results show that this is not the case. In a given month, workers in the payroll account group are 12.8 percentage points as likely to make a non-withdrawal transaction than workers in the account only treatment group (p-value=0.000). Workers in the payroll account condition also accumulate balances that are, on average, BDT 334 (approximately 7% of the median monthly wage) higher than those of workers in the account only group (p-value=0.000).

Overall, these patterns indicate that our main treatment encouraged active account use, and suggests that active engagement helps inexperienced consumers to not only become sufficiently comfortable with the technology to perform an increasing number of transactions but also to accumulate formal savings in their accounts.

**Learning.** We next turn to the effect of payroll accounts on learning. We measure learning using the two outcome variables described in Section 3.3, above. Our first learning outcomes is an indicator for whether a transaction was performed _outside the workplace_ , where assistance with the account was not readily available. We measure this outcome in administrative data, which records the precise geographical location of each transaction and allows us to identify whether a transaction took place at banking and mobile money facilities outside the study location.

Figure 4 shows the share of respondents that made at least one transaction at a bank or mobile money facility outside the study site at endline. The figure shows that, unconditionally, participants in the payroll accounts group who interacted with the account more frequently were 58 percentage points more likely to make a transaction in a setting without assistance than participants in the bank or mobile account only group.

Table 4, panel A reports the corresponding regression results and reports results for different types of outside transactions. We use the same panel and specification as in Table 3 for this exercise, so that treatment effects can be interpreted as the average post-treatment likelihood of making an outside transaction for workers in the payroll and account only treatment conditions.

Table 4, columns (1) to (3) show that workers assigned to the payroll account treatment quickly become confident enough to make a significant share of their transactions at locations outside the workplace. They are 21 percentage points more likely to make a withdrawal (p-value=0.000), 27 percentage points more likely to make a send-money transaction (p-value=0.000), but not more likely to make a deposit outside the workplace (p-value=0.197). In Table 4, column (5) we again verify that the higher number of outside transactions is not explained mechanically by withdrawals in the payroll account treatment group alone. The results show that this is not the case. When we exclude withdrawals, we find that workers in the treatment group are still 12 percentage points more likely to make a transaction outside the workplace than workers in the account group. This suggests that workers who use their account more actively learn to navigate the technology more quickly and become sufficiently comfortable with the account to also use it in settings where assistance is not as readily available as at the banking facilities in the workplace.

One possible concern with this interpretation is that the increase in outside transactions we 17