at baseline, midline and endline.<sup>47</sup> For example, we show that significantly more _Choices_ participants disagree that dowry is more important for the family’s esteem rather than having educated daughter at endline. Overall, our results suggest variation in the types of attitudes that were influenced by the _Choices_ intervention. The program was mostly successful in shifting beliefs to be more gender progressive with respect to a girl’s right to education and a women’s role in the economic sphere.

_Choices_ adolescents whose parents were also invited to attend the EMB training saw no additional impact on their overall gender equitable attitudes. _Choices_ girls whose parents also attended the EMB training were more likely to express more progressive masculinity norms. In Appendix Table A9 we also show there is a positive treatment effect at midline and endline on a standardized index that is composed of the 3 gender statements that were included in the lab-in-the-field experiment.<sup>48</sup> The private responses in the lab context were overall more gender egalitarian than the average responses captured during the endline survey and treatment effect sizes are higher in magnitude. This may reflect a certain comfort that the adolescents had within the lab session held around peers, peer pressure, or for other reasons. Importantly, since the private and public responses were measured within the same lab session, results should be considered internally valid.

# **7.2 Impacts on Conformity (Private vs. Public Responses)**

In the following we analyze the social dynamics of how an adolescents’ views are influenced by others around them using an experiment that measured attitudes in private vs. public. Our measure of conformity considers whether the adolescent changes their response from private to public based on the responses of others and by having to respond publicly. For the games we randomize: (i) the gender composition of the team i.e. all boys, all girls or mixedgender teams; and, (ii) the position that the adolescent responds in public. This allows us to estimate both group effects and position effects.<sup>49</sup> Individual private responses were first taken from each adolescent after they were randomly assigned to their team. Next, various conformity games were played in teams of 5 adolescents in public. The gender composition of peers that adolescent _i_ is grouped with and what their peers say in the positions in front of adolescent _i_ can be considered exogenous. We are interested in perceived normative pressures and whether _Choices_ adolescents are influenced by their peers in the same way as the control.

## **7.2.1 Gender Statements**

Tables 3A, 3B and 3C present the results for the gender statements where we observe social dynamics specific to gender attitudes. In Table 3A we examine group effects, in Table 3B position effects, and in Table 3C the direction of switching (egalitarian-discriminatory) from private to public. Our sample consists of all adolescents in the lab-in-the-field experiment.<sup>50</sup>

> 47Note sample size is different in Table 2 and Table A5 as A5 includes the panel of respondents.

> 48Table A9 compares effect sizes for endline survey data to the lab-in-the-field games data.

> 49The team members were randomly seated in a row to sequentially answer 3 gender attitudes statements and 2 line match games. In each subsequent game the position of the adolescent was re-randomized.

> 50The sample size for the experimental sessions is 1,000 respondents with 994 in the analysis as position was not recorded accurately for 6. With 3 different statements this makes 2,982 observations in Table 3A.

20