Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Richard Williams <richardwilliams.ndu@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant |

Date |
Sun, 07 Apr 2013 02:25:52 -0500 |

At 11:07 PM 4/6/2013, David Hoaglin wrote:

Richard gave the following interpretation of the coefficient of OC_D in the initial model: "The coefficient for OC-D is the predicted difference between an overconfident manager and a regular manager when MV = 0 and the values of other variables are the same for both." The phrase "and the values of other variables are the same for both," however, does not reflect the way multiple regression works. The appropriate general interpretation of an estimated coefficient is that it tells how the dependent variable changes per unit change in that predictor after adjusting for simultaneous linear change in the other predictors in the data at hand. (I realize that various books have interpretations similar to the one that Richard gave, but that does not make those interpretations correct in general.) Since OC_D is an indicator variable, its coefficient gives the difference, on average, between overconfident managers and rational managers after adjusting for the contributions of the other predictors. One of those other predictors is OC_MV, so the resulting interpretation for the coefficient of OC_D is the one that I gave above.

------------------------------------------- Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463 HOME: (574)289-5227 EMAIL: Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.Edu WWW: http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant***From:*David Hoaglin <dchoaglin@gmail.com>

**Re: st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant***From:*Nahla Betelmal <nahlaib@gmail.com>

**References**:**st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant***From:*Nahla Betelmal <nahlaib@gmail.com>

**Re: st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant***From:*Anthony Fulginiti <fulginit@usc.edu>

**Re: st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant***From:*Nahla Betelmal <nahlaib@gmail.com>

**Re: st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant***From:*Richard Williams <richardwilliams.ndu@gmail.com>

**Re: st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant***From:*Nahla Betelmal <nahlaib@gmail.com>

**Re: st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant***From:*David Hoaglin <dchoaglin@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Finding the corresponding variable** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Finding the corresponding variable** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: indicator variable and interaction term different signs but both significant** - Index(es):