Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

An interaction in a fixed effects (FE) regression is usually specified by demeaning the product term. However, algebraic transformations reveal that this strategy does not yield a within-unit estimator. Instead, the standard FE interaction estimator reflects unit-level differences of the interacted variables. This property allows interactions of a time-constant variable and a time-varying variable in FE to be estimated but may yield unwanted results if both variables vary within units. In such cases, Monte Carlo experiments confirm that the standard FE estimator of x ⋅ z is biased if x is correlated with an unobserved unit-specific moderator of z (or vice versa). A within estimator of an interaction can be obtained by first demeaning each variable and then demeaning their product. This “double-demeaned” estimator is not subject to bias caused by unobserved effect heterogeneity. It is, however, less efficient than standard FE and only works with T > 2.

Keywords

panel data fixed effects interaction within estimator quadratic terms nonlinearities double demeaning FEIS

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abendroth

Anja-Kristin

Huffman

Matt L.

Treas

Judith

. 2014. “The Parity Penalty in Life Course Perspective: Motherhood and Occupational Status in 13 European Countries.” American Sociological Review 79:993–1014.

Abrevaya

Jason

. 2006. “Estimating the Effect of Smoking on Birth Outcomes Using a Matched Panel Data Approach.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 21:489–519.

Aguinies

Herman

. 1995. “Statistical Power with Moderated Multiple Regression in Management Research.” Journal of Management 21:1141–58.

Allison

Paul D.

1977. “Testing for Interaction in Multiple Regression.” American Journal of Sociology 83:144–53.

Allison

Paul D.

2009. Fixed Effects Regression Models. Los Angeles: Sage.

Andreß

Hans-Jürgen

Golsch

Katrin

Schmidt

Alexander W.

. 2013. Applied Panel Data Analysis for Economic and Social Surveys. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Balli

Hatice O.

Sørensen

Bent E.

. 2013. “Interaction Effects in Econometrics.” Empirical Economics 45:583–603.

Baltagi

Badi H.

2005. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Bell

Andrew

Fairbrother

Malcolm

Jones

Kelvyn

. 2018. “Fixed and Random Effects Models: Making an Informed Choice” Quality & Quantity 55:117.

10.

Brüderl

Josef

Ludwig

Volker

. 2015. “Fixed-effects Panel Regression.” Pp. 327–57 in The Sage Handbook of Regression Analysis and Causal Inference, edited by Best

Wolf

. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

11.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 2008. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 Cohort. Columbus: Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University.

12.

Cameron

A. Colin

Trivedi

Pravin K.

. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Cameron

A. Colin

Trivedi

Pravin K.

. 2009. Microeconometrics Using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

14.

Firebaugh

Glenn

Warner

Cody

Massoglia

Michael

. 2013. “Fixed Effects, Random Effects, and Hybrid Models for Causal Analysis.” Pp. 113–32 in Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, edited by Morgan

S. L.

. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Science + Business.

15.

Frost

Chris

Thompson

Simon G.

. 2000. “Correcting for Regression Dilution Bias: Comparison of Methods for a Single Predictor Variable.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 163:173–89.

16.

Gangl

Markus

. 2010. “Causal Inference in Sociological Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:21–47.

17.

Giesselmann

Marco

Windzio

Michael

. 2014. “Paneldaten in der Soziologie: Fixed Effects Paradigma und empirische Praxis in Panelregression und Ereignisanalyse.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 66:95–114.

18.

Giesselmann

Marco

Bohmann

Sandra

Goebel

Jan

Krause

Peter

Liebau

Elisabeth

Richter

David

Schacht

Diana

Schröder

Carsten

Schupp

Jürgen

Liebig

Stefan

. 2019. “The Individual in Context(s): Research Potentials of the Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) in Sociology.” European Sociological Review 35:738–55.

19.

Halaby

Charles N.

2004. “Panel Models in Sociological Research: Theory into Practice.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:507–44.

20.

Hausman

Jerry A.

1978. “Specification Tests in Econometrics.” Econometrica 46:1251-71.

21.

Jaccard

James

Turrisi

Robert

. 2003. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Killewald

Alexandra

Gough

Margaret

. 2013. “Does Specialization Explain Marriage Penalties and Premiums?” American Sociological Review 78:477–502.

23.

Knight

Carly R.

Christopher

Winship

. 2013. “The Causal Implications of Mechanistic Thinking: Identification Using Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs).” Pp. 275–99 in Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, edited by Morgan

S. L.

. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

24.

Kühhirt

Michael

. 2012. “Childbirth and the Long-term Division of Labour Within Couples: How Do Substitution, Bargaining Power, and Norms Affect Parents’ Time Allocation in West Germany?” European Sociological Review 28:565–82.

25.

McIntosh

Craig T.

Schlenker

Wolfram

. 2006. Identifying Non-linearities In Fixed Effects Models. San Diego: School of Global Policy & Strategy, University of California. Retrieved October 12, 2016 (https://gps.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/mcintosh/mcintosh_research_identifying.pdf).

26.

Morgan

Stephen L.

Winship

Christopher

. 2007. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Mundlak

Yair

. 1978. “On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data.” Econometrica 46:69–85.

28.

Oesch

Daniel

Lipps

Oliver

. 2013. “Does Unemployment Hurt Less If There Is More of It Around? A Panel Analysis of Life Satisfaction in Germany and Switzerland.” European Sociological Review 29:955–67.

29.

Plümper

Thomas

Troeger

Vera E.

Manow

. 2005. “Panel Data Analysis in Comparative Politics: Linking Method to Theory.” European Journal of Political Research 44:327–54.

30.

Schober

Pia S.

Stahl

Juliane F.

. 2016. “Expansion of Full-day Childcare and Subjective Well-being of Mothers: Interdependencies with Culture and Resources.” European Sociological Review 32:593–606.

31.

Schofer

Evan

Longhofer

Wesley

. 2011. “The Structural Sources of Association.” American Journal of Sociology 117:539–85.

32.

Schunck

Reinhard

. 2013. “Within and Between Estimates in Random-effects Models: Advantages and Drawbacks of Correlated Random Effects and Hybrid Models.” The Stata Journal 13:65–76.

33.

Spearman

Charles

. 1904. “The Proof and Measurement of Association Between Two Things.” The American Journal of Psychology 15:72–101.

34.

StataCorp. 2015. Stata 14 Base Reference Manual. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

35.

Wooldridge

Jeffrey M.

2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

36.

Young

Rebekah

Johnson

David R.

. 2015. “Handling Missing Values in Longitudinal Panel Data With Multiple Imputation.” Journal of Marriage and Family 77:277–94.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.12 MB

Interactions in Fixed Effects Regression Models

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material