We’ve looked at the interaction effect between two categorical variables. Now let’s make things a little more interesting, shall we?

What if our predictors of interest, say, are a categorical and a continuous variable? How do we interpret the interaction between the two?

Well, you’re in luck. Read on.

We’ll keep working with our trusty 2014 General Social Survey data set. But this time let’s examine the impact of job prestige level (a continuous variable) and gender (a categorical, dummy coded variable) as our two predictors. Here, gender is called “male” and is coded 1 for males and 0 for females.

We can see that, on average, men make approximately $16,285 more than women.

What we want to know is, does the gender difference in income differ based on the job prestige level? An interaction term will tell us.

So you’re probably wondering, how do we interpret these coefficients?

The constant tells us that women with an average prestige level job will earn $25,874. Men with an average prestige level job would expect to earn $15,716 more than women, on average $41,590.

But this gender gap of $15,716 isn’t the same for every prestige level of job. The interaction is statistically significant at a level of 0.0001.

For every 1-unit increase in job prestige score, a woman should expect to earn an additional $709, while a man should expect to earn an additional $1,312 (0.709 + 0.603).

In other words, the increase in salary for having a higher prestige job differs for men and women.

Another way to say the same thing is that the difference in salary between men and women widens as job prestige score increases.

Cue graph:

So if someone tells you that men make **X **amount more than women, keep in mind that the difference in income depends (in part) upon the caliber of the job. The more prestigious the job, the greater the gap, as the graph shows.

Moral of the story: When there is a statistically significant interaction between a categorical and continuous variable, the rate of increase (or the slope) for each group within the categorical variable is different.

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Thanks Jeff for your explanation, but I think you made a mistake. You say:

“The constant tells us that women with an average prestige level job will earn $25,874. Men with an average prestige level job would expect to earn $15,716 more than women, on average $41,590.”

But these values are not for an average prestige level job; they are for a job with a prestige level of zero. Your statement becomes true only when the job prestige level variable is transformed such that it is centered around its mean; i.e., the mean becomes zero.

Hi Ahmad,

Thanks for your comments and attention to detail. I failed to point out that I had centered job prestige score. If you look at the 2nd table you will see that I used the extension “_ctr”. I typically add this whenever I center a continuous variable. In the first table it is cut off and is not obvious. If the variable was not centered your statement is definitely accurate.

Hi,

one question: how do you calculate the interaction term in this case? Do you just multiply the categorical variable gender (0 or 1) with the continuous variable job prestige level?

In this case the interaction term will take either the value 0 (for females) or the value of the job prestige level (for males).

Is is ok to construct the interaction term just by multiplying the two variables like that?

I am asking because I have a very similar case and I didn’t know how to go about. Thanks so much for answering,

Hi Silvia,

Yes you can create an interaction by generating a new variable which is the product of a dummy variable times the continuous variable. But it is easier to let the software do it in your model. In SPSS in the UNIANOVA command you would add a new predictor such as job_prestige*gender. If you are using Stata it is job_prestige#gender. In R I believe it would be job_prestige:gender. Be sure to also include the two individual predictors of the interaction, such as job_prestige and gender, in the model.

Jeff