I want to estimate the following probit model

$employed_t=\beta_1 age + \beta_2 age^2$

and I use the Stata code

probit employed c.age##c.age

Using the command margins I obtain the marginal effect of $age$ including the effect through the quadratic terms if included in the model (see: How do I interpret a probit model in Stata?).

How do I obtain the marginal effect for the quadratic terms $age^2$?

Is this procedure correct?

probit employed c.age##c.age

sum age

local m=r(mean)

local x1 _b[c.age]*'m'+_b[c.age#c.age]*'m'+_b[_cons]

nlcom 2*normd('x1')*_b[c.age#c.age]-('x1')*normd('x1')*(_b[c.age]+2*_b[c.age#c.age]*'r')

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I don't think this is a sensible question. Stata's margins deal with everything you need. There's no effect of age^2 that would be separate from the effect of age; there is simply a non-linear effect of age that margins treats perfectly fine for you. $\endgroup$ – StasK Mar 10 '14 at 16:15
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, but I am interested in the size/sign of the marginal effect of $age^2$. $\endgroup$ – sawobo Mar 10 '14 at 16:31
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The size and sign are not very meaningful. $\endgroup$ – Dimitriy V. Masterov Mar 10 '14 at 16:59
  • $\begingroup$ It depends. But the point is: in a table I need to report both the margins. $\endgroup$ – sawobo Mar 10 '14 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ The marginal effect (on the linear predictor scale) for the quadratic term is just the coefficient. Maybe you're confused because it is sort of weird to only ask for a marginal effect when two variables will be so obviously correlated as a polynomial epansion inevitably will be. $\endgroup$ – generic_user Mar 10 '14 at 18:01

I am inclined to agree with @StasK's comment. However, something like what you want is feasible, though a little tricky to interpret. What I propose below tells you how the marginal effect of $x$ varies with $x$.

You know that the conditional mean of the dependent variable in a probit model is $$\mathbb{Pr}[y=1 \vert x,z]=\Phi(\alpha + \beta \cdot x + \gamma \cdot x^2+z'\pi).$$ The variable $x$ is what we care about. The vector $z$ contains some other covariates. $\Phi(.)$ is the standard normal cdf, and $\varphi(.)$ is is the standard normal pdf, which will be used below.

The marginal effect of $x$ is $$\frac{\partial \mathbb{Pr}[y=1 \vert x,z]}{\partial x}=\varphi(\alpha + \beta \cdot x + \gamma \cdot x^2+z'\pi)\cdot(\beta + 2\cdot\gamma \cdot x).$$ The change in the marginal effect is the second derivative $$ \frac{\partial^2 \mathbb{Pr}[y=1 \vert x,z]}{\partial x^2} = \varphi(\alpha + \beta \cdot x + \gamma \cdot x^2+z'\pi)\cdot(2\cdot\gamma) +(\beta + 2\cdot\gamma \cdot x)\cdot\varphi'(\alpha + \beta \cdot x + \gamma \cdot x^2+z'\pi). $$

Since $\varphi′(x)=−x \cdot \varphi(x)$, this "simplifies" to

$$ \frac{\partial^2 \mathbb{Pr}[y=1 \vert x,z]}{\partial x^2} = \varphi(\alpha + \beta \cdot x + \gamma \cdot x^2+z'\pi)\cdot \left[ 2\cdot\gamma -(\beta + 2\cdot\gamma \cdot x)^2\cdot(\alpha + \beta \cdot x + \gamma \cdot x^2+z'\pi)\right]. $$

Note that this is a function of $x$ and $z$s, so we can evaluate this quantity at various possible values. Also note that while the first term is surely positive since it is a normal density, it's hard to sign the second term even if you know the sign and magnitude of the coefficients.

Assuming that I didn't screw up the derivative, here's how I might actually do this in Stata:

sysuse auto, clear;
probit foreign c.mpg##c.mpg c.weight, coefl;
/* At own values of covarites */
margins, expression(normalden(predict(xb))*(2*_b[c.mpg#c.mpg] - predict(xb)*(_b[c.mpg]+2*_b[c.mpg#c.mpg]*mpg)^2));
/* At chosen values of covarites */
margins, expression(normalden(predict(xb))*(2*_b[c.mpg#c.mpg] - predict(xb)*(_b[c.mpg]+2*_b[c.mpg#c.mpg]*mpg)^2)) at(mpg=20 weight=3000);
/* At avermpg value of covariates */
margins, expression(normalden(predict(xb))*(2*_b[c.mpg#c.mpg] - predict(xb)*(_b[c.mpg]+2*_b[c.mpg#c.mpg]*mpg)^2)) atmeans;

If I was doing this myself and feeling lazy, I might use adjacent reverse contrasts. For instance, here's the second derivative evaluated at 4 values of $x$:

margins, expression(normalden(predict(xb))*(2*_b[c.mpg#c.mpg] - predict(xb)*(_b[c.mpg]+2*_b[c.mpg#c.mpg]*mpg)^2)) at(mpg = (10 20 30 40));

Here's a comparison of the derivatives. This compares the marginal effects of mpg at mpg of x+1 to the marginal effect at mpg of x:

margins, dydx(mpg) at(mpg = (10 11 20 21 30 31 40 41)) contrast(atcontrast(ar(2(2)8)._at) wald);

Note how close the two commands' outputs are, but the second is so much easier.

I don't know what r is your code, so I can't verify if what you have is correct.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately I have a large number of observations (>1mln) then "inteff" is not working. I am able to compute the marginal effect manually when the interaction is between two dummies but I am not sure how to do it with a continuous variable (i.e. the squared term). $\endgroup$ – sawobo Mar 10 '14 at 15:06

I don't use stata for GLMs (like probit), so maybe I'm missing something specific to the context, but anyway:

What you're doing is modeling $$ g(E[employed]) = \beta_0 + \beta_1age + \beta_2age^2 $$ where $g(.)$ is the normal cdf. You can follow the following procedure to interpret your coeffcients (which is almost exactly the same for logit):

  1. Draw or graph for yourself the normal cdf. It is sigmoidal.
  2. Note the intercept ($\beta_0$) on your x-axis, and draw a line up to where it intersects the normal cdf.
  3. For a given age $A$, move $\beta_1 A + \beta_2 A^2$ from your intercept. Note the point on the x-axis, and draw a line up to where it intersects the function.
  4. Draw a line to the left, to see where it intersects the y-axis. This is a probability.
  5. Voila: you've got the fitted value of $\widehat{employed}$ for a given level of age. Over a gradient of values of $A$, you get a quadratic marginal effect curve.
| cite | improve this answer | |

If you don't adjust for $\mbox{age}$ in this model when including $\mbox{age}^2$ as a regressor, you are forcing the instantaneous rate of employment decrease to be zero at $\mbox{age}=0$. That might seem contrived, but if you take a change of variable:

$$\mbox{age}^* = \frac{\mbox{age} - 50}{5}$$

You might see why that would be a stupid idea. You can prove that any data with a strong non-zero linear term in a quadratic mean model will look locally consistent with a reduced model dropping the linear term. So don't let the data decide which terms to use. Use them both as a form of "added assurance" or "added insurance".

enter image description here

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand, sorry. The question was about computing the ME. $\endgroup$ – sawobo Mar 10 '14 at 20:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.