Table 3.

Summary of results from the logit regression models

	B	Model 1		B	Model 2		B	Model 3
		SE B	eB		SE B	eB		SE B	eB
MP treatment reputation
(1) Received good treatment	− .006	0.006	0.99	− .001	0.007	1	0	0.007	1
(2) Received very bad treatment	− .010	0.004	0.99	− .006	0.005	0.99	− .007	0.005	0.99
(3) Spent less than 1 h	− .002	0.004	1	− .004	0.005	1	0	0.005	1
(4) Spent more than 3 h	− .009*	0.003	0.99	− .011*	0.003	0.99	− .010*	0.004	0.99
MP efficacy reputation
(5) Perceive the MP as effective	− .043	0.018	0.96	− .045	0.021	0.96	− .051	0.022	0.95
(6) Perceive the MP as not effective at all	0.003	0.013	1	0.023	0.015	1.02	0.03	0.016	1.03
Personal opinion MP is effective	− .045	0.053	0.96	− .005	0.061	0.99	− .027	0.062	0.97
MP fairness reputation
(7) Perceive MP as trustworthy	0.02	0.017	1.02	0.022	0.019	1.02	0.025	0.02	1.03
(8) Perceive MP as not trustworthy at all	− .019	0.013	0.98	− .044*	0.015	0.96	− .047*	0.015	0.95
Personal opinion MP is trustworthy	0.105	0.053	1.11	0.133	0.061	1.14	0.148	0.062	1.16
(9) Perceive MP as corrupt	− .011	0.005	0.99	− .010	0.006	0.99	− .012	0.006	0.99
Personal opinion MP is corrupt	0.047	0.054	1.05	0.08	0.063	1.08	0.059	0.065	1.06
Characteristics of the crime
Amount lost (base No loss)
$1 to 5000				− .127	0.081	0.88	− .128	0.082	0.88
$5001 to 10,000				.768*	0.098	2.15	.709*	0.1	2.03
$10,001 to 50,000				1.250*	0.105	3.49	1.188*	0.108	3.28
More than $ 50,000				2.021*	0.204	7.55	1.956*	0.209	7.07
Would recognize offender(s)				.656*	0.048	1.93	.638*	0.049	1.89
Offender used violence				.566*	0.052	1.76	.594*	0.054	1.81
The victim was accompanied				.228*	0.049	1.26	.218*	0.05	1.24
Weapon used (base no weapon)
Other weapon				.190*	0.068	1.21	.196*	0.07	1.22
Firearm				.465*	0.065	1.59	.484*	0.067	1.62
The offender stole cellphone				0.068	0.05	1.07	0.057	0.052	1.06
The offender stole official documents				.783*	0.065	2.19	.759*	0.067	2.14
The offender stole electronic equip				0.192	0.096	1.21	0.15	0.099	1.16
The offender stole jewelry or watch				− .141	0.075	0.87	− .146	0.076	0.86
Victim’s characteristics
Sex (base woman)							− .016	0.049	0.98
Education (base Up to primary school)
Secondary school							0.2	0.103	1.22
High school							.387*	0.101	1.47
							.575*	0.099	1.78
Age group (base less than 20 years old)
20–29 years old							0.106	0.106	1.11
30–39 years old							0.182	0.11	1.2
40–49 years old							0.254	0.116	1.29
50–59 years old							0.081	0.135	1.08
60–69 years old							0.138	0.179	1.15
70–79 years old							0.183	0.367	1.2
More than 80 years old							0.782	0.582	2.19
Place of living (base urban)
Rural area							0.081	0.1	1.08
Semi-urban area							.240*	0.067	1.27
Feeling of security around the living place
Safe in home							0.086	0.056	1.09
Safe in the street							− .153	0.076	0.86
Safe in the municipality							.178*	0.06	1.19
Personal concerns
Insecurity							− .053	0.055	0.95
Corruption							0.006	0.051	1.01
Impunity							0.138	0.058	1.15
Might be mugged							− .221	0.1	0.8
Might be hurt							0.018	0.065	1.02
Might be extorted or kidnapped							− .026	0.055	0.97
Survey year
2012	− .082	0.092	0.92	− .111	0.11	0.9	− .114	0.122	0.89
2013	0.039	0.087	1.04	0.203	0.1	1.23	0.194	0.112	1.21
2014	− .251*	0.091	0.78	− .180	0.103	0.83	− .233	0.114	0.79
2015	0.099	0.089	1.1	0.164	0.102	1.18	0.16	0.112	1.17
2016	− .086	0.096	0.92	− .035	0.109	0.97	− .046	0.119	0.96
2017	− .219	0.099	0.8	− .230	0.113	0.79	− .220	0.123	0.8
2018	0.096	0.081	1.1	0.075	0.094	1.08	0.085	0.095	1.09
Constant	0.023	0.39	1.02	− 1.067	0.457	0.34	− 1.417*	0.505	0.24
χ2		253			1511			1533
df		19			32			55
N		21,915			18,556			17,801
Pseudo r2		0.0152			0. 1083			0.1142

*Denotes significance at a 1% level, answers were coded as 0 = Did not report; 1 = Report