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. The name is absent2. Labour Market Flexibility and Regional Unemployment Rate Dynamics: Spain (1980-1995)
3. Stillbirth in a Tertiary Care Referral Hospital in North Bengal - A Review of Causes, Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies
4. Multifunctionality of Agriculture: An Inquiry Into the Complementarity Between Landscape Preservation and Food Security
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. Global Excess Liquidity and House Prices - A VAR Analysis for OECD Countries
8. Beyond Networks? A brief response to ‘Which networks matter in education governance?’
9. NVESTIGATING LEXICAL ACQUISITION PATTERNS: CONTEXT AND COGNITION
10. If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them.