Hi, thanks for replying!

You know, as silly as this sounds, I never thought to switch the base group around. Probably because it required 3 separate analyses to get the RRR's (Y vs A, Y vs B, Y vs. C). Thank you, hlsmith!!! I did this in stata and it confirmed most of the results. The only incorrect numbers were the standard errors, which were wildly different. This was the part of the analysis that I was most worried about... so it's great to have that solved.

victorxstc, the study is confidential at the moment, so I hope that you'll forgive my vagueness. However, I can give you more information if you're interested. I simplified it a lot in my previous post. The study is a psychology study where we brought people into the lab, had them fill out some questionnaires, and then gave them a choice between 4 different tasks. One of the tasks was antisocial in nature. We wanted to know which of the personality variables was the best unique predictor of antisocial choice (relative to the other options).

In my analysis, I had 6 continuous, standardized predictor variables that represent different personality constructs (e.g., agreeableness) and 4 dichotomous control variables (yes/no questions). The outcome (task choice) had 4 levels. Our hypothesis was that one of the personality variables would emerge as the sole unique predictor of antisocial task choice. This provides validity evidence for a new personality construct (and the new measure of it).

I used STATA for the analysis with the help of a colleague. See this site for an example:

http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/output/stata_mlogit.htm
As this is a logistic regression analysis and the personality variables were standardized, the coefficients index the relative risk ratios for a 1 standard deviation change in the continuous predictor. If they weren't standardized, the RRR would reference a 1 unit change in the continuous predictor in its raw scale.

The 600% increase is determined by the RRR =7. It may be easier to think about some lower numbers first. If people at 1 standard deviation above the mean were twice as likely to choose the antisocial choice over task 1 than were people at the mean (ie., RRR =2) , that would mean that there's a 100% increase in the probability of antisocial choice going from 0 (mean) to 1 sd. If RRR = 3, that would mean there was a 200% increase. These websites give some good explanations:

http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/absolute_v_relative.htm
http://sph.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/EP/EP713_Association-Brooks/EP713_Association-Brooks_print.html
Here I found that RRR= 7, so a 1 sd increase is associated with a 600% increase in the likelihood of antisocial choice relative to the other task. You can also get this by calculating (RRR - 1 ) x 100%

In any case, thank you again for your help. Hopefully this post will help someone else in the future too!