parents to become traveling saleswomen, how many of 10 would advocate for their control over their earnings in the household, and how many of 10 would be given loans if requested. _Social support_ asks women on a 4-point scale how much they feel they can count on financial help from women in their savings group and to estimate out of 10 women how many would give them money if requested. _Trust_ is measured with a single item “Out of 10 people in your region, how many people are good and trustworthy vs. bad and untrustworthy?”. For _anticipation of negative reputation,_ participants were asked how they think they will be seen by others in their family and community as they develop their businesses and were given two open-ended response options for family and two for community. Responses were then classified by enumerators as positive, negative, or unclear, and the final variable was a binary indicator of whether they reported anticipating any negative consequences across these questions.

**_Intrapersonal and Other._** _Future expectations (SES)_ was comprised of two items asking about their anticipated socioeconomic status in two years and that of their youngest child or grandchild when they become 30, both using a 10-point MacArthur ladder of subjective social status. _Self-efficacy_ assessed respondent’s perceived ability to adapt to difficulties, cope with unexpected events and do things as well as most people, each on 4-point scales.

_Prosocial preferences_ gave respondents two hypothetical allocation tasks. The first asked them to allocate 170,000 CFA of an NGO to community projects versus individual households. The second asked them how much of 6,500 CFA in profits they would give to fund community projects.

_Amina evaluation_ assessed respondents’ evaluations of the role model displayed in the intervention materials on a 10-point scale, specifically ratings of her morality, respect, social standing, and economic mobility.

_Endline Survey Measures._ The endline survey assessed economic and psychosocial outcomes, both relating to personal and relational processes. The outcomes and their constructions align to the extent possible to the policy experiment, as reported in Bossuroy et al. (2022). Due to budget and logistical constraints, this endline survey was a condensed and slightly altered version of the follow-up surveys used in Study 2, i.e. the broader policy experiment. We construct composite indices across all outcomes within each domain (economic and psychosocial) in order to address multiple hypothesis testing. All outcome indices are standardized such that each index has mean 0 and standard deviation 1 for the control group (Kling et al., 2007).

**_Economic outcomes_** . The _food security index_ is a composite of two measures. _Household food security frequency_ over the past 12 months is assessed with two items adapted from the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES, e.g., having gone a whole day without food, 0=Almost every month to 4=No, never) (Ballard et al., 2013). _Dietary diversity_ is captured with an abbreviated measure of the food consumption score that is a weighted sum of the number of days in the past week that the respondent has eaten vegetables and meat, where meat is given a weight of four and vegetables of one (WFP, 2008).

_Business engagement index_ assesses whether the program participant had an off-farm business or not, the number of off-farm businesses owned or operated in the past 12 months and the number started in the last 12 months, the number of businesses the beneficiary intends to expand (vs maintain or abandon), the sum of days worked on all businesses in the past month, an index of self-reported healthy business practices (e.g., keeping a sales ledger), and the total value 40