4.6 Article

Binary choice with misclassification and social interactions, with an application to peer effects in attitude

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS
卷 238, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2023.105551

关键词

Measurement error; Misclassification; Social interactions; Nested pseudo likelihood; Large network; Peer effects; Attitude

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a binary choice model with misclassification and social interactions to address the misclassification problems in social interactions studies. The identification of the conditional choice probability of the latent dependent variable is achieved using repeated measurements and a monotonicity condition. The complete likelihood function is constructed from the two repeated measurements, and a nested pseudo likelihood algorithm is proposed for estimation. Consistency and asymptotic normality results are shown for the proposed estimation method.
The interaction of economic agents is one of the most important elements in economic analyses. Social interactions on subjective outcomes, behavior, or decisions, are inherently difficult to identify and estimate because these variables are prone to misclassification errors. This paper puts forth a binary choice model with misclassification and social interactions to rectify the misclassification problems in social interactions studies. We achieve the identification of the conditional choice probability of the latent dependent variable by the technique of repeated measurements and a monotonicity condition. We construct the complete likelihood function from the two repeated measurements and propose a nested pseudo likelihood algorithm for estimation. Consistency and asymptotic normality results are shown for the proposed estimation method. We illustrate the finite sample performance of the model and the estimation method by three Monte Carlo experiments and an application to the study of peer effects among students in their attitudes towards learning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据