|Perceived<br>financial<br>support<sup>‡</sup>|Can count on<br>village when in<br>need of help|**0.23*****<br>**(0.05)**|**0.14****<br>**(0.04)**<br>0.00|
|---|---|---|---|
|Social||||
|cohesion &<br>community|Trusts women in<br>village|**0.13***<br>**(0.05)**|0.06<br>(0.04)<br>0.01|
|closeness||||
|**Panel D. Variab**|**les that Do Not Show S**|**ignificant Impact of**|**Psychosocial Interventions**|
||Knows women|||
|Violence|with tension in|-0.04|0.00<br>001|
|perceptions|household<br>_(reverse-coded)_|(0.04)|(0.03)<br>-.|
|Controls<br>household<br>resources|Has influence in<br>large purchase<br>decisions|0.05<br>(0.04)|0.04<br>(0.04)<br>**0.08****|

Data is from the policy experiment sample. Light grey coloring indicates p>.10. Significance levels are indicated as follows:<sup>†</sup> p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. The<sup>‡</sup> symbol indicates that the measure has been slightly modified from Bossuroy et al. (2022) to exclude objective economic variables. For columns 3 and 4, the sample size was N=4476 for all indices, except controls household resources (N=4161). For column 5, correlations were computed in the control group alone at the six-month follow-up and the sample size was N=1152 for all indices, except controls household resources (N=1099). Note that the item chosen for column 2 is that showing the highest treatment effect estimate and is paraphrased for brevity. Variable construction can be found in Bossuroy et al. (2022) Supplementary Information. For interpretation, we classify these psychosocial variables as follows: intrapersonal variables (selfefficacy, optimistic future expectations, mental health); relational variables related to the community (social standing, collective action, social support, social norms, financial support, social cohesion); and relational variables related to the household (control over earnings, intrahousehold dynamics, IPV perceptions, control over household resources).

# **<mark>5. Study 3: Mechanism Experiment on Personal and Interpersonal Models of Agency</mark>**

We use the mechanism experiment to further analyze models of economic agency (Walton & Wilson, 2018). Specifically, we deliver brief interventions designed to make more salient one of two interpretations of behavior modeled in the film projected during the community event. A “Personal Initiative” intervention portrayed independent agency grounded in self-advancement and self-direction. An “Interpersonal Initiative” intervention portrayed interdependent agency grounded in collective advancement and social harmony. We hypothesized that, while both interventions may be intrapersonally motivating given their focus on aspirations, the interpersonal-oriented intervention would best match the more interdependent cultural and socioeconomic context and thus show significant effects on women’s economic behavior and outcomes over time.

The mechanism experiment (Ludwig et al., 2011) was embedded in the arms of the policy experiment that included the psychosocial components (Psychosocial and Full arms). Table S4 describes the sample and shows that balance was achieved on key variables across experimental arms. This experiment was randomized at the individual level and tested two psychosocial 14