Extensive and Intensive Margin Effects by Treatments
| Hurdle (1) | Hurdle (2) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Stage | Second Stage | First Stage | Second Stage | |
| Co-benefits | −0.24 | −2.14 | −0.23 | −1.14 |
| (0.21) | (264) | (0.21) | (2.36) | |
| Age | 0.00 | 0.17* | ||
| (0.01) | (0.07) | |||
| Female | −0.19 | −2.60 | ||
| (0.22) | (2.96) | |||
| Constant | 0.52*** | 6.24* | 0.63+ | −0.31 |
| (0.15) | (2.67) | (0.33) | (4.73) | |
| Constant | 2.24*** | 2.17*** | ||
| (0.15) | (0.14) | |||
| Observations | 160 | 160 | ||
Note: The table shows the corresponding regression analysis based on two (with and without further control variables) two-stage hurdle models. The first stage consists of probit regression models (where the dependent variable is equal to one for positive donations). The second stage consists of truncated linear regression models (where the continuous dependent variable is the donation amount, assuming donation is made). Robust standard errors are in parentheses.