# Interpretation of marginal effects in Logit Model with log$\times$independent variable

I am totally confused by statistics and I would be glad if you could help me.

I have a difficulties to interpret marginal effects in logit model, if my independent variable is log transformed.

I will illustrate my question on the example from my data below. I run a logistic regression in stata

My dependent variable is dummy indicating whether a game is of X Genre. My independent variable is a continuous and log transformed variable (log heterogeneity)

After I run a logit regression:

logit xGenre logheterogeneity + control variables


I get the following results:

The coefficient of my independet variable is .567

STATA:

-X Genre        Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]

-log heterog|  .5655944  .1741354     3.25   0.001     .2242953    .9068935


In order to be able to interpret the results easier, I should look at the marginal effects.

I have used therefore an mfx command.

My results show following: for my independent variable I get dy/dx = .056

STATA:

-variable       dy/dx    Std. Err.     z    P>|z|  [    95% C.I.   ]      X

-log heter.  .0563382      .01688    3.34   0.001   .023259  .089417   3.51361

(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1


Now I am confused on how to interpret my results. Can I say, If my independent variable increase in 10% (log heterog.), then the probability that my Game will be of Genre X increases by 0.56%.

You know that in a logit:

$$Pr[y = 1 \vert x,z] = p = \frac{\exp (\alpha + \beta \cdot \ln x + \gamma z)}{1+\exp (\alpha + \beta \cdot \ln x + \gamma z )}.$$

After some tedious calculus and simplification, the partial of that with respect to $x$ becomes:

$$\frac{\partial Pr[y=1 \vert x,z]}{\partial x} = \frac{\beta}{x} \cdot p \cdot (1-p).$$

This is (sort of) equivalent to

$$\frac{\Delta p}{\Delta x}=\frac{\beta}{x} \cdot p \cdot (1-p),$$

which can be re-written as

$$\frac{\Delta p}{100 \cdot \frac{ \Delta x}{x}}= \frac{\beta \cdot p \cdot (1-p)}{100}.$$

This is the definition of semi-elasticity, and can be interpreted as the change in probability for a 1% change in $x$.

Here's an example in Stata.* Note that I am using margins instead of the out-of-date mfx to get the average marginal effect of $x$, $\frac{1}{N}\Sigma_{i=1}^N\frac{\beta \cdot p_i \cdot (1-p_i)}{100}$:

. sysuse auto, clear
(1978 Automobile Data)

. gen ln_price = ln(price)

. logit foreign ln_price mpg weight, nolog

Logistic regression                             Number of obs     =         74
LR chi2(3)        =      57.69
Prob > chi2       =     0.0000
Log likelihood = -16.185932                     Pseudo R2         =     0.6406

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
foreign |      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
ln_price |   6.851215    2.11763     3.24   0.001     2.700737    11.00169
mpg |  -.0880842   .1031317    -0.85   0.393    -.2902186    .1140503
weight |  -.0062268   .0017269    -3.61   0.000    -.0096115   -.0028422
_cons |  -41.32383   16.24003    -2.54   0.011    -73.15371   -9.493947
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. margins, expression(_b[ln_price]*predict()*(1-predict())/100)

Predictive margins                              Number of obs     =         74
Model VCE    : OIM

Expression   : _b[ln_price]*predict()*(1-predict())/100

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|            Delta-method
|     Margin   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
_cons |   .0046371   .0007965     5.82   0.000      .003076    .0061982
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This means that for a 1% increase in price, the probability that a car is foreign increases by 0.005 on a [0,1] scale. Or a 10% increase in price gives you a 0.05 increase. In this date, about 0.3 of the cars are foreign, so these are economically and statistically significant.

Edit:

A good way to do this in Stata 10 is to install the user-written command margeff:

. margeff, dydx(ln_price) replace

Average partial effects after margeff
y  = Pr(foreign)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
variable |      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
ln_price |   .4637103   .0796514     5.82   0.000     .3075964    .6198241
mpg |  -.0059616    .006781    -0.88   0.379    -.0192522     .007329
weight |  -.0004214   .0000417   -10.11   0.000    -.0005031   -.0003398
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. lincom _b[ln_price]/100

( 1)  .01*ln_price = 0

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
variable |      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
(1) |   .0046371   .0007965     5.82   0.000      .003076    .0061982
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*This is actually not a great empirical example since the relationship in the data has an inverted-U shape.

• Thank You very much for a quick answer and clear example! Very helpful. I will try the margins command instead of mfx. Apr 22 '15 at 8:32
• Unfortunately I have Stata 10.1, after a quick googeling I found that I cannot use this command in Stata 10. Is there any way to do the same in Stata 10? Apr 22 '15 at 8:51
• @AlinaLobova Luckily, it is pretty easy. See the edit above. It would be good practice to include such info in the question going forward. Apr 22 '15 at 15:48
• the commands you have provided for stata10 worked fine! Will definitely include the program version next time. I have another question,considering the economical significance. In your answer you have written In this date, about 0.3 of the cars are foreign, so these are economically and statistically significant. I understand that economical significance, says if my coefficient/result makes sense in practice. Now I am confused, to see that if in my data only 0.3 cars are foreign, even a small increase such as 0.005 is economically significant. Apr 22 '15 at 18:38
• @AlinaLobova I would define ES as practical significance, as measured by the sign and magnitude of the AMEs, instead of p-values. 0.3 means that about a third of the cars are foreign. If a 10% price increase takes that to 0.35, that is a 17% increase in imports in the sample. Apr 22 '15 at 18:52