittorio & Papola, Andrea, 2020. "Mixing distributions of tastes with a Combination of Nested Logit (CoNL) kernel: Formulation and performance analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-23.
    3. Yai, Tetsuo & Iwakura, Seiji & Morichi, Shigeru, 1997. "Multinomial probit with structured covariance for route choice behavior," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 195-207, June.
    4. Paul Gertler & Roland Sturm & Bruce Davidson, 1994. "Information and the Demand for Supplemental Medicare Insurance," NBER Working Papers 4700, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    6. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Denis Bolduc, 2007. "Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1095-1125.
    7. Young, Gary & Valdez, Emiliano A. & Kohn, Robert, 2009. "Multivariate probit models for conditional claim-types," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 214-228, April.
    8. Joachim Grammig & Reinhard Hujer & Michael Scheidler, 2005. "Discrete choice modelling in airline network management," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 467-486, May.
    9. GRAMMIG, Joachim & HUJER, Reinhard & SCHEIDLER, Michael, 2001. "The econometrics of airline network management," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2001055, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    10. Rinus Haaijer & Michel Wedel & Marco Vriens & Tom Wansbeek, 1998. "Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 236-252.
    11. Horowitz, Joel & Keane, Michael & Bolduc, Denis & Divakar, Suresh & Geweke, John & Gonul, Fosun & Hajivassiliou, Vassilis & Koppelman, Frank & Matzkin, Rosa & Rossi, Peter & Ruud, Paul, 1994. "Advances in Random Utility Models," MPRA Paper 53026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    13. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    14. Heng Z. Chen & Frank Lupi & John P. Hoehn, 1999. "An Empirical Assessment of Multinomial Probit and Logit Models for Recreation Demand," Chapters, in: Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), Valuing Recreation and the Environment, chapter 5, pages 141-162, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Geweke, John & Keane, Michael P & Runkle, David, 1994. "Alternative Computational Approaches to Inference in the Multinomial Probit Model," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 609-632, November.
    16. Michael Scheidler & Reinhard Hujer & Joachim Grammig, 2005. "Discrete choice modelling in airline network management," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 467-486.
    17. Rennings, Klaus & Ziegler, Andreas & Zwick, Thomas, 2001. "Employment changes in environmentally innovative firms," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-46, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Darla Hatton MacDonald & Mark Morrison & Mary Barnes, 2010. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept Compensation for Changes in Urban Water Customer Service Standards," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(12), pages 3145-3158, September.
    19. Cohen, Michael, 2010. "A Structured Covariance Probit Demand Model," Research Reports 149970, University of Connecticut, Food Marketing Policy Center.
    20. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:29:y:2000:i:1:p:118-144. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.