Choosing between multinomial logit and multinomial probit models for analysis of unordered choice data

Choosing Between Multinomial Logit and Multinomial Probit Models for Analysis of Unordered Choice Data Jonathan Kropko (Under the direction of George Rabinowitz.) Political researchers are often confronted with unordered categorical variables, such as the vote-choice of a particular voter in a multiparty election. In such situations, researchers must choose an appropriate empirical model to analyze this data. The two most commonly used models are the multinomial logit (MNL) model and the multinomial probit (MNP) model. MNL is simpler, but also makes the often erroneous independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) assumption. MNP is computationally intensive, but does not assume IIA, and for this reason many researchers have assumed that MNP is a better model. Little evidence exists, however, which shows that MNP will provide more accurate results than MNL. In this paper, I conduct computer simulations and show that MNL nearly always provides more accurate results than MNP, even when the IIA assumption is severely violated. The results suggest that researchers in the field should reconsider use of MNP as the most reliable empirical model.

[1]  Jonathan Nagler,et al.  Issues, Economics, and the Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: The British 1987 General Election , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[2]  Curtis S. Signorino Structure and Uncertainty in Discrete Choice Models , 2003, Political Analysis.

[3]  Orit Kedar When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancingin Parliamentary Elections , 2005, American Political Science Review.

[4]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  Multiparty electoral competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A model based on multinomial probit , 1998 .

[5]  S. Reed Strategic Voting in the 1996 Japanese General Election , 1999 .

[6]  D. Bolduc A practical technique to estimate multinomial probit models in transportation , 1999 .

[7]  Tx Station Stata Statistical Software: Release 7. , 2001 .

[8]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  Voter Choice in Multi-Party Democracies: A Test of Competing Theories and Models , 1999 .

[9]  Jonathan Nagler,et al.  Correlated Disturbances in Discrete Choice Models: A Comparison of Multinomial Probit Models and Logit Models , 1994 .

[10]  W. Greene,et al.  计量经济分析 = Econometric analysis , 2009 .

[11]  R. Michael Alvarez,et al.  When Politics and Models Collide: Estimating Models of Multiparty Elections , 1998 .

[12]  Michael P. Keane,et al.  Four essays in empirical macro and labor economics , 1990 .

[13]  Kevin M. Quinn,et al.  An integrated computational model of multiparty electoral competition , 2002 .

[14]  Jonathan Nagler,et al.  A New Approach for Modelling Strategic Voting in Multiparty Elections , 2000, British Journal of Political Science.

[15]  Curtis S. Signorino Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict , 1999, American Political Science Review.

[16]  Guy D. Whitten,et al.  Heightening comparativists concern for model choice: voting behavior in Great Britain and the Netherlands , 1996 .

[17]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  “Sophisticated” Voting in the 1988 Presidential Primaries , 1992, American Political Science Review.

[18]  Jay K. Dow,et al.  Multinomial probit and multinomial logit: a comparison of choice models for voting research , 2004 .

[19]  C. Lawrence Political Sophistication and Conditional Strategic Behavior in U.S. Presidential Elections , 2005 .

[20]  D. McFadden,et al.  The method of simulated scores for the estimation of LDV models , 1998 .