The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues
Abstract
The logit and probit models have become critical parts of the management researcher's analytical arsenal, growing rapidly from almost no use in the 1980s to appearing in 15% of all articles published in Strategic Management Journal in 2005. However, a review of three top strategy journals revealed numerous areas in their use and interpretation where current practice fell short of ideal. Failure to understand how these models differ from ordinary least squares can lead researchers to misunderstand their statistical results and draw incorrect conclusions regarding the theory they are testing. Based on a review of the methodological literature and recent empirical papers in three leading strategy journals, this paper identifies four critical issues in their use: interpreting coefficients, modeling interactions between variables, comparing coefficients between groups (e.g., foreign and domestic firms), and measures of model fit. For each issue, the paper provides a background, a review of current practice, and recommendations for best practice. A concluding section presents overall implications for the conduct of research with logit and probit models, which should assist both authors and readers of strategic management research. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The interpretation of interaction effects when using probit regression is inherently difficult, so average marginal effects and graphs are also used.
“Because the interpretation of interaction effects when using probit regression is inherently difficult (Hoetker, 2007), we also interpret our results using average marginal effects and graphs.”
From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Hoetker, 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic
Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W. (2018) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839217695089 · Cited by 393 · see citing works
Koseoglu, M. A. (2016) · BRQ Business Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.brq.2016.02.001 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Eitle, T. M., & Eitle, D. (2014) · Substance Use & Misuse · doi:10.3109/10826084.2013.832329 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Freiburg, M., & Grichnik, D. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Finance · doi:10.1080/15427560.2013.791295 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hoetker, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hoetker, Glenn
- ORCID
- Hoetker, Glenn
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-02-05
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 331-343
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2032639940
- Cited by
- 1,519
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 68 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 95 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 100 · 2018: 117 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 93 · 2015: 95 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 97 · 2012: 83
- FWCI
- 64.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Strategic Management Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- logit model, probit model, strategic management research, coefficient interpretation, interaction effects, model fit measures, binary response models, ordinary least squares comparison
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review