Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Which of the following can cause OLS estimators to be biased? i. Heteroskedasticity. ii. Omitting an important variable. iii. A sample correlation coefficient of .95 between two independent variables both included in the model.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Omitting an important variable (option ii) causes OLS estimators to be biased.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding OLS Bias

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimators are used to estimate the parameters of a linear regression model. An estimator is biased if it systematically overestimates or underestimates the true parameter value. Some conditions can lead to bias in OLS estimators.
02

Analyzing Potential Causes

Let's go through each condition: i. Heteroskedasticity does not directly cause bias in OLS estimators but affects the efficiency of estimates and results in inaccurate standard errors. ii. Omitting an important variable from the model leads to biased estimators, as the omitted variable's effects get absorbed by the included variables, causing omitted variable bias. iii. A high correlation between independent variables, known as multicollinearity, does not cause biased estimators but affects the precision and stability of coefficient estimates.
03

Conclusion of Causes

Based on the analysis, the correct choice that leads to biased OLS estimators is option ii: Omitting an important variable. Heteroskedasticity and multicollinearity affect other aspects such as standard errors and coefficient stability but do not introduce bias.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Heteroskedasticity
When we talk about heteroskedasticity in regression, it refers to the situation where the variability of the error terms is not constant across all levels of the independent variable. In simpler words, the spread or dispersion of errors changes as you move along the data. This situation might not make the OLS estimators biased, which means they will still center around the true parameter values, but it does cause some issues:
  • The standard errors and confidence intervals become unreliable, leading to potential issues in hypothesis testing.
  • It impacts the accuracy of the estimates, which can cause problems in understanding the relationship between the variables.
In the context of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), addressing heteroskedasticity often involves statistical adjustments such as using robust standard errors, which help to correct the inaccuracies and draw valid inferences from the data.
Omitted variable bias
Omitted variable bias occurs when a significant variable is left out of a model, potentially leading to biased results. This happens because the omitted factor's influence gets mistakenly attributed to the other variables present in the model. Such a situation can occur if the omitted variable is correlated with both the dependent variable and one or more independent variables. For example, if we are looking at a model predicting student performance based solely on hours studied but leave out a crucial variable like "quality of teaching," our estimators would be biased. The reason is that the teaching quality affects both the number of study hours and performance, skewing the results. To minimize this bias, it's essential to include all relevant variables in your model. Researchers often use theoretical frameworks and past research to ensure that important variables are not omitted.
Multicollinearity
Multicollinearity arises when two or more independent variables in a regression model are highly correlated. This means that they move together and provide similar "information" about the dependent variable. Imagine trying to predict the height of a plant using both the amount of sunlight and temperature, which are usually closely tied. While multicollinearity doesn't bias the OLS estimator, it substantially affects the stability and precision of the coefficients. Here are some impacts:
  • It can inflate the variances of the coefficient estimates, making them unstable and sensitive to small changes in the model.
  • The explanatory variables may become statistically insignificant, even if they are theoretically relevant.
Detecting multicollinearity typically involves calculating the correlation coefficients between variables or using Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs). One way to address multicollinearity is to remove or combine variables, or to collect more data.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Using the data in GPA2 on 4,137 college students, the following equation was estimated by OLS: $$ \begin{aligned} \widehat{\text {colgpa}} &=1.392-.0135 \text { hsperc }+. .00148 \text { sat } \\\ n &=4.137, R^{2}=.273 \end{aligned} $$ where colgpa is measured on a four-point scale, hsperc is the percentile in the high school graduating class (defined so that, for example, hsperc \(=5\) means the top \(5 \%\) of the class), and sat is the combined math and verbal scores on the student achievement test. i. Why does it make sense for the coefficient on \(h s p e r c\) to be negative? ii. What is the predicted college GPA when hsperc \(=20\) and \(s a t=1,050 ?\) iii. Suppose that two high school graduates, A and B, graduated in the same percentile from high school, but Student A's SAT score was 140 points higher (about one standard deviation in the sample). What is the predicted difference in college GPA for these two students? Is the difference large? iv. Holding hsperc fixed, what difference in SAT scores leads to a predicted colgpa difference of \(.50,\) or one-half of a grade point? Comment on your answer.

The potential outcomes framework in Section 3 - 7 e can be extended to more than two potential outcomes. In fact, we can think of the policy variable, \(w\), as taking on many different values, and then \(y(w)\) denotes the outcome for policy level \(w\). For concreteness, suppose \(w\) is the dollar amount of a grant that can be used for purchasing books and electronics in college, \(y(w)\) is a measure of college performance, such as grade point average. For example, \(y(0)\) is the resulting GPA if the student receives no grant and \(y(500)\) is the resulting GPA if the grant amount is \(\$ 500\). For a random draw \(i\), we observe the grant level, \(w_{i} \geq 0\) and \(y_{i}=y\left(w_{i}\right)\). As in the binary program evaluation case, we observe the policy level, \(w_{i}\), and then only the outcome associated with that level. i. Suppose a linear relationship is assumed: $$ y(w)=\alpha+\beta w+v(0) $$ where \(y(0)=\alpha+v .\) Further, assume that for all \(i, w_{i}\) is independent of \(v_{i}\). Show that for each \(i\) we can write $$ \begin{aligned} y_{i} &=\alpha+\beta w_{i}+v_{i} \\ \mathrm{E}\left(v_{i} | w_{i}\right) &=0 \end{aligned} $$ ii. In the setting of part (i), how would you estimate \(\beta\) (and \(\alpha\) ) given a random sample? Justify your answer: iii. Now suppose that \(w_{i}\) is possibly correlated with \(v_{i},\) but for a set of observed variables \(x_{y,}\) $$ \mathbf{E}\left(v_{i} | w_{i}, x_{i 1}, \ldots, x_{i k}\right)=\mathrm{E}\left(v_{i} | x_{i 1}, \ldots, x_{i k}\right)=\eta+\gamma_{1} x_{i 1}+\cdots+\gamma_{k} x_{i k} $$ The first equality holds if \(w_{i}\) is independent of \(v_{i}\) conditional on \(\left(x_{i}, \ldots, x_{i k}\right)\) and the second equality assumes a linear relationship. Show that we can write $$ \begin{aligned} & y_{i}=\psi+\beta w_{i}+\gamma_{1} x_{i 1}+\cdots+\gamma_{k} x_{i k}+u_{i} \\\ \mathrm{E}\left(u_{i} | w_{i}, x_{i 1}, \ldots, x_{i k}\right) &=0 \end{aligned} $$ What is the intercept \(\psi ?\) iv. How would you estimate \(\beta\) (along with \(\psi\) and the \(\gamma_{j}\) ) in part (iii)? Explain.

Suppose that the population model determining \(y\) is $$ y=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1} x_{1}+\beta_{2} x_{2}+\beta_{3} x_{3}+u $$ and this model satisfies Assumptions MLR.1, MLR.2, MLR.3 and MLR.4. However, we estimate the model that omits \(x_{3} .\) Let \(\bar{\beta}_{0}, \bar{\beta}_{1},\) and \(\bar{\beta}_{2}\) be the OLS estimators from the regression of \(y\) on \(x_{1}\) and \(x_{2}\) Show that the expected value of \(\tilde{\beta}_{1}\) (given the values of the independent variables in the sample) is $$\mathbf{E}\left(\tilde{\beta}_{1}\right)=\beta_{1}+\beta_{3} \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \hat{r}_{i 1} x_{i 3}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \hat{r}_{i 1}^{2}}$$ where the \(\hat{r}_{i 1}\) are the OLS residuals from the regression of \(x_{1}\) on \(x_{2}\). [Hint: The formula for \(\tilde{\beta}_{1}\) comes from equation \((3.22) .\) Plug \(y_{i}=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1} x_{11}+\beta_{2} x_{12}+\beta_{3} x_{13}+u_{i}\) into this equation. After some algebra, take the expectation treating \(x_{i 3}\) and \(\tilde{r}_{i 1}\) as nonrandom.]

Suppose that you are interested in estimating the ceteris paribus relationship between \(y\) and \(x_{1}\). For this purpose, you can collect data on two control variables, \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\). (For concreteness, you might think of \(y\) as final exam score, \(x_{1}\) as class attendance, \(x_{2}\) as GPA up through the previous semester, and \(x_{3}\) as SAT or ACT score. Let \(\tilde{\beta}_{1}\) be the simple regression estimate from \(y\) on \(x_{1}\) and let \(\hat{\beta}_{1}\) be the multiple regression estimate from \(y\) on \(x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}\) i. If \(x_{1}\) is highly correlated with \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) in the sample, and \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) have large partial effects on \(y,\) would you expect \(\bar{\beta}_{1}\) and \(\hat{\beta}_{1}\) to be similar or very different? Explain. ii. If \(x_{1}\) is almost uncorrelated with \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3},\) but \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) are highly correlated, will \(\tilde{\beta}_{1}\) and \(\hat{\beta}_{1}\) tend to be similar or very different? Explain. iii. If \(x_{1}\) is highly correlated with \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\), and \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) have small partial effects on \(y\), would you expect \(\operatorname{se}\left(\tilde{\beta}_{1}\right)\) or \(\operatorname{se}\left(\hat{\beta}_{1}\right)\) to be smaller? Explain. iv. If \(x_{1}\) is almost uncorrelated with \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}, x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) have large partial effects on \(y,\) and \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) are highly correlated, would you expect \(\operatorname{se}\left(\tilde{\beta}_{1}\right)\) or \(\operatorname{se}\left(\hat{\beta}_{1}\right)\) to be smaller? Explain.

The data in WAGE2 on working men was used to estimate the following equation: $$\begin{aligned} \widehat{\text { educ }} &=10.36-.094 \text { sibs }+.131 \text { meduc }+.210 \text { feduc} \\ n &=722, R^{2}=.214 \end{aligned}$$ where \(e d u c\) is years of schooling, sibs is number of siblings, meduc is mother's years of schooling, and feduc is father's years of schooling. i. Does sibs have the expected effect? Explain. Holding meduc and feduc fixed, by how much does sibs have to increase to reduce predicted years of education by one year? (A noninteger answer is acceptable here.) ii. Discuss the interpretation of the coefficient on meduc. iii. Suppose that Man A has no siblings, and his mother and father each have 12 years of education, and Man B has no siblings, and his mother and father each have 16 years of education. What is the predicted difference in years of education between \(B\) and \(A ?\)

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on History Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free