time is computed across all 9 days of reporting.<sup>17</sup> Table 8 reports the 7-day recall treatment effects.<sup>18</sup> The results, in conjunction with the 24-hour recall and smartphone comparison in Section 4.1, suggest that at higher aggregations of recall time – moving from the last 24 hours to 7 days – the estimated time for key activity areas around employment and unpaid work go up. This is extremely important for understanding individuals’ productivity, for example, as well as opportunity costs for re-allocating their time across other areas. The substantial underestimation of leisure time in the 7-day recall module vis-à-vis the smartphone and 24-hour recall approaches, also indicates that the 7-day recall module may be insufficient for understanding the true distribution of daily time across activities.

Table 8. Overall treatment effects of smartphone and 24-hour recall approaches compared to 7-day recall

||Agri-<br>culture<br>(1)|E<br>Nonfarm<br>employ-<br>ment<br>(2)|ffect of smartphone<br>Unpaid work:<br>obtaining services/<br>resources for HH<br>(3)|and recall arms o<br>Unpaid work:<br>cooking<br>and cleaning in<br>house<br>(4)|n average dail<br>Unpaid<br>work: Care<br>of children,<br>elderly<br>(5)|y minutes spen<br>Community<br>activities<br>(6)|t in:<br>School/<br>studying<br>(7)|Leisure<br>(8)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Total|||||||||
|Smartphone arm|-16.1***|-81.9***|-8.2**|-26.5***|-49.5***|1.6|-3.6***|255.6***|
|24-hour recall arm|6.1|-49.1***|-3.4|-13.8***|-30.1***|-0.1|-2.0|404.4***|
|Women|||||||||
|Smartphone arm|-7.8*|-55.9***|-33.9***|-42.0***|-70.1***|0.8|-2.6*|196.6***|
|24-hour recall arm|11.8**|-40.8***|-19.4***|-16.4**|-32.7***|-0.8|-1.3|331.5***|
|Men|||||||||
|Smartphone arm|-24.5***|-107.0***|17.0***|-11.4**|-29.4***|2.6|-4.6**|313.3***|
|24-hour recall arm|0.3|-57.8***|12.6***|-11.6***|-27.4***|0.5|-2.3|477.7***|

## <u>Notes:</u>

(1) OLS regressions controlling for EA and day of the week FEs; the standard errors are clustered at the household-level. Regressions control for the same individual and household-level characteristics as in eq. (1). Asterisks are indicated on the smartphone diary and 24hour recall estimates if they were significantly different, respectively, from the 7-day module. ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.10

# 5. Factors underlying reporting differences across recall and smartphone arms: Intraday variation in time allocation and simultaneity

Apart from average treatment effects, the data collected across both treatment arms in the experimental study allow for a more disaggregated view of time allocation that has been less well-examined in time use surveys. This includes how men and women manage their time within the day — as well as how intensively they use their time, as measured by different activities being conducted simultaneously. As we discuss in this section, some of these nuances can help explain some of the findings we observed in Table 6. For example, despite the 24-hour recall arm’s 15-minute floor for time recording, we find that the smartphone arm reveals greater time across leisure and non-leisure activities during potentially productive times of the day. We also find a much higher incidence of activities conducted simultaneously in the smartphone arm, and across a wider range of activities than the recall arm, including non-leisure activities. In so doing, we

> 17 The results are available upon request.

> 18 For treatment effects, all days between days 3-10 were used in the smartphone sample, and days 5, 8 and 10 were used in the recall arm.

19