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. Expectation Formation and Endogenous Fluctuations in Aggregate Demand2. Gerontocracy in Motion? – European Cross-Country Evidence on the Labor Market Consequences of Population Ageing
3. Federal Tax-Transfer Policy and Intergovernmental Pre-Commitment
4. The name is absent
5. MULTIPLE COMPARISONS WITH THE BEST: BAYESIAN PRECISION MEASURES OF EFFICIENCY RANKINGS
6. The name is absent
7. The Nobel Memorial Prize for Robert F. Engle
8. SAEA EDITOR'S REPORT, FEBRUARY 1988
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent