Such a channel would be consistent with psychology literature on behavioral activation, or the act of scheduling structured activities as a means of combatting depression (Cuijpers, van Straten, and Warmerdam (2007)). To explore this question, we supply a random subset of the employed with a calendar marking every date of work (Appendix Figure A5). The remainder receive a blank calendar and are instead informed weekly about their schedule. We find no impact of a schedule on respondent well-being or decision-making (Appendix Table A7). Despite this exercise, we cannot causally estimate the role of the structure alone on well-being, as the structure imposed by regular employment is coextensive with employment itself. Indeed, our measure of stability, which asks respondents how secure they feel at the moment and expect to feel in the future, increases substantially among the employed relative to both control and cash arms.

**Time use** Does employment improve well-being by allowing participants to substitute time away from unsavory or psychosocially costly activities? Appendix Table A8 presents how cash and work arms use their time. We document no significant difference between the two arms in the number of hours that respondents report spending across a variety of activities. Notably, while we cannot rule out that time outside due to employment may play a role (e.g., fresh air may boost one’s mood), our time-use data indicates that the average refugee already spends at least three hours outside per day, with no measurable difference between employed and cash arms. As we are powered to detect changes of at least twenty minutes for each activity, our results suggest that large substitutions away from unsavory activities are unlikely to be driving the improvements in psychosocial well-being, insofar as the respondent recalls.<sup>1718</sup> We also investigate whether those who were more idle prior to being employed benefit more from employment. We find no impact along this margin, suggesting that the elimination of boredom _per se_ is not the driving force behind the psychosocial value of employment (Appendix Table A10).

> 17Most respondents do not track their day by time, making collection of reliable time use data challenging (though recent literature documents the broader unreliability of such data). We piloted a variety of strategies, and settled on asking respondents how much time they spent on a set of activities in the previous day. Methods such as calling respondents at various times of day to document their activities were not feasible in the camps given the lack of mobile phones.

> 18Given that individuals in the employment arm report spending an average of 2.5 hours per day engaged in the work assignment, the absence of time use effects is perhaps surprising. Given the distribution of work time over the course of the day (40 minute intervals), we suspect that rather than supplanting any single activity during a worker’s day, the task instead shed a few minutes off of many activities. Both recollection and detection of these small margins of substitution are less likely. As such, while we cannot rule out that the effects of the employment arm may arise from small changes in how time is spent, our results suggest that substantial differences in time use are unlikely to drive the non-pecuniary impacts we document.

22