Unformatted text preview: .62 HIV-negative OLS
1 0.079 2
1 0.109 2
1 0.1212 Notes: Sample includes respondents in Balaka and Rumphi who were tested for HIV, were reinterviewed in 2005, and
reported having sex at the baseline (2004). Robust standard errors clustered by village with district fixed effects are in
parentheses. Controls also include gender, age, age-squared, and a simulated average distance variable (an average distance of respondents’ households to simulated randomized locations of HIV results centers). “Likely to be infected”
indicates having any prior belief of HIV infection. Coefficients in columns 2 and 3 are IV estimates where knowing
HIV status is instrumented by having any nonzero incentive, the total amount of the incentive, total amount squared,
distance from the HIV results center, distance-squared, and all terms interacted with gender and having a likelihood
of being infected.
*** Significantly different from zero at 99 percent confidence level.
** Significantly different from zero at 95 percent confidence level.
* Significantly different from zero at 90 percent confidence level. the IV specification, knowing HIV test results (positive or negative) had no differential effects
on condom purchases between those believing there was a likelihood of being infected and
those believing there was no likelihood (Table 11, columns 2, 4). It is possible that respondents
have uncertain prior beliefs about infection likelihood and measuring respondents’ confidence of
their prior beliefs is difficult. Also, the respondents in the Boozer and Philipson study are quite
different from those in this study and are likely to have different distributions of prior beliefs.
Most important, this comparison is difficult to make without having a baseline level of condom
Sexually active HIV-positive individuals who learned their status were significantly more
likely to purchase condoms than other respondents. However, the increase in the demand for
condoms was seen almost en...
View Full Document