Sign of coefficient change

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

I am running binary multilevel models on whether or not households have bank accounts. Apart from relevant economic, social and demographical household level variables I also include two contextual variables for the primary sampling units (PSU), which are either villages or urban neighborhoods. These two measure the wealth level (assets) and the educational level of the PSU’s. Because a relevant explanatory variable is whether a bank branch is within the vicinity of the household and because households in urban areas should be expected to be closer to the nearest bank branch I expect the dummy variable for URBAN to be positively associated with having a bank account. The proportion of households with bank accounts are higher in urban (53.1) than in rural (30.9) PSU’s and average wealth and educational levels are higher in urban than in rural PSU’s.

However, the dummy for URBAN has a positive sign when the two contextual variables for PSU wealth and education are not included and a negative sign when they are included. How should I interpret this?

KML

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：coefficient EFFICIENT change CHAN sign change

This sort of problem is almost exactly what Andrew Gelman found in voting patterns in different states in the USA; his Rich State, poor state, red state, blue state gives a great explanation (and is interesting if you are into politics). He found that wealthier states are more likely to vote Democratic, but wealthier people are more likely to vote Republican. Fascinating.

The single best way to see this is probably to plot the predicted probability of having a bank account against wealth and education, with separate lines for urban and rural people.