Table 5. Hypothetical Bias Probit Model
|
Explanatory Variables |
RDD Sample |
NPF Sample | ||||||
|
Mean |
Coefficient P -Value |
ME |
Mean |
Coefficient |
P -Value |
ME | ||
|
Hypothetical |
0.082 |
1.362*** |
0.001 |
0.136 |
0.039 |
0.348** |
0.034 |
0.126 |
|
All Revenue |
0.628 |
-0.177 |
0.395 |
-0.007 |
0.636 |
0.030 |
0.376 |
0.012 |
|
Low Visits |
0.803 |
-1.329*** |
0.002 |
-0.131 |
0.453 |
-0.409*** |
0.000 |
-0.157 |
|
Young |
0.149 |
0.580 |
0.163 |
0.038 |
0.138 |
-0.055 |
0.346 |
-0.021 |
|
Old |
0.242 |
-0.400 |
0.206 |
-0.014 |
0.300 |
0.177** |
0.043 |
0.067 |
|
Male |
0.433 |
-0.517 |
0.106 |
-0.022 |
0.477 |
0.062 |
0.252 |
0.024 |
|
BS degree |
0.357 |
0.537 |
0.140 |
0.026 |
0.394 |
0.093 |
0.210 |
0.036 |
|
Professional degree |
0.236 |
0.068 |
0.452 |
0.003 |
0.353 |
0.129 |
0.144 |
0.049 |
|
Low Income |
0.312 |
-0.400 |
0.204 |
-0.019 |
0.255 |
0.054 |
0.361 |
0.020 |
|
White |
0.846 |
-0.577 |
0.156 |
-0.038 |
0.877 |
0.224* |
0.080 |
0.087 |
|
NE |
0.048 |
0.168 |
0.438 |
0.008 |
0.079 |
-0.475*** |
0.008 |
-0.187 |
|
ENC |
0.113 |
0.178 |
0.383 |
0.008 |
0.117 |
-0.297** |
0.038 |
-0.117 |
|
WNC |
0.160 |
0.117 |
0.427 |
0.005 |
0.155 |
-0.375** |
0.012 |
-0.147 |
|
GP |
0.071 |
0.122 |
0.433 |
0.005 |
0.082 |
-0.730*** |
0.000 |
-0.285 |
|
SE |
0.165 |
-0.187 |
0.383 |
-0.007 |
0.177 |
-0.307** |
0.018 |
-0.120 |
|
WSC |
0.065 |
-3.832 |
0.461 |
-0.032 |
0.025 |
-0.471** |
0.046 |
-0.186 |
|
SW |
0.067 |
-1.256 |
0.084 |
-0.020 |
0.071 |
-0.353** |
0.039 |
-0.139 |
|
RM |
0.097 |
-1.114 |
0.133 |
-0.022 |
0.109 |
-0.171 |
0.147 |
-0.067 |
|
Constant |
1.000 |
-0.639 |
0.235 |
-- |
1.000 |
0.435** |
0.037 |
-- |
|
Sample Size |
180 |
830 | ||||||
|
Hypothetical Bias Scaling Factor (eδ) |
1.43 |
1.30 | ||||||
Notes. (***), (**), and (*) refer to statistical significance at the 1, 5 and 10 percent levels. The estimation was carried out
using the Constrained Maximum Likelihood (CML 2.0) package in Gauss version 3.5. The nonlinear optimization routine
was Newton-Raphson with a convergence criterion of 1×10-5 for the gradient of the coefficients. The estimates for “don’t
know” and “missing” dummy variables are not shown. ME = Marginal Effect. 26 and 17 protest households (those that
would not be interested in the NRP even if it were offered free of charge) were removed from the RDD and NPF samples.
30
More intriguing information
1. Political Rents, Promotion Incentives, and Support for a Non-Democratic Regime2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. Motivations, Values and Emotions: Three Sides of the same Coin
5. Knowledge, Innovation and Agglomeration - regionalized multiple indicators and evidence from Brazil
6. Cancer-related electronic support groups as navigation-aids: Overcoming geographic barriers
7. Skill and work experience in the European knowledge economy
8. A Regional Core, Adjacent, Periphery Model for National Economic Geography Analysis
9. Behaviour-based Knowledge Systems: An Epigenetic Path from Behaviour to Knowledge
10. Who is missing from higher education?