Logit VS Probit Pseudo R 2 LogitProbit Gain Loss Consistent Prospect

Multicollinearity Variable | VIF 1/VIF cgpa | exec | coe | cla | usg | fail | cob | cso | spo | ccs | sociocivic | artist | do | ced | single | male | athlete | cos | year | Mean VIF | 1.72

Heteroscedasticity Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of gain chi2(1) = 0.27 Prob > chi2 =

Marginal effects after logit y = Pr(gain) (predict) = variable | dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X exec | fail | athlete*| artist*| usg*| cso*| spo*| socioc~c*| ccs*| ced*| cla*| cob*| coe*| cgpa | male*| single*| year | (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

Interpretation(Gain) The probability that Y=1 is 59% – People are generally risk averse Students who hold executive positions are more likely to be risk seeking Students who join extracurricular activities are more likely to be risk averse, except for athletes As students fail more, they tend to be more risk seeking Those with high CGPA are more likely to be risk seeking Male are more likely to be risk averse Those who are single are more likely to be risk averse As years goes by, students tend to be more risk averse.

Marginal effects after logit y = Pr(loss) (predict) = variable | dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X exec | fail | athlete*| artist*| usg*| cso*| socioc~c*| ccs*| ced*| cla*| cob*| coe*| cgpa | male*| single*| year | (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

Interpretation(Loss) The probability that Y=1 is 40% – People are generally risk seeking Students who hold executive positions are more likely to be risk averse Students who join extracurricular activities are more likely to be risk averse, except for artist and USG As students fail more, they tend to be more risk averse Those with high CGPA are more likely to be risk averse Male are more likely to be risk seeking Those who are single are more likely to be risk seeking As years goes by, students tend to be more risk averse.

Marginal effects after logit y = Pr(consistent) (predict) = variable | dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X exec | fail | athlete*| artist*| usg*| cso*| spo*| socioc~c*| ccs*| ced*| cla*| cob*| coe*| cgpa | male*| single*| year | (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

Interpretation The probability that Y=1 is 53% – People are generally consistent with their choice Students who hold executive positions are more likely to be consistent Students who join extracurricular activities are more susceptible to framing except for athletes, USG and Sociocivic As students fail more, they tend to be more consistent with their choices Those with high CGPA are more susceptible to framing effects Male are more susceptible to framing effects Those who are single are more consistent As years goes by, students tend to be more consistent

Marginal effects after logit y = Pr(prospect) (predict) = variable | dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X exec | fail | athlete*| artist*| usg*| cso*| spo*| socioc~c*| ccs*| ced*| cla*| cob*| coe*| cgpa | male*| single*| year | (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

Interpretation The prospect theory generally doesn’t hold true Students who hold executive positions are more inclined to follow the theory Students who join extracurricular activities are more inclined to follow the theory except for athletes and Sociocivic As students fail more, they tend to disagree with the prospect theory Those with high CGPA tend to disagree with the prospect theory Male are more inclined to follow the theory Those who are single are more inclined to follow the theory As years goes by, students tend to disagree with the prospect theory