# Table (E18) Impacts of the Program on Behavioral Games and Preferences

|**Outcomes**|**Treatment**|**(se)**|**FDR**<br>**q-values**|**Control**<br>**mean**|**(sd)**|**N**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Risk Taking Preferences (Z-Score)|-0.14|(0.11)|[1.00]|0.00|(1.00)|1,401|
|Impatience Preferences (Z-Score)|-0.06|(0.16)|[1.00]|-0.00|(1.00)|1,415|
|Ambiguity Aversion (=1)|-0.01|(0.04)|[1.00]|0.87|(0.33)|1,403|
|$ shared with a Syrian refugee living in Jordan|0.18|(0.40)|[1.00]|4.26|(2.84)|1,411|
|$ shared with a non-Syrian refugee living in Jordan|0.40|(0.36)|[1.00]|3.73|(2.80)|1,404|
|$ shared with a Jordanian citizen from same ethnicity|-0.25|(0.39)|[1.00]|4.06|(2.83)|1,411|
|$ shared with a Jordanian citizen from different ethnicity|-0.20|(0.43)|[1.00]|3.70|(2.84)|1,406|
|$ shared with a Jordanian soldier/police offcer|-0.06|(0.49)|[1.00]|4.32|(3.23)|1,403|
|$ shared with an employee of the Jordanian government|-0.11|(0.46)|[1.00]|3.37|(2.98)|1,406|
|$ shared with an employee of an international NGO|0.37|(0.40)|[1.00]|3.00|(2.83)|1,402|

**_Notes_** :

- The table shows the regression results on pre-specified behavioral outcomes using the 2021 in-person data. Each row is its own dependent variable.

- The outcomes that require definitions are: Risk Taking Preferences is defined as in the Jordan version of the Global Preferences Survey. The quantitative measure consists of a series of five binary choices. Choices were between a fixed lottery, in which the individual could win a certain amount or zero, and varying sure payments. Choice of the lottery resulted in an increase of the sure amount being offered in the next question, and vice versa. The total score is normalized by the control group’s mean and standard deviation such that the final score has a mean of zero and standard deviation of one in the control group. Higher values indicate a tendency to take more risks. Impatience Preferences is defined as in the Jordan version of the Global Preferences Survey. It includes a series of five interdependent hypothetical binary choices between immediate and delayed financial rewards. The total score is normalized by the control group’s mean and standard deviation such that the final score has a mean of zero and standard deviation of one in the control group. Higher values indicate a tendency to be impatient. Ambiguity aversion is defined using a modified, hypothetical version of the standard ambiguity aversion game whereby the respondent selects either a bag with a specified probability of success or an unspecified probability. This measure is an indicator variable that equals unity if respondent selected from the bag of known ball colors and zero if selected from the bag of unknown colors. Trust outcomes are measured using a modified, hypothetical version of the standard trust game where respondent is given 10 JOD to share with members of 7 different social groups (or keep). The amount is doubled and members select how much to share back. The 0 - 10 scale varies between 0 denoting no trust and 10 denoting full trust. Individual outcomes derived for each social group. The independent variable of interest is the TOT treatment indicator, which is the predicted value from a first-stage regression of treatment implementation on treatment assignment.

- The independent variable of interest is the TOT treatment indicator, which is the predicted value from a first-stage regression of treatment implementation on treatment assignment.

- The regressions also have assessment month-by-year fixed effects, enumerator fixed effects, community-level controls (Irbid/Mafraq governorate and population quartile), and household-level controls (vulnerability-assessment quartile, shelter program, baseline number of children, baseline number of children plus adults, respondent gender, and respondent age). In the parentheses are robust standard errors clustered at the locality level. Regressions are weighted by the number of people interviewed in each household. Statistical significance represented by * (10%), ** (5%), and *** (1%). Q-values are calculated per Anderson (2008) and correspond to Family 13 in the preanalysis plan.

28