Dear Forum,
I'm interested in using asclogit to model a three-way interaction in a discrete choice model. The three-way interaction involves an alternative-specific variable, a case-specific variable and the alternative-identifier, e.g.
webuse choice, clear
asclogit choice c.dealer c.dealer##i.sex##i.car , case(id) alternatives(car) casevars(i.sex)
This way of putting the interaction includes all lower-order terms, however, they are all included as alternative-specific terms. Given that i.sex#i.car doesn't vary by alternatives, this way of entering the interaction unsurprisingly doesn't work. However, as the main effect for i.sex is anyway calculated for each alternative, shouldn't that mean that i.sex#i.car isn't necessary at all? In fact, the only way in which I find this model to work is by excluding this term, in this way:
asclogit choice c.dealer c.dealer#i.sex c.dealer#i.car c.dealer#i.car#i.sex , case(id) alternatives(car) casevars(i.sex )
My question is now this: am I correct in assuming that in the case of three-way interactions involving alternative-identifiers, leaving out the i.sex#i.car term still results in a hierarchical interaction (i.e. satisfies the rule that all lower-order terms of an interaction need to be included)?
Best,
Irene
I'm interested in using asclogit to model a three-way interaction in a discrete choice model. The three-way interaction involves an alternative-specific variable, a case-specific variable and the alternative-identifier, e.g.
webuse choice, clear
asclogit choice c.dealer c.dealer##i.sex##i.car , case(id) alternatives(car) casevars(i.sex)
This way of putting the interaction includes all lower-order terms, however, they are all included as alternative-specific terms. Given that i.sex#i.car doesn't vary by alternatives, this way of entering the interaction unsurprisingly doesn't work. However, as the main effect for i.sex is anyway calculated for each alternative, shouldn't that mean that i.sex#i.car isn't necessary at all? In fact, the only way in which I find this model to work is by excluding this term, in this way:
asclogit choice c.dealer c.dealer#i.sex c.dealer#i.car c.dealer#i.car#i.sex , case(id) alternatives(car) casevars(i.sex )
My question is now this: am I correct in assuming that in the case of three-way interactions involving alternative-identifiers, leaving out the i.sex#i.car term still results in a hierarchical interaction (i.e. satisfies the rule that all lower-order terms of an interaction need to be included)?
Best,
Irene
Comment