Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:12:19.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structure and Uncertainty in Discrete Choice Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Curtis S. Signorino
Curtis S. Signorino*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, 303 Harkness Hall, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627. e-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Social scientists are often confronted with theories in which one or more actors make choices over a discrete set of options. In this article, I generalize a broad class of statistical discrete choice models, with both well-known and new nonstrategic and strategic special cases. I demonstrate how to derive statistical models from theoretical discrete choice models and, in doing so, I address the statistical implications of three sources of uncertainty: agent error, private information about payoffs, and regressor error. For strategic and some nonstrategic choice models, the three types of uncertainty produce different statistical models. In these cases, misspecifying the type of uncertainty leads to biased and inconsistent estimates, and to incorrect inferences based on estimated probabilities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 4: Special Issue on Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models , Autumn 2003 , pp. 316 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2003 

References

Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 1998. “When Politics and Models Collide: Estimating Models of Multiparty Elections.” American Journal of Political Science. 42:55–96.Google Scholar
Chen Hsiao, Chi, Friedman, James W., and Thisse, Jacques-Francois. 1997. “Boundedly Rational Nash Equilibrium: A Probabilistic Choice Approach.” Games and Economic Behavior 18:32–54.Google Scholar
Hausman, Jerry A., and Wise, David A. 1978. “A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice.” Econometrica 46:403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. 1974a. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. Zarambka, P. New York: Academic Press, pp. 105–142.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. 1974b. “The Measurement of Urban Travel Demand.” Journal of Public Economics 3:303–328.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. 1976. “Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey.” Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5:363–390.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Palfrey, Tom. 1996. “A Statistical Theory of Equilibrium in Games.” The Japanese Economic Review 47(2): 186–209.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Palfrey, Tom. 1998. “Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games.” Experimental Economics 1:9–41.Google Scholar
Myerson, Rober B. 1991. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, Martin J., and Rubinstein, Ariel. 1994. A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pudney, Stephen. 1989. Modelling Individual Choice: The Econometrics of Corners, Kinks, and Holes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 1999. “Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 93:279–297.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 2002. “Strategy and Selection in International Relations.” International Interactions 28:93–115.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S., and Yilmaz, Kuzey. 2003. “Strategic Misspecification in Regression Models.” American Journal of Political Science 47:551–566.Google Scholar
Smith, Alastair. 1999. “Testing Theories of Strategic Choice: The Example of Crisis Escalation.” American Journal of Political Science 42:1254–1283.Google Scholar
Zauner, Klaus G. 1996. “A Payoff Uncertainty Explanation of Results in Experimental Centipede Games.” The University of New South Wales, Australian Graduate School of Management. Working Paper 96-030.Google Scholar