The effects of known source and account labelling on the acceptability of saving by wives in Zambia

Last registered on February 21, 2023

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The effects of known source and account labelling on the acceptability of saving by wives in Zambia
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010949
Initial registration date
February 14, 2023

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
February 21, 2023, 6:45 AM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Nottingham

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Leiden University

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2023-02-15
End date
2023-02-19
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The primary aim of this study is to establish whether, in rural Zambia, a wife saving in secret from her husband is more socially acceptable and less likely to be viewed as justifiable grounds for her being beaten by her husband if (1) the source of the money being saved is known to be her business and (2) the money is being saved into an account that is explicitly linked to her business. To investigate these issues, we will conduct a survey experiment involving 180 participants, 90 females, 90 males, who are members of savings groups in Luapula Province, Zambia.
To isolate specific ceteris paribus effects and provide context for our findings, we will also investigate the social acceptability of husbands saving in secret from their wives under the same set of scenarios and both wives and husbands saving and telling their spouses about the savings under the same set of scenarios.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
BARR, ABIGAIL and MARLEEN DEKKER. 2023. "The effects of known source and account labelling on the acceptability of saving by wives in Zambia." AEA RCT Registry. February 21. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10949-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
This is a survey experiment. The participants will be presented with vignettes in which a wife or husband is deciding to save and will be asked to evaluate the wife's or husband's decision. The following aspects of these vignettes will be exogenously varied: phrases about the origin of the money being saved and the nature of the account it is being saved into; whether the saver is a wife or husband; and whether the saver does or does not tell her/his spouse about the savings.

The participants will also be asked how justifiable it is for a husband to beat his wife having discovered that she has been saving in secret and, in these questions too, phrases about the nature of the account that is being saved into will be exogenously varied.
Intervention (Hidden)
In the vignettes about wives and husbands saving money:
- In one set of variants, Set A, the source of the money will be left ambiguous and the savings will be into a personal savings account
- In a second set of variants, Set B, the source of the money will be the wife's or husband's business (examples given for wives - hairdressing, dressmaking, example given for husbands - their cash crop farming) and the savings will be into a personal savings account
- In a third set of variants, Set C, the source of the money will be the wife's or husband's business and the savings will be into an account that is labelled using the name of the saver's business.
- Cross-cutting Set A vs Set B vs Set C, in the vignettes the saver will either tell their spouse about the savings or not tell their spouse about the savings
- Cross-cutting Set A vs Set B vs Set C and tell vs don't tell spouse, in the vignettes the saver will be either a wife or a husband.

Respondents who have been presented with either Set A or Set B of the wife/husband saving vignettes (described above) will later be asked whether it would be justifiable for a husband to beat his wife if he discovered that she had been saving in secret in "a personal savings account" and this question will come at the end of the standard series of DHS questions that take a similar form (Do you think a man would be justified in beating his wife if she neglects their children / burns the food / argues with him / visits family or friends without his permission / refuses to have sex with him?). Respondents who have been presented with Set C of the wife/husband saving vignettes (described above) will later be asked whether it would be justifiable for a husband to beat his wife if he discovered that she had been saving in secret in "a savings account for her business" and this question will come at the end of the standard set of DHS questions as just described.
Intervention Start Date
2023-02-15
Intervention End Date
2023-02-19

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
When the focus is wives' and husbands' savings decisions, the outcome of interest is how socially acceptable participants think the decision is.
When the focus is a husband beating his wife, the outcome of interest is whether participants think it is justifiable or not.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Social acceptability will be measured on a 4-point scale: very unacceptable, somewhat unacceptable, somewhat acceptable, very acceptable. In some analyses, this will be treated as a categorical variable. In some analyses it will be treated as a continuous variable ranging from -1 to +1 (very unacceptable -> -1, somewhat unacceptable -> -0.33, somewhat acceptable -> +0.33, very acceptable -> +1). In some analyses, within participant differences in acceptability scores (continuous) across vignette versions will be calculated and analysed as outcome variables of interest, e.g., Acceptability of keeping savings secret from spouse = Acceptability of saving and keeping it secret from spouse - Acceptability of saving and telling spouse.

The beating justifiable outcome variable will equal 1 if a responded indicates that the husband beating his wife would be justified and zero otherwise. (This is consistent with the DHS survey approach.)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
None
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The participants will be members of savings groups in villages in Luapula Province, Zambia. The aim is to engage 180 participants, 90 male, 90 female, in the survey.

The survey will be conducted via one-to-one interviews by 7 trained field researchers, 3 female, 4 male.

The survey will be conducted in mid-February 2023.
Experimental Design Details
Within each of the three sets of variants, Set A, Set B and Set C, described above, there will be four variants of the vignette. In two of these the saver will decide to tell her/his spouse about the savings and in two she/he will not. Further, in two out of the four variants the saver is a husband and in the other two the saver is a wife. The tell vs don't tell variation and the wife vs husband variation will cross-cut.

Each participant will be randomly assigned to be presented with either Set A or Set B or Set C of the vignette variants. Whether a participant evaluates the decisions to save and tell spouse first and the decisions to save and not tell spouse second or the other way around will also be randomised across participants. The randomizations of Set A vs Set B vs Set C and tell-don't-tell vs don't-tell-tell orderings will cross cut.

Wives will always evaluate decisions by a wife first followed by decisions by a husband. Husbands will always evaluate decisions by a husband first followed by decisions by a wife.

Respondents who have been presented with either Set A or Set B of the wife/husband saving vignettes (described above) will later be asked whether it would be justifiable for a husband to beat his wife if he discovered that she had been saving in secret in a personal savings account and this question will come at the end of the standard series of DHS questions that take a similar form (Do you think a man would be justified in beating his wife if she neglects their children / burns the food / argues with him / visits family or friends without his permission / refuses to have sex with him?) Respondents who have been presented with Set C of the wife/husband saving vignettes (described above) will later be asked whether it would be justifiable for a husband to beat his wife if he discovered that she had been saving in secret in "a savings account for her business" and this question will come at the end of the standard set of DHS questions as described in the previous paragraph.

In total, there will be 12 variants of the questionnaire, 6 for wife/female participants, 6 for husband/male participants. Each variant of the questionnaire will include four savings decision vignettes.

We expect to be able to engage with 180 participants, 90 male, 90 female, by visiting 9 savings groups. However, more savings groups will be visited if required to meet the target sample size.

The male participants will be interviewed by male field researchers. The female participants will be interviewed by female field researchers.
Variants of the survey will be balanced across savings groups and, within the sexes, across field researchers.
Randomization Method
Two lists have been drawn up, one for male participants, one for female participants. In each list, survey instrument variants and field researchers have been assigned to participant IDs in a way that assures balance across all relevant dimensions, including the location of a participant in the interview order. In the field, participant IDs will be assigned on a first-come-first-served basis.
Randomization Unit
The unit of randomization for the Set A vs SET B vs Set C variants is the participant. Each participant will make four evaluations and, across these four, tell vs don't-tell and saver-a-wife vs saver-a-husband are randomized. In the analysis, an observation will be an evaluation or a within-participant difference between two evaluations and these will be clustered by participant.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
180 participants, 90 male, 90 female.
Sample size: planned number of observations
Each participant will evaluate four savings decisions. So, we will have 720 observations (=4*180) for the acceptability-of-savings-decisions analysis.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
For the evaluation-of-savings-decision vignettes, the between participant (cluster) treatment arms are Set A vs Set B vs Set C:
- 240 observations from 60 participants (clusters) will relate to the Set A savings decisions (source of savings ambiguous, personal savings account)
- 240 observations from 60 participants (clusters) will relate to the Set B savings decisions (source of savings business, personal savings account)
- 240 observations from 60 participants (clusters) will relate to the Set C savings decisions (source of savings business, business savings account labelled appropriately)
For the evaluation of savings decision vignettes, the within participant treatment arms of interest are saver-tells-spouse vs saver-does-not-tell-spouse:
- 360 observations from 180 participants (clusters) will relate to vignettes in which the saver tells their spouse
- 360 observations from 180 participants (clusters) will relate to vignettes in which the saver does not tell their spouse

For the justification-of-husband-beating-wife questions:
- 120 observations from 120 participants will relate to the husband discovering that the wife had been saving into a personal savings account without telling him (of these, in 60 cases the participant will have earlier been told about a scenario in which the wife's personal savings had come from her business, while in the other 60 cases they will have been told nothing about sources of wives' savings)
- 60 observations from 60 participants will relate to the husband discovering that the wife had been saving into a savings account for her business without telling him.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
ERES Converge Institutional Review Board, Lusaka, Zambia
IRB Approval Date
2021-09-30
IRB Approval Number
2021-Sep-012

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials