Table 4: Rwanda- correlations between IPV and respondent characteristics across methods

||Q: husband|pushed or t|hrown you|Method<br>t|differences: P-<br>ests of differen|values from<br>ces|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Variable|(1)<br>List|(2)<br>F2F|(3)<br>ACASI|(1)-(2)<br>List-F2F|(1)-(3)<br>List-ACASI|(3)-(2)<br>ACASI-F2F|
|Vulnerability index|0.23***<br>(0.08)|0.06***<br>(0.02)|0.05*<br>(0.03)|0.07|0.05|0.65|
|Unequal village gender norms index|0.37***<br>(0.10)|0.03<br>(0.03)|0.04<br>(0.03)|0.00|0.00|0.75|
|Relationship quality index|0.03<br>(0.05)|-0.07***<br>(0.01)|-0.04***<br>(0.01)|0.06|0.17|0.18|
|Gender engagement index|-0.10**<br>(0.04)|-0.02*<br>(0.01)|-0.01<br>(0.01)|0.11|0.07|0.48|
|Progressive gender attitudes index|0.01<br>(0.06)|-0.01<br>(0.02)|-0.03<br>(0.02)|0.75|0.56|0.47|
|B**argaining power measures**|||||||
|Legally married|-0.05<br>(0.07)|0.01<br>(0.02)|-0.03<br>(0.02)|0.49|0.83|0.21|
|Wife's age|0.00<br>(0.00)|0.00<br>(0.00)|0.00<br>(0.00)|0.43|0.34|0.68|
|Wife owns land|0.03<br>(0.08)|0.00<br>(0.02)|-0.03<br>(0.02)|0.72|0.49|0.36|
|Wife's years of education|0.02<br>(0.01)|-0.00<br>(0.00)|-0.01*<br>(0.00)|0.13|0.06|0.27|
|Wife in paid work last week|-0.15**|-0.00|0.03|0.04|0.02|0.33|
||(0.07)|(0.02)|(0.02)||||

**Note:** Standard errors are shown in parentheses (List method estimates show robust standard errors).  *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Columns 1-3 show the relevant covariate coefficients from separate regressions. Columns 4-6 show the p-values from a chi-squared test of the differences between these coefficients. The vulnerability index includes household economic shock experience, husband's trauma score, husband's alcohol consumption, and whether any household member has skipped a meal in the past week. The unequal gender norms index includes incentivized and unincentivized questions about perceived unequal gender attitudes held by others in their village. The relationship quality index includes measures of marital trust, empathy and communication. The gender engagement index includes questions on the wife's previous participation in rallies and workshops about family violence and gender equality. The gender attitudes index includes questions about respondent beliefs about gender roles and the acceptability of IPV.

by women above median vulnerability. There was no IPV reporting across the list and direct methods for the least vulnerable women.

More vulnerable women may face greater personal safety or economic security risks if they report that their husband perpetrates IPV and, for example, he discovered her answer or was jailed as a result. For such women, the list experiment’s anonymity may provide them with additional reassurance and safety, making them more willing to report IPV. These results demonstrate that the relationship between vulnerability and IPV can be very different if estimated using anonymous list experiment IPV data. In Rwanda, it also demonstrates that ACASI’s added privacy does not address the reasons vulnerable women are misreporting.

In Rwanda, we also observe a similar misreporting pattern based on a respondent’s perception of unequal village gender norms, which could proxy for shame about IPV or fear of potential repercussions if a woman’s survey answer were to be discovered. When a woman perceived that village gender norms were unequal, she was more likely to report IPV under the list method, where her answer is anonymous, than she was under the face-to-face or ACASI methods. Specifically, in Rwanda, a one standard deviation 15