David M. Ritzwoller

Empirical research in economics often examines the behavior of agents located in a geographic space. In such cases, statistical inference is complicated by the interdependence of economic outcomes across locations. A common approach to account for this dependence is to cluster standard errors based on a predefined geographic partition. A second strategy is to model dependence in terms of the distance between units. Dependence, however, does not necessarily stop at borders and is typically not determined by distance alone. This paper introduces a method that leverages observations of multiple outcomes to adjust standard errors for cross-sectional dependence. Specifically, a researcher, while interested in a particular outcome variable, often observes dozens of other variables for the same units. We show that these outcomes can be used to estimate dependence under the assumption that the cross-sectional correlation structure is shared across outcomes. We develop a procedure, which we call Thresholding Multiple Outcomes (TMO), that uses this estimate to adjust standard errors in a given regression setting. We show that adjustments of this form can lead to sizable reductions in the bias of standard errors in calibrated U.S. county-level regressions. Re-analyzing nine recent papers, we find that the proposed correction can make a substantial difference in practice.

This paper concerns the construction of confidence intervals in standard seroprevalence surveys. In particular, we discuss methods for constructing confidence intervals for the proportion of individuals in a population infected with a disease using a sample of antibody test results and measurements of the test's false positive and false negative rates. We begin by documenting erratic behavior in the coverage probabilities of standard Wald and percentile bootstrap intervals when applied to this problem. We then consider two alternative sets of intervals constructed with test inversion. The first set of intervals are approximate, using either asymptotic or bootstrap approximation to the finite-sample distribution of a chosen test statistic. We consider several choices of test statistic, including maximum likelihood estimators and generalized likelihood ratio statistics. We show with simulation that, at empirically relevant parameter values and sample sizes, the coverage probabilities for these intervals are close to their nominal level and are approximately equi-tailed. The second set of intervals are shown to contain the true parameter value with probability at least equal to the nominal level, but can be conservative in finite samples.

We study a class of permutation tests of the randomness of a collection of Bernoulli sequences and their application to analyses of the human tendency to perceive streaks of consecutive successes as overly representative of positive dependence—the hot hand fallacy. In particular, we study permutation tests of the null hypothesis of randomness (i.e., that trials are i.i.d.) based on test statistics that compare the proportion of successes that directly follow k consecutive successes with either the overall proportion of successes or the proportion of successes that directly follow k consecutive failures. We characterize the asymptotic distributions of these test statistics and their permutation distributions under randomness, under a set of general stationary processes, and under a class of Markov chain alternatives, which allow us to derive their local asymptotic power. The results are applied to evaluate the empirical support for the hot hand fallacy provided by four controlled basketball shooting experiments. We establish that substantially larger data sets are required to derive an informative measurement of the deviation from randomness in basketball shooting. In one experiment, for which we were able to obtain data, multiple testing procedures reveal that one shooter exhibits a shooting pattern significantly inconsistent with randomness – supplying strong evidence that basketball shooting is not random for all shooters all of the time. However, we find that the evidence against randomness in this experiment is limited to this shooter. Our results provide a mathematical and statistical foundation for the design and validation of experiments that directly compare deviations from randomness with human beliefs about deviations from randomness, and thereby constitute a direct test of the hot hand fallacy.

We study a class of permutation tests of the randomness of a collection of Bernoulli sequences and their application to analyses of the human tendency to perceive streaks of consecutive successes as overly representative of positive dependence - the hot hand fallacy. In particular, we study permutation tests of the null hypothesis of randomness (i.e., that trials are i.i.d.) based on test statistics that compare the proportion of successes that directly follow k consecutive successes with either the overall proportion of successes or the proportion of successes that directly follow k consecutive failures. We characterize the asymptotic distributions of these test statistics and their permutation distributions under randomness, under a set of general stationary processes, and under a class of Markov chain alternatives, which allow us to derive their local asymptotic power. The results are applied to evaluate the empirical support for the hot hand fallacy provided by four controlled basketball shooting experiments. We establish that substantially larger data sets are required to derive an informative measurement of the deviation from randomness in basketball shooting. In one experiment, for which we were able to obtain data, multiple testing procedures reveal that one shooter exhibits a shooting pattern significantly inconsistent with randomness - supplying strong evidence that basketball shooting is not random for all shooters all of the time. However, we find that the evidence against randomness in this experiment is limited to this shooter. Our results provide a mathematical and statistical foundation for the design and validation of experiments that directly compare deviations from randomness with human beliefs about deviations from randomness, and thereby constitute a direct test of the hot hand fallacy.