Today: Dummy variables.
Dummy variables in a multiple regression, regression wrap up.
Looking back in regression, we’ve looked at how an interval
data response y changes as an interval data explanatory
variable x. Changes.
Example: Number of books read (y) as a function of television
watched (x).
Y = a + bX + e
Last time, we expanded this idea to consider more than one
explanatory / independent variable at the same time, where all
the variables were interval data.
This is called ______________________.
Example: Wins as a function of goals for and goals against.
Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + e
This time, we’re going to drop the requirement for the
independent variables to be independent data.
We’re going to look at nominal data as independent data.
Recall: Nominal means name. It’s data in _________with
no natural _________
Example: Type of Fruit --- Kumquat, Coconut, Tomato,
Dragonfruit.
How do you put a type of fruit into a formula like this:
= a + bX
With a __________________.
“Dummy” in this case just means a simple number variable (0
or 1) that we use in the place of nominal, and sometimes
ordinal, data.
We’ve already used dummy variables.
Bearded dragon gender: 0 = Male, 1 = Female
Bearded dragon colour: 0 = Green, 1 = Fancy
Other possibilities:
0 = Non-Smoker, 1 = Smoker
0 = Domestic Student, 1 = International Student
0 = Eastern, 1 = Western
Nominal data can have more than two categories, but we can’t
do this:
Favourite colour:
0 = Blue, 1 = Green,
2 = Red
This would imply an order, and that having a favourite colour
of green is somehow the middle ground between favouring
blue and favouring red.*
*If we cared about wavelength of favourite perhaps, but usually not
Ordinal data can made into a 0,1,2,… scale, as long as we
assume the differences between each category and the next
one are about the same.
0 = Against, 1 = Neutral, 2 = For
Or
-1 = Against, 0 = Neutral, 1 = For
Then we’re treating the ordinal data like interval data.
Handling more than two categories is a for-interest topic, at
the end of the lecture if time permits.
It’s all just words until we get up and do something about it.
Dummy variables in regression:
Consider the NHL data set. Let’s see the difference in
defensive skill between the Eastern and Western conferences,
and by how much.
Dependent variable: Goals against. (More goals against means
weaker defence)
Independent variable: Conference. (East or West)
In our data set, we have conference listed in two different
ways. ConfName: E or W. Conf: 0 or 1.
0 = Eastern Conference, 1 = Western Conference.
ConfName is for when we need conference as nominal.
Conf is our dummy variable for when we need interval data.
We can do a regression by using Conf as our independent.
(SPSS won’t even let you put Confname in)
(Done under Analyze Regression  Linear)
We get this model summary.
The conference alone explains .122 of the variance in goals
against.
There’s a lot to goals against that isn’t explained simply by
whether you are in the Eastern or Western Conference.
We get these coefficients.
The prediction formula is:
(Goals against) = 232.867 – 17.333(Conference)
The intercept is the response (Goals against) when the
explanatory variable x = 0.
Here, x=0 means Eastern Conference.
The intercept is the average Goals Against of teams in the
Eastern Conference.
The slope is the amount that (Goals Against) changes when
(Conference) increases by 1.
Changing x=0 to x=1 means switching for the Eastern to the
Western Conference.
So the slope b is the difference in mean goals against between
the conferences.
Here, Western Conference teams let in 17.333 fewer goals.
Plugging in x=0 or 1…
232.867 – 17.333(0) =
_________ goals against if East
232.867 – 17.333(1) =
_________ goals against if West
Since there’s only one independent variable, and it’s nominal,
so we COULD do this with a two-tailed independent t-test.
Analyze  Compare Means  Independent-Sample T Test
ConfName would be the grouping variable.
We would get the same results:
A difference of 17.333 and a 2-tailed p-value of 0.059.
So why do we bother with regression and dummy variables at
all?
Greenland has the fastest moving glaciers in the world.
Multiple regression using a dummy variable.
Let’s go back to predicting wins.
Before, we modelled wins using goals for (GF) and goals
against (GA). Now we can consider conference alongside
everything else.
Your conference (East or West) is part of what determines the
teams you play against. Teams that play against weak
opponents tend to win more.
Will conference explain anything about wins that Goals For and
Goals Against can’t?
In an SPSS multiple regression, we just include the dummy
variable in the list of independents like everything else.
First, the model summary.
Considering goals for, goals against AND conference.
82.9% of the variance in the number of wins can be explained
by these three things together.
Going back to last day, considering only Goals For and Goals
Against, we also got an R square of 0.829.
In other words, adding conference into our model told us
__________________about wins than goals weren’t
already covering.
The R square of the model is the same with or without
conference.
That means just as much variance is explained by considering
only goals for/against as by considering both goals for/against
and the conference of the team.
Conference contributes nothing extra.
This is probably because the strength of your opponents is
already reflected in the goals for / goals against record. It’s not
like goals against weak teams count for more.
The coefficient table for Wins as a function of Goals
For/Against and Conference:
The fact that conference isn’t improving the model any is
reflected in its significance.
If it’s slope were really zero, we’d still a sample like this .952 of
the time. (p-value = .952)
The regression equation is:
(Estimated Wins) =
37.637 + 0.178(GF) – 0.167(GA) + 0.082(West Conf.)
Meaning being in the west meant winning 0.082 more games.
But
(Estimated Wins) =
37.637 + 0.178(GF) – 0.167(GA) + 0.082(West Conf.)
…is more complicated than
(Estimated Wins) =
37.950 + 0.177(GF) – 0.163(GA)
… which is the model from last day that ignored conference.
But knowing the conference doesn’t change anything.
2
- The r was .829 whether we included conference or not.
- We failed to reject the null that the effect of conference
was zero (__________________Goals For/Against ).
In that case, we can use the simpler model that only uses goals
and not lose anything. We should always opt for a simpler
model when nothing is lost in doing so.
This is called the __________________.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Nikola Tesla
2
Comments about r in multiple regression.
2
Like with single variable regression, r must be between 0 and
1.
0 is none of the variance is explained.
1 is all of it is explained.
If you add more and more variables into your model, you will
2
eventually reach r = 1, where you have enough data to model
and predict the response perfectly.
But each variable uses up a degree of freedom and makes the
results harder to interpret.
Just because you can include a variable doesn’t mean you
should.
(Resting heart rate) = a + b1(Age) + b2(Body Mass Index) + b3(L
of Oxygen per Minute) + b4(Height) + b5(Number of Freckles) +
b6(Enjoyment of Sushi) + b7(Kitchen Sinks Owned)
Again, this violates the __________________.
Weight of beardies as a function of age, length, and sex.
What is the intercept?
_________
What does it mean?
A ______bearded dragon with ______________weighs
negative 551 grams. (not real-world useful)
How much heavier is a bearded dragon if it ages two years and
doesn’t get any longer or change sex? (On average)
Is there a significant difference in weight between male and
female dragons of the same age and size?
_________The p-value against there being no difference is
_________, so we __________________that null.
What does the regression equation look like?
(Esimated Weight) =
-551.1 + _________+ _________+ 4.9(Female)
How much does the average bearded dragon weight if he’s..
- Male
- 3 Years Old
- 24 cm long
(Esimated Weight) =
-551.1 + 17.1(
=
) + 34.3(
) + 4.9(
)
Is there a model that likely works just as well but is simpler?
_________.
It’s likely that a model without considering sex
would explain nearly as much of the variance.
From model summaries:
Model with Age, Length, Sex:
Model with Age, Length:
r
2
r
2
= .912
= .912 (Not always so exact)
For interest: Nominal data of 3+ categories.
Dummy variables HAVE to be 0 or 1. If not, you’re treating
nominal categories as if they have some sort of order.
If you have 3 categories, you need 2 dummy variables.
Each of the dummy variables is 1 only when a particular
category comes up, and 0 all the other times.
One of the categories is considered a baseline, or starting
point. All of the dummy variables will be 0 for that category.
(Here: Blue is the baseline, all the dummy variables are 0 for it)
Since a colour can’t be red and green at the same time, only
one of the dummy variables will ever be 1 for a particular case.
Doing a linear model with just these two dummy variables
would look like:
= a + b1(Red) + b2(Green)
Which would be
= a for blue cases.
= a + b1 for red cases.
= a + b2 for green cases.
= a + b1(Red) + b2(Green)
a , the intercept, the value when Red=0 and Green=0
is the average response for blue cases.
b1 is the average increase/decrease in the response when
the case is green instead of blue.
b2 is the average increase/decrease in the response when
the case is red instead of blue.
Next time: Midterm 2 post-mortem.
Reintroduction to contingency, Odds and Odds Ratios.