Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

# Re: st: interpretation for negative and positive slope combination of interaction term

 From David Crow To statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject Re: st: interpretation for negative and positive slope combination of interaction term Date Thu, 9 May 2013 17:34:34 -0500

```Yes, Nahla and David Hoaglin were absolutely right.  Many apologies.

David

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:06 PM, David Hoaglin <dchoaglin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Nahla,
>
> You are correct about the slope and intercept, as shown in Figure 7.8
> of that book.  In David Crow's simplified model, B2 does not
> contribute to the slope for MV.
>
> A major part of your difficulty comes from trying to make ratio
> interpretations of coefficients in a model whose coefficients can tell
> you about differences.  One usual way to get coefficients that have a
> straightforward interpretation as ratios is to analyze the dependent
> variable in a logarithmic scale.  If it is not appropriate to work
> with your dependent variable in a log scale, you may be able to use a
> generalized linear model with a log link function.
>
> David Hoaglin
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Nahla Betelmal <nahlaib@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the reply David, but I think there is something not quite
>> right. If you check this file, p.133 figure 7.8
>>
>> http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/21120_Chapter_7.pdf
>>
>> You will notice that in order to get the slope for the group with
>> Dummy= 1 (overconfident manager in my case), we should add the
>> coefficient of beta and gama ( MV and OC*MV in my case) , and to get
>> the intercept for those managers we should add the alpha and y ( my
>> model intercept and the coefficient of OC )
>>
>>  I found the same in other files, the problem is that all the examples
>> they provide both beta and gama are positive which makes the addition
>> and interpretation process easy.
>>
>>  my question is how to add and interpret when one is positive and the
>> other is negative . As the effect of MV on realistic managers is -
>> 0.0566  and on  overconfident managers is + 0.0596 , it moves from
>> negative to positive 0.003 (again the interaction is significant
>> although at 10 level). how many times MV effect overconfident managers
>> more than other managers ?
>>
>> I would really appreciate help in that
>>
>> Many thanks
>>
>> Nahla
> *
> *   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/

--
Web site for México, las Américas y el Mundo:
http://mexicoyelmundo.cide.edu/

====================================
David Crow
División de Estudios Internacionales
Carretera México-Toluca 3655
Col. Lomas de Santa Fe 01210  México, D.F.
Tel.:  5727-9800, ext. 2152
Fax:  5727-9872
====================================