### Table 1 Treatment effects

"... In PAGE 18: ... We now make th ese findings statistically more precise. The upper part of Table1 presents prices by treatment, averaged over blocks of periods. The lower part of the table gives two-tailed significanc e levels of Mann-Whitney tests of the differences between treatments.... In PAGE 18: ... An increase in the average price level in the Baseline treatment - where prices move from levels below Nash (60) in periods 11-20 to above Nash in periods 21-30 - diminishes the difference between the treatments. Table1... ..."

### Table 1. Treatment effects

"... In PAGE 18: ...Table1... ..."

### Table 4: Treatment effect estimates by various methods

2006

"... In PAGE 15: ... a39***a39 0.001 a39**a39 0.01 a39*a39 0.05 a39.a39 0.1 a39 a39 1 (Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be 49598072) Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2 The analysis estimates an increase in earnings of $1214 for those that participated in the NSW compared with similarly situated people observed in the CPS. Table4 compares all of the treatment effect estimates.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 1. Anticipated Treatment Effects by Measurement Location

2004

"... In PAGE 2: ... To study these effects, we made measurements at the 12 locations indicated (Table 1). Statistical Methods The experiment was conducted according to a split-plot statistical design, studying material loss resulting from 12 exposure levels ( Table1 ) under 2 conditions (defined by pH). We modeled the effects of exposure levels, pH, and their interaction (1) on initial beam dimensions, to estimate uniformity of beam dimensions prior to intervention, and (2) on dimensional changes following intervention, to estimate means and 95% confidence intervals for effects on material loss at pH = 7, at pH = 6, and the difference.... ..."

### Table 3. Within Gender Treatment Effects Males

"... In PAGE 11: ... Our data support the hypothesis that women are more generous than men in the RS $ treatment To explore this complex and seemingly contradictory pattern of relative generosity by men and women, our analysis turns to the impact of varying the cost of generosity. Table3 reports the results of within-gender pair-wise tests of the null hypothesis that varying the cost of generosity has no impact upon behavior versus the two-sided alternative that the costs do affect behavior. Table 3.... In PAGE 11: ...iagonal. The two treatments being compared are given by the row and column entries. * indicates significance at the 10% level and ** indicates significance at the 5% level. The first striking feature in Table3 is that for men the decision about whether to be generous does not depend on reciprocal considerations, the level of payoffs, or the social distance. As formalized in Cox and Deck (2002), if the desire to reciprocate influences behavior then there should be a significant difference between RS $ and DS $ and/or between RS $ and DS $ .... In PAGE 12: ...682). In fact no combination of these factors strongly influences male behavior, as evidenced by the absence of significant p-values above the diagonal in Table3 . Unlike men, women do base the decision of whether or not to be generous on the costs associated with the decision.... In PAGE 12: ... Unlike men, women do base the decision of whether or not to be generous on the costs associated with the decision. Women are more likely to be generous when the stakes are lower, as evidenced in Table3 by a p-value of 0.094 from a comparison of R S $ and RS $ .... ..."

### Table 1 Predicted Treatment Effects of Classes of Models

1997

"... In PAGE 10: ... This is a relatively new area of research, and these models are currently in the process of being refined and applied to data. Final Observations The main qualitative predictions of the alternatives to the Nash model are summarized in Table1 . All of these capture the most prominent feature of the data, the MPCR effect.... In PAGE 10: ...eclining contributions can be explained by dynamic models, e.g. evolution, evolving preferences and expectations, or signaling in an attempt to alter others apos; behavior. The various approaches listed in Table1 are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is likely that many of the key elements, e.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 3. Sensitivity Analysis for Estimated Treatment Effect on Change in Marijuana Use

2004

"... In PAGE 25: ... Maximum and minimum possible treatment effect given hidden bias changes odds of treatment assignment by no more than G and no less than 1/G. Table3 presents the results. For four values of G we estimated the upper and lower bound on the estimated treatment effect that would result from a hidden bias.... ..."

Cited by 5

### Table 5: Various Assumptions on the Variable Treatment Effect. (standard errors in parentheses)

"... In PAGE 26: ...11): the aggregate sub-regional unobserved group effects are correlated with the training status. In column (2) of Table5 we report the estimates of the constant treatment effect model. In contrast, with the variable treatment model, the point estimate of the mean selection bias is large and negative.... In PAGE 26: ...post participation. In Appendix D.1 we derive how this affects our regression specification. The estimation results can be found in column (3) of Table5... In PAGE 27: ... We derive in Appendix D.2 how this affects the specification of the variable treatment effects. Column (4) of Table5 reports the findings of this model. The point estimates are very different.... ..."