Panel B in Table 2 reports results where the treatment impacts are restricted to be equal across treatment arms. Across the entire sample of male and female respondents (column 1), treatment increases the probability of choosing the career mentoring course by 8.6 percentage points (25%). Large treatment impacts are detected for all groups other than non-working women (the point estimate on treatment is similar in magnitude to other groups but not statistically significant).

To address the issue that our sample oversamples working women, Table A.3 in the appendix reports results of regressions in which the sample is reweighted to be representative of the population in the large urban centers from which our respondents are sampled, i.e., with lesser weight being applied to working women and greater weight to non-working women. The point estimates are largely unchanged.<sup>28</sup>

# **5.2.1 Intensity of the Treatment**

In this section we examine whether spending more time reading the information presented in the treatments – arguably a sign of more deeply engaging with the information - is associated with a greater likelihood of choosing the career mentoring voucher. If so, this provides further evidence that the information provided is driving participants’ choices. Table 3 includes a variable for the total time spent on the intervention pages.<sup>29</sup> Column 1 shows that for each additional 10 seconds spent looking at the intervention screen, the respondent’s probability of selecting the career voucher increased by 0.9 percentage points (2.6%). For respondents in a couple in which the woman does not work (Column 2), ten more seconds spent reading the intervention material increases the probability of the respondent choosing the career mentoring course by 1.6 percentage points (5.2%). Reading time has no effect for respondents in a couple in which the woman already works (Column 3).

# **5.2.2 Heterogeneity Analysis**

We now explore the heterogeneity of treatment effects. One might expect larger treatment effects in households which are more open to attitudinal change, possibly through greater exposure to role models of working women, and who have real prospects of being able to

> significant. We also estimated specifications including controls for whether the respondent is supportive of women working outside the home for pay. The coefficients are similar to the ones reported here as the level of support prior to treatment is balanced across control and treatment groups. Results available upon request.

> 28Weights for (non-)working women were calculated as the number of (non-)working women in the population over the number of (non-)working women in the sample. The population numbers were calculated from the 2020 National Socioeconomic Survey (SUSENAS).

> 29On average people spent 19 seconds reading the information in treatment 1, 26 seconds in treatment 2 and 35 seconds in treatment 3 (as the format of the information is similar in each treatment, the time spent accelerates). No one spent more than 2.5 minutes reading the information. We also estimated a specification with a quadratic term but its coefficient was not significant.

15