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. The Folklore of Sorting Algorithms
3. PROJECTED COSTS FOR SELECTED LOUISIANA VEGETABLE CROPS - 1997 SEASON
4. Evidence of coevolution in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms
5. Research Design, as Independent of Methods
6. The name is absent
7. Equity Markets and Economic Development: What Do We Know
8. Olive Tree Farming in Jaen: Situation With the New Cap and Comparison With the Province Income Per Capita.
9. Demand Potential for Goat Meat in Southern States: Empirical Evidence from a Multi-State Goat Meat Consumer Survey
10. The name is absent