||_Mass comm._|87|0.58<br>(0.03)|0.74<br>(0.03)|0.16***<br>(0.03)|5.2510|86|0.0000|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||_Control_|15|0.67<br>(0.07)|0.79<br>(0.06)|0.12**<br>(0.05)|2.5463|14|0.0233|
|**SN: Pro‐latrine**<br>**score**|_NE_|52|0.62<br>(0.04)|0.79<br>(0.03)|0.18***<br>(0.04)|4.4327|51|0.0000|
||_Mass comm._|86|0.50<br>(0.03)|0.69<br>(0.03)|0.18***<br>(0.03)|5.7268|85|0.0000|
||_Control_|16|0.50<br>(0.13)|0.65<br>(0.12)|0.16<br>(0.13)|1.2322|15|0.2369|
|**PB: Latrine not**<br>**impure score**|_NE_|53|0.63<br>(0.07)|0.86<br>(0.05)|0.23***<br>(0.08)|2.9919|52|0.0042|
||_Mass comm._|86|0.55<br>(0.05)|0.72<br>(0.05)|0.16***<br>(0.06)|2.6925|85|0.0085|
||_Control_|15|0.57<br>(0.13)|0.73<br>(0.12)|0.17<br>(0.11)|1.4349|14|0.1733|
|**SN: Latrine not**<br>**impure score**|_NE_|49|0.53<br>(0.07)|0.62<br>(0.07)|0.09<br>(0.08)|1.2196|48|0.2286|
||_Mass comm._|85|0.55<br>(0.05)|0.72<br>(0.04)|0.18***<br>(0.06)|2.8511|84|0.0055|
|||Stan<br>***|dard errors i<br>p<0.01, ** p|n parenthes<br><0.05, * p<0|es<br>.1||||

These results are consistent with our hypothesis that one of the pathways through which latrine use can be increased is by challenging the mental models around the association of latrines and cleanliness. However, the role of the second mechanism we identified—updating empirical expectations about norms of latrine use in the community—is less clear. Empirical expectations of the extent to which others in one’s community use latrines showed significant improvements in T2 villages, but the change was small and statistically insignificant in the T1 villages despite improvements in latrine use practices. There could be two factors to consider here. The first has to do with the measurement itself. While at baseline we only asked respondents where others in their village usually defecate, at endline we introduced a more nuanced measure by asking directly about practices of other latrine owners as well. This may have influenced the reference group considered by respondents in answering this question, making the comparison between baseline and endline outcomes less valid. However, since we did see significant changes in one treatment group and not the other, a potential explanation could be related to the differences between these two groups at baseline. T2 households were worse off on average across most variables, including empirical expectations and normative expectations about pro‐latrine beliefs, compared to both T1 and control group households at baseline. As a result, updating empirical expectations in these villages may have led to larger changes because the difference between expectations and reality was more pronounced, and hence more impactful.

Though improvements are observed across both treatment groups, the effectiveness of the delivery channel (NE vs mass communication) seemed to vary between personal and social outcomes. The mass communication treatment was associated with larger changes in social empirical and normative expectations, while the norm entrepreneur‐delivered treatment was more effective at influencing personal beliefs. This suggests that while personalized delivery might allow for quicker internalization of 17