Table A1

Additional regressions adjusting for socio-economic heterogeneity (dependent variable is the amount allocated to the risky option)

(1)(2)(3)(4)
(Full sample with interaction effect)(Only if Risk attitude smaller than 7)(Only if Risk attitude smaller than 7)(Only if Risk attitude smaller than 7)
Treatment−3940.1 (7521.4)6785.3 (5761.9)7376.7 (5649.5)10173.0 (7121.2)
Friday−6568.3 (5120.1)−7831.0 (5,731.0)−6341.4 (5777.8)−5983.7 (7216.5)
Dohmen interact (Treatment × Risk attitude)1582.8 (923.7)   
Gender  −22686.9 (13236.4) 
Age  −352.5 (206.5)−347.5 (276.1)
Risk attitude  3181.3 (2225.6)2935.0 (2861.9)
Main income   8224.5 (11426.8)
Livestock units   −38.98 (92.97)
Arable land   −19.57 (99.87)
Econ courses   4878.6 (7804.2)
Constant53848.9*** (8512.6)49383.3*** (9276.8)50613.0*** (14273.9)42589.9* (19525.1)
Observations88585849
F1.8221.6271.8690.843
r2_a0.02750.02150.0708−0.0269

Note(s): Standard errors in parentheses

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Column (1) presents regression coefficient estimates with an interaction effect of the treatment dummy and the risk attitude to test whether the treatment effect is mediated by risk. The coefficient is rather small and statistically not significant

Columns (2) to (4) re-estimate the models presented in Table 4 of the main text for the sub-sample of risk-averse participants (with risk attitude < 7). This results in a smaller sample (30 participants are removed in (2) and (3); due to missing observations for covariates in (4), 9 additional participants drop out). Note that the gender coefficient cannot be estimated for (4), as there are no women in the sub-sample

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal