beneficiary total revenues at this same follow-up point.<sup>12</sup> These results suggest that representing women’s economic activity in terms of interdependent agency contributed to driving the economic impacts of the psychosocial interventions in the multi-faceted program.

Given insufficient power to detect differences between the two intervention conditions, we did not pre-register a comparison among them, and post-hoc analyses show no difference between the psychosocial intervention conditions on the economic composite index (difference of _d_ =0.05, SE=0.05, _p_ =.340), intrapersonal psychosocial index (difference of _d_ =-0.02, SE=0.05, _p_ =.693), or relational psychosocial index (difference of _d_ =0.04, SE=0.06, _p_ =.446) (see Tables 2 and S5). Similarly, we find no difference between these two conditions on any measure taken immediately post intervention delivery (see Table S12), with the exception of those in the Interpersonal Initiative condition being marginally less likely than those in the Personal Initiative condition to anticipate being seen negatively by those in their family and community ( β =-0.03, p=0.088).

We also pre-registered analyses on administrative data for participation rates in the business and life skills trainings that occurred shortly after the delivery of these Initiative interventions and found no difference across conditions. However, this is likely due to ceiling effects given that the median number of sessions attended by women in all conditions was 12 of 12 sessions offered (MControl=10.81; β PI=-0.09, t(2622)=-0.71, p=0.480; β II=-0.07, t(2622)=-0.62, p=0.538).

**Psychosocial outcomes.** In addition to economic outcomes, we also assessed effects on psychosocial outcomes that are important indicators of psychological and social well-being on their own, but also constitute possible mechanisms of the observed economic impacts. On a composite measure of all psychosocial outcomes, the Interpersonal Initiative and Personal Initiative interventions both produced significant positive impacts ( _d_ II=0.12, SE=0.05, _p_ =.015; _d_ PI=0.10, SE=0.05, _p_ =.043). As predicted, and similar to results observed in prior related experiments (Thomas et al., 2020), both psychosocial interventions improved intrapersonal psychological outcomes, and the Interpersonal Initiative intervention additionally trended towards positive effects on relational outcomes (see Table 2).

Both interventions produced similar positive impacts on a composite index of intrapersonal outcomes ( _d_ PI=0.13, SE=0.05, _p_ =.004; _d_ II=0.12, SE=0.04, _p_ =.010). These effects were driven by both interventions enhancing women’s positive expectations for their future socioeconomic mobility ( _d_ PI=0.12, SE=0.05, _p_ =.019 _; d_ II=0.15, SE=0.05, _p_ =.002). Both interventions prompted and role modeled goal setting for socioeconomic mobility and thus, in this sense, both were effective in advancing this primary psychological goal. The Personal Initiative intervention also generated marginal increases in subjective well-being ( _d_ PI=0.09, SE=0.05, _p_ =.049) and self-efficacy ( _d_ PI=0.09, SE=0.05, _p_ =.068), consistent with the focus of that intervention on the self. The Interpersonal Initiative intervention produced directionally positive effects on subjective well-being ( _d_ II=0.08, SE=0.05, _p_ =.089) but not on self-efficacy ( _d_ II=0.02, SE=0.05, _p_ =.595).

The Interpersonal Initiative intervention produced marginally significant effects on the relational composite index ( _d_ II=0.09, SE=0.05, _p_ =.075), whereas the Personal Initiative intervention produced directionally positive but not statistically significant differences ( _d_ PI=0.05, SE=0.05, _p_ =.338). The Personal Initiative condition showed no impact on household or partner dynamics (household: _d_ PI=0.03, SE=0.05, _p_ =.458; partner: _d_ PI=0.07, SE=0.05, _p_ =.169).

> 12 We note that these effects are from the policy experiment sample, hence not directly comparable to treatment effects from the mechanism experiment, which only included a subsample of villages.

18