IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/illbus/03-0100.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Confounded Coefficients: Accurately Comparing Logit and Probit Coefficients across Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Hoetker, Glenn

    (U of Illinois)

Abstract

The logit and probit models are critical parts of the management researcher's analytical arsenal. We often want to know if a covariate has the same effect for different groups, e.g., foreign and domestic firms. Unfortunately, many attempts to compare the effect of covariates across groups make the unwarranted assumption that each group has the same residual variation. If this is not the case, comparisons of coefficients can reveal differences where none exist and conceal differences that do exist. This article explains the statistical and substantive implications of this assumption, introduces approaches to comparing coefficients that avoid making it, and uses simulations to explore the practical significance of the assumption and the power of approaches introduced to avoid it. As a practical example, I show that an apparent dramatic new insight into the technology strategy of Japanese computer manufacturers is actually just a manifestation of this problem. I close with implications for the practice of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoetker, Glenn, 2004. "Confounded Coefficients: Accurately Comparing Logit and Probit Coefficients across Groups," Working Papers 03-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:illbus:03-0100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.business.illinois.edu/Working_Papers/papers/03-0100.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Myles Shaver, 1998. "Accounting for Endogeneity When Assessing Strategy Performance: Does Entry Mode Choice Affect FDI Survival?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(4), pages 571-585, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Orme, Chris, 1995. "On the Use of Artificial Regressions in Certain Microeconometric Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 290-305, February.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    7. Adrian C. Darnell, 1994. "A Dictionary Of Econometrics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 118.
    8. Skeels, Christopher L. & Vella, Francis, 1999. "A Monte Carlo investigation of the sampling behavior of conditional moment tests in Tobit and Probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 275-294, October.
    9. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    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. Gooroochurn, Nishaal & Hanley, Aoife, 2007. "A tale of two literatures: Transaction costs and property rights in innovation outsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1483-1495, December.
    2. Fowlie, Meredith, 2005. "Emissions Trading, Electricity Industry Restructuring and Investment in Pollution Abatement," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19265, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Chen, Jie, 2006. "The Dynamics of Housing Allowance Claims in Sweden: A discrete-time hazard analysis," Working Paper Series 2006:1, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    4. Mikael C. Bergbrant & Kaysia Campbell & Delroy M. Hunter, 2014. "Firm-Level Competition and Exchange Rate Exposure: Evidence from a Global Survey of Firms," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 43(4), pages 885-916, December.
    5. Felicia Tian, 2013. "Transition to First Marriage in Reform-Era Urban China: The Persistent Effect of Education in a Period of Rapid Social Change," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 32(4), pages 529-552, August.
    6. Richter, Kaspar, 2009. "Changes in Subjective Well-Being in Timor-Leste on the Path to Independence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 371-384, February.
    7. Kara M. Reynolds, 2009. "From Agreement to Application: An Analysis of Determinations under the WTO Antidumping Agreement," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 969-985, November.
    8. Boehm, Thomas P. & Schlottmann, Alan M., 2014. "The dynamics of housing tenure choice: Lessons from Germany and the United States," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 1-19.
    9. Meredith Fowlie, 2010. "Emissions Trading, Electricity Restructuring, and Investment in Pollution Abatement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 837-869, June.

    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. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    2. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    3. Mayer, T. & Mejean, I. & Nefussi, B., 2010. "The location of domestic and foreign production affiliates by French multinational firms," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 115-128, September.
    4. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    5. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    6. Kaili Wang & Sanjana Hossain & Khandker Nurul Habib, 2022. "A hybrid data fusion methodology for household travel surveys to reduce proxy biases and under-representation of specific sub-group of population," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1801-1836, December.
    7. Kalinic, Igor & Brouthers, Keith D., 2022. "Entrepreneurial orientation, export channel selection, and export performance of SMEs," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1).
    8. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Fowlie, Meredith, 2005. "Emissions Trading, Electricity Industry Restructuring and Investment in Pollution Abatement," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19265, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    11. Gevrek, Z.Eylem & Uyduranoglu, Ayse, 2015. "Public preferences for carbon tax attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 186-197.
    12. Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2006. "Should We Trust Hypothetical Referenda? Test and Identification Problems," Working Papers in Economics 189, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised 24 Jan 2006.
    13. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    14. Yosr Abid Fourati & Cathal O'Donoghue, 2009. "Eliciting Individual Preferences for Pension Reform," Working Papers 0150, National University of Ireland Galway, Department of Economics, revised 2009.
    15. Arduini, Davide & Belotti, Federico & Denni, Mario & Giungato, Gerolamo & Zanfei, Antonello, 2010. "Technology adoption and innovation in public services the case of e-government in Italy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 257-275, July.
    16. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Fernández-Macho, Javier, 2009. "The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2372-2381, June.
    17. D. Fabbri & C. Monfardini & R. Radice, 2004. "Testing exogeneity in the bivariate probit model: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to health economics," Working Papers 514, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    18. Riccardo SCARPA & Fiorenza SPALATRO & Maurizio CANAVARI, 2005. "Investigating Preferences For Environment Friendly Production," Others 0505003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    20. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.

    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:ecl:illbus:03-0100. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbuiuus.html .

    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.