Table 7 Demographic variables impact.

From: Understanding drivers when investing for impact: an experimental study

 TIF vs. IIFImpact descriptionRisk factorTax deductionVisual aid
Intercept2.09***2.87***1.49*** − 0.172.38***
Higher education −0.11 −0.160.25* −0.15 −0.06
Postgraduate education0.
Other0.310.200.380.30 − 0.29
Previous knowledge0. −0.17
Video displayed0.35***0.27*0.27**0.98***0.00
Log likelihood −1621.08 −1532.08 −1762.98 −266.64 −167.22
No. of obs.301030103010602602
  1. Each model (column) corresponds to a regression for each framing type. TIF vs. IIF considers data from Q1 and Q2; impact description from Q3 and Q4; risk factor from Q5 and Q6; tax deduction from Q7; visual aid from Q8. We consider three different levels for education: higher education, postgraduate education, and other (i.e., non-curricular education besides basic education programmes); delta coefficients correspond to the return differences between TIF and IIF. Observations correspond to all participants’ responses to questions according to the framing type, columns from left to right: Q1 and Q2, Q3 and Q4, Q5 and Q6, Q7, and Q8. Values in bold correspond to statistically significant coefficients.
  2. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.