Announcements If you didn’t get an email confirmation that I received your referee report, let me know The empirical project is due April 14th at 5pm Pay attention to what each part is asking for (tables, figures, amount of explanation, etc.) Each part should be presented on its own and numbered (rather than trying to integrate the parts together) Graphs and tables should be produced by you from raw data, not reproduced from another source Remember to turn it in as a well-formatted pdf J. Parman (College of William & Mary) Global Economic History, Spring 2017 April 3, 2017 1 / 30
McCloskey’s Critique of Clark J. Parman (College of William & Mary) Global Economic History, Spring 2017 April 3, 2017 2 / 30
BOURGEOIS VIRTUE Ethics has turned from universal theories to the recently particular in A virtues, as Alasdair Virtue: in Moral Maclntyre's After Study Theory, or Virtue: An in Ethics. It has also turned to John Casey's Pagan Essay - for narratives in aid of the virtues Albert and example, Jonsen Toulmin's The Abuse A History Moral Stephen of Casuistry: of Reasoning or Booth's The We An Ethics Fiction. Feminist Wayne Company Keep: of on the such as that found in Carol In a matter, thinking Gilligan's A Voice, or Nel Noddings's Feminine to Ethics Different Caring: Approach and Moral has questioned the of universal Education, presumption in particular the of masculine virtues. As Bernard ethics, worship - as - "morality Williams in the new new as Aristotle it, puts approach is seen as something whose real existence must consist in personal and social not in sets of It is institutions, experience propositions." local not located in the or common or universal, knowledge, camp town. Consider the virtues of the three matched to their charac- classes, McCloskey’s Critique of Clark ter. The "character" be in the of or in its own others, might eyes eyes, less in fact. or, commonly, The Classes and the Virtues Aristocrat Peasant Bourgeois Patrician Plebeian Mercantile Christian secular pagan Achilles St. Francis Franklin Benjamin of of service of action pride being pride pride honor duty integrity candor forthrightness honesty trustworthiness loyalty solidarity fortitude courage enterprise wit humor jocularity reverence courtesy respect humility modesty propriety benevolence consideration magnanimity fairness justice responsibility wisdom foresight prudence moderation thrift frugality love affection charity grace dignity self-possession subjective objective conjective over the others in some The is not to elevate virtue point From McCloskey, “Bourgeois Virtue”, 1994 bourgeois J. Parman (College of William & Mary) Global Economic History, Spring 2017 April 3, 2017 3 / 30 179
McCloskey and Bourgeois Virtue So how is McCloskey establishing the ‘virtues praised by people’ A typical economist approach would be to say let’s see which virtues get priced more highly in markets But is this a sensible approach given McCloskey’s bigger question? Is it even possible to find markets that price virtues? J. Parman (College of William & Mary) Global Economic History, Spring 2017 April 3, 2017 4 / 30
Pricing Virtue F IGURE 1 : R ECIPIENT P REFERENCES Income 1.75343 Political Views 1.76389 Religious Beliefs 1.83562 Occupation 1.91781 Hair Colour 3.0411 Education 3.125 Weight 3.15069 Eye Colour 3.28378 Skin Complexion 3.38356 Height 3.39726 Physical Attractiveness 3.65278 Ethnic Group 4.11111 Kindness 4.65278 Openness 4.89041 Reliability 5.13699 0 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Scores (7 Point Scale) J. Parman (College of William & Mary) Global Economic History, Spring 2017 April 3, 2017 5 / 30
Pricing Virtue VOL. 100 NO. 1 HITSCH ETAL.: MATCHING AND SORTING IN ONLINE DATING 149 Table 4?User Behavior Summary Statistics Men Women Users 3,004 2,783 First-contact behavior Profiles browsed 385,470 172,946 First-contact e-mails 49,223 14,178 (Percentage of browses) 12.7 8.2 Matching First contacts that lead to match 2,130 914 (Percentage of first contacts) 4.3 6.4 E-mails exchanged until match is achieved Mean 11.6 12.6 Median 6 6 SD 22.8 26.3 Notes: The summary statistics apply to the sample of users employed in the estimation and matching sections of this paper. In particular, we report only summary statistics on user From Hitsch, Hortacsu and Ariely, “Matching and Sorting in interactions within this sample. (The binary logit estimates reported in Table 3, however, are based on all observations where user A browses or contacts user B, even if user B is not a Online Dating” AER 2010 member of the subsample.) 20 J. Parman (College of William & Mary) Global Economic History, Spring 2017 April 3, 2017 6 / 30 Figure 2. Number of e-mails Exchanged until a Match Is Achieved Because matches and first contacts are different events, our sorting predictions below are out of-sample predictions, not in-sample predictions. Remember that we used data on first-contacts only to estimate mate preferences; the estimation did not use any information on a match taking place. B. Sorting: Actual and Predicted Correlations in the attributes of couples have been studied widely in sociology, psychology, and economics. We find that matching outcomes in online dating also exhibit strong sorting
Pricing Virtue 146 MARCH 2010 THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW Table 3?Binary Logit Estimates Preference of men Preference of women (1) (2) (3) (4) Estimate SE Estimate SEa Estimate SE SEa Estimate'1 0.0077 Age -0.0598 0.0023 -0.0605 0.0041 -0.0098 0.0034 -0.0095 -0.0007 0.0002 -0.0007 0.0004 -0.0016 0.0002 -0.0016 0.0006 Age difference (+) -0.005 0.0001 -0.0051 0.0003 -0.0063 0.0004 -0.0064 0.0011 Age difference (-) 0.0231 -0.0446 0.0273 -0.0718 0.0316 -0.0688 0.033 -0.0461 Single; mate divorced^3 0.0959 0.0275 0.0961 0.0285 0.1728 0.0305 0.1789 0.0392 Both divorced 0.0177 0.0178 0.0199 0.2388 0.0258 0.2398 0.0322 0.0191 Both "long term" 0.187 0.0532 0.2039 0.0298 0.1973 0.0366 Both have children 0.1874 0.0271 0.0334 0.0423 -0.2649 0.0224 -0.264 0.0333 -0.3636 -0.3681 Neither has children 0.0576 -0.0657 0.0341 -0.0623 0.0522 0.1318 0.0457 0.1365 Has photo 0.5604 0.0144 0.5631 0.0201 0.5848 0.0211 0.5842 0.0269 Looks rating 0.5719 0.0396 0.5763 0.0545 0.5516 0.0555 0.5578 0.0688 "Very good" looks 0.2738 0.0363 0.2773 0.0412 0.1733 0.0495 0.0627 0.1761 "Above average" looks 0.2096 0.0842 0.2073 0.0519 0.2263 "Other" looks 0.1742 0.2044 0.1682 -0.1421 0.0066 -0.1423 0.0101 0.1831 0.0093 0.1826 0.0149 Height -0.0018 0.0037 -0.0044 0.0095 -0.0096 0.0006 -0.0098 0.0011 Height difference (+) -0.0099 0.0005 -0.0099 0.0008 -0.0227 0.0093 -0.0296 0.0186 Height difference (?) 0.028 0.0474 0.1332 0.0499 0.1354 0.0618 BMI -0.3962 -0.3932 BMI2 0.0006 0.0042 0.0009 0.0013 0.0043 -0.0007 0.001 -0.0006 0.0008 0.0013 0.0034 0.0008 0.0034 0.0011 -0.0103 -0.0108 BMI difference (+) -0.0101 0.0005 -0.01 0.0012 0.0022 0.0009 0.0025 0.0011 BMI difference (-) -0.0031 0.0056 -0.0037 0.0067 0.047 0.0076 0.0472 0.0095 Education (years) Education -0.0039 0.001 -0.0039 0.0011 -0.0086 0.0012 -0.0087 0.0016 difference (+) Education 0.0008 -0.0027 0.001 -0.0022 0.0013 -0.0021 0.0016 -0.0026 difference (?) 0.0053 0.0012 0.0054 0.0013 0.0164 0.0029 0.0163 0.0031 Income ($ 1,000) 0.0019 0.0035 -0.0027 0.0019 -0.0028 -0.0062 0.0035 -0.006 Income (>50)c -0.0047 0.0021 -0.0046 0.0021 -0.0082 0.0016 -0.0082 0.0016 Income (>100)c -0.0018 0.0034 -0.0018 0.0037 0.0074 0.0018 0.0075 0.0019 Income (>200)c 6.31E-06 4.07E-06 6.01E-06 4.21E-06 -1.20E-05 3.15E-06 -1.28E-05 3.90E-06 Income difference (+) 2.53E-06 -5.11E-08 3.39E-06 6.00E-06 1.21E-05 6.73E-06 1.17E-08 1.04E-05 Income difference (?) 0.3332 0.0453 0.3349 0.0516 0.1285 0.1418 1.0913 1.085 Income "Only accountant knows" 0.2838 0.0542 0.2825 0.0541 0.7155 0.1439 0.7064 0.1564 Income "What, me work?" J. Parman (College of William & Mary) Global Economic History, Spring 2017 April 3, 2017 7 / 30 E. Estimation Results Table 3 presents the maximum likelihood estimates of the fixed effects binary logit models. Columns 1 and 3 show the results for men and women under the assumption that the first-contact and rejection costs are zero. Columns 2 and 4 show the results for the more general model, where we introduce the estimated (inverse) probability of receiving a reply as a correction term.19 The estimate ofk + r (the coefficient on the reciprocal of the reply probability) is small and statisti cally insignificant, both for men and for women. Correspondingly, the preference coefficient estimates barely differ across the two model versions. These results, together with the previous findings in Section C, provide strong evidence that strategic behavior due to e-mailing or rejec tion costs is of little importance in the online dating market studied in this paper. Before exploring the matching predictions implied by the preference estimates, we provide a brief discussion of the results. For a comparison to alternative estimation approaches, robustness 19 In these columns, we report the means and standard deviations across 250 bootstrap estimates, as discussed in Section B.
Recommend
More recommend
