<p>Based on the clarification in your comment this is not because you use scale variables but because the scale variable that you use is self-reported.</p>

<p>It is well known in literature that self-reporting leads to endogeneity. See for example: <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=nl&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=Lindeboom%2C%20M.%2C%20%26%20Kerkhofs%2C%20M.%20%282004%29.%20Subjective%20health%20measures%2C%20reporting%20errors%20and%20endogeneity%20in%20the%20relationship%20between%20health%20and%20work.&amp;btnG=#d=gs_qabs&amp;u=%23p%3DoPiyzyZlk8QJ" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lindeboom, M., &amp; Kerkhofs, M. (2004). Subjective health measures, reporting errors and endogeneity in the relationship between health and work.</a></p>

<p>The reason why that is when people self-report some outcomes those are often affected by other unobservables that you do not include in your model which is a form of endogeneity. For example, studies that measure happiness show that the self reported happiness can vary depending on which time of the day/week/season you make the measurement. </p>

<p>Moreover, you can have also endogeneity in more narrow sense unemployed people can self-report that they cannot work as a rationalization of their unemployment status and hence you would get reversed causality where the unemployment actually causes the self-reported inability to work even though the person actually would be able to work as measured by objective measurable criteria (in a model where employment is regressed on self-reported ability). </p>

<p>So it’s not that there is any problem with having scale variables. For example, having some 1-10 index but rather the problem is that in your case the scale was made from self reported data.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T09:59:00.283Z
great answer! Please could you give the full reference of Lindeboom, M., & Kerkhofs, M. (2004)? There seems to be a typo in the first sentence.
emeryville
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T10:03:09.757Z
@emeryville I added hyperlink to ungated version of the paper
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T12:09:19.743Z
the link doesn't work for me. I would like to comment in detail, but I would like to read the paper beforehand. Thank you.
canIchangethis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T12:16:30.553Z
@canIchangethis I updated the link it should work now - sorry I was logged into SSRN when I copied the link so it probably affected the URL hope that now it works
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T12:17:12.743Z
I just found it, too here https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=783031087103100096021067106109114074063015063050001069009095106076007089089028105000118103033036108010105028024091069123085005072026076000007083127109126081116059008048001122103010064005009109071118108101096102090092114026089006001017111070126031&EXT=pdf
canIchangethis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T12:19:33.693Z
Contentwise: While I understand the misreporting with health data, I wonder why the same should be true when you think about environmental preferences. Why would one over- or understate this, depending on some purchases? Post-hoc rationalisation? I really struggle to see the Endogeneity here. I see it is just a (bad?) proxy but I cannot see yet how it changes the independent variable, that is measured before all the self-reported variables
canIchangethis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T12:28:59.087Z
@canIchangethis for example people nowadays hear from all sources that you have to be environmentally friendly. Many people consider not being environmentally conscious immoral. Consequently many might feel social pressure to answer that he or she buys environmentally friendly products even if it’s not the case or even when they are not laying they might exaggerate to make themselves look more virtuous. Some people might also think they purchase environmentally friendly products even though they don’t in practice (e.g. is car in country that generates all its energy from coal env. Friendly?)
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T12:34:37.347Z
@canIchangethis Also as mentioned in my answer there might not be be reverse causality but also omitted variable bias counts as endogeneity. For example it might be that the score is generated to some degree by desire to conform to some social or moral norms. It’s generally thought that most self reported data suffer from this issue. I don’t want to go as far as that referee to say that all self reported data have this problem but it’s definitely a baseline expectation so if you think this is not problem in your data you should make solid theoretical argument why there is no endogeneity there
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T09:50:51.740Z
2020-05-19T12:13:48.453Z
2020-05-19T12:13:48.453Z
1muflon1
<p>This question is somewhat related to my previous question, see here: <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/463221/why-when-do-attitudinal-scales-introduce-endogeneity">https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/463221/why-when-do-attitudinal-scales-introduce-endogeneity</a></p>

<p><strong>I wonder why a scale as an explanatory variable will always make a binary-dependent model endogenous?</strong></p>

<p>This is what an editor told me along with rejecting my paper, and as long as I don't change it/acknowledge the possible endogeneity I cannot resubmit the paper. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-15T18:28:59.497Z
Would it be possible to share the exact wording of the concern?
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T09:14:50.550Z
Absolutely. It was: including a self-reported scale will induce endogeneity.
canIchangethis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T09:34:35.847Z
Oh okay now it makes sense.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-19T09:35:28.783Z
Really,why? I cannot see the sense yet. All variables (except spatial ones) are self reported even age and sex is...
canIchangethis
<econometrics><applied-econometrics>
In a binary-dependent variable model (logic) will the inclusion of a scale introduce endogeneity?
canIchangethis
# In a binary-dependent variable model (logic) will the inclusion of a scale introduce endogeneity?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-05-15)

This question is somewhat related to my previous question, see here: <https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/463221/why-when-do-attitudinal-scales-introduce-endogeneity>

**I wonder why a scale as an explanatory variable will always make a binary-dependent model endogenous?**

This is what an editor told me along with rejecting my paper, and as long as I don't change it/acknowledge the possible endogeneity I cannot resubmit the paper.

**Tags:** econometrics, applied-econometrics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Would it be possible to share the exact wording of the concern?  
> **username_0**: Absolutely. It was: including a self-reported scale will induce endogeneity.  
> **username_1**: Oh okay now it makes sense.  
> **username_0**: Really,why? I cannot see the sense yet. All variables (except spatial ones) are self reported even age and sex is...  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-05-19. Score: 1

Based on the clarification in your comment this is not because you use scale variables but because the scale variable that you use is self-reported.

It is well known in literature that self-reporting leads to endogeneity. See for example: [Lindeboom, M., & Kerkhofs, M. (2004). Subjective health measures, reporting errors and endogeneity in the relationship between health and work.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=nl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Lindeboom%2C%20M.%2C%20%26%20Kerkhofs%2C%20M.%20%282004%29.%20Subjective%20health%20measures%2C%20reporting%20errors%20and%20endogeneity%20in%20the%20relationship%20between%20health%20and%20work.&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DoPiyzyZlk8QJ)

The reason why that is when people self-report some outcomes those are often affected by other unobservables that you do not include in your model which is a form of endogeneity. For example, studies that measure happiness show that the self reported happiness can vary depending on which time of the day/week/season you make the measurement.

Moreover, you can have also endogeneity in more narrow sense unemployed people can self-report that they cannot work as a rationalization of their unemployment status and hence you would get reversed causality where the unemployment actually causes the self-reported inability to work even though the person actually would be able to work as measured by objective measurable criteria (in a model where employment is regressed on self-reported ability).

So it’s not that there is any problem with having scale variables. For example, having some 1-10 index but rather the problem is that in your case the scale was made from self reported data.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: great answer! Please could you give the full reference of Lindeboom, M., & Kerkhofs, M. (2004)? There seems to be a typo in the first sentence.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 I added hyperlink to ungated version of the paper  
> **username_0**: the link doesn't work for me. I would like to comment in detail, but I would like to read the paper beforehand. Thank you.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 I updated the link it should work now - sorry I was logged into SSRN when I copied the link so it probably affected the URL hope that now it works  
> **username_0**: I just found it, too here https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=783031087103100096021067106109114074063015063050001069009095106076007089089028105000118103033036108010105028024091069123085005072026076000007083127109126081116059008048001122103010064005009109071118108101096102090092114026089006001017111070126031&EXT=pdf  
> **username_0**: Contentwise: While I understand the misreporting with health data, I wonder why the same should be true when you think about environmental preferences. Why would one over- or understate this, depending on some purchases? Post-hoc rationalisation? I really struggle to see the Endogeneity here. I see it is just a (bad?) proxy but I cannot see yet how it changes the independent variable, that is measured before all the self-reported variables  
> **username_1**: @username_0 for example people nowadays hear from all sources that you have to be environmentally friendly. Many people consider not being environmentally conscious immoral. Consequently many might feel social pressure to answer that he or she buys environmentally friendly products even if it’s not the case or even when they are not laying they might exaggerate to make themselves look more virtuous. Some people might also think they purchase environmentally friendly products even though they don’t in practice (e.g. is car in country that generates all its energy from coal env. Friendly?)  
> **username_1**: @username_0 Also as mentioned in my answer there might not be be reverse causality but also omitted variable bias counts as endogeneity. For example it might be that the score is generated to some degree by desire to conform to some social or moral norms. It’s generally thought that most self reported data suffer from this issue. I don’t want to go as far as that referee to say that all self reported data have this problem but it’s definitely a baseline expectation so if you think this is not problem in your data you should make solid theoretical argument why there is no endogeneity there  

---

