Aspirations Interventions in the Philippines (PSPS Panel)

Last registered on September 26, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Aspirations Interventions in the Philippines (PSPS Panel)
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0016849
Initial registration date
September 22, 2025

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
September 26, 2025, 8:14 AM EDT

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Stanford University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Northwestern University
PI Affiliation
Ecole Normale Supérieure
PI Affiliation
De La Salle University
PI Affiliation
London School of Economics

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2023-12-01
End date
2026-05-31
Secondary IDs
https://osf.io/9zury/
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
**See OSF page and registration for full and most up-to-date details: https://osf.io/9zury/**

In collaboration with IPA Philippines, we are testing variations of aspiration interventions delivered through videos and group discussions and evaluating their impacts on economic, psychological, and social outcomes in a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Poverty is multidimensional, with economic constraints often accompanied by a range of challenges stemming from social exclusion and limited access to information and opportunities (Park et al., 2025; Sheehy-Skeffington, 2020). As a result of these challenges, people in poverty may be less likely to have high aspirations for their future, a sense of agency over their fate, or the social support needed to make progress (Dalton et al., 2016; Hoff & Walsh, 2018). These are psychosocial assets that influence not only well-being but also economic potential (Bossuroy et al., 2022; Chetty et al., 2022; Haushofer & Salicath, 2023). Recent research suggests aspirations interventions may provide cost-effective tools for enhancing individuals’ economic outcomes (Bossuroy et al., 2022; Orkin et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2024). However, further exploration is needed to determine which types of aspiration programs are most effective in achieving impact at scale and how these programs influence both individual psychosocial and economic well-being, as well as societally relevant outcomes.

This 4-arm cluster randomized controlled trial is conducted with approximately 7,600 women in low-income, rural areas of the Western Visayas region of the Philippines. We are evaluating three variations of single-session aspiration interventions (videos + workshops) (T1-T3) against a pure control. These interventions will be delivered through three distinct arms:
Personal Aspirations (T1): The first variation models the pursuit of personal aspirations through a short scripted film about a role model named Hiraya, followed by a guided small group discussion on visualizing one’s future, setting goals, connecting aspirations to independent values, and identifying personal resources for goal pursuit.
Personal and Relational Aspirations (T2): The second variation focuses on both personal and relational aspirations using a short scripted film about a role model named Hiraya and her community, followed by a guided small group discussion on visualizing one’s own and one’s family’s future, setting goals, connecting aspirations to independent and interdependent values, and identifying personal and social resources for goal pursuit.
Personal, Relational, and Community Aspirations (T3): The third variation includes the small group workshops implemented in T2 plus adds a community-wide film viewing of the Hiraya film and discussion on aspirations and values among participants, their family and friends, and other influential members of the barangay.

These interventions are designed to empower participants through goal setting and laying out pathways towards achieving these goals while overcoming setbacks through self and/or collective efficacy. T1 is designed to build disjoint agency and hope and T2-T3 to build conjoint agency and hope (Markus & Kitayama, 2003). Each intervention is designed to be low-cost and scalable. Primary outcomes of interest are individuals’ and households’ economic mobility, psychological well-being, and social well-being. We will also measure the impacts of the intervention on economic attitudes and behaviors related to inclusive growth, such as attitudes toward redistribution and inequality and prosocial behaviors.

Registration Citation

Citation
Bernardo, Allan B. I. et al. 2025. "Aspirations Interventions in the Philippines (PSPS Panel)." AEA RCT Registry. September 26. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.16849-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2024-05-02
Intervention End Date
2025-02-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
See OSF registration for full details: https://osf.io/9zury/

Primary outcomes of interest are individuals’ and households’ economic mobility, psychological well-being, and social well-being
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This 4-arm cluster randomized controlled trial is conducted with approximately 7,600 women in low-income, rural areas of the Western Visayas region of the Philippines. We are evaluating three variations of single-session aspiration interventions (videos + workshops) (T1-T3) against a pure control.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization to treatment arms was stratified on one variable from a cross-randomization with another study that is part of PSPS: the geographic base of operations of ICM (International Care Ministries). Using a re-randomization procedure, we ran our stratified randomization 10,000 times and kept the randomization that was most balanced along key variables like population, density, mobile and internet signal, time taken to reach nearest municipality and distance of further household from barangay center. The 318 barangays (with approximately 24 eligible women each) were randomized into: Control (pure control) (28.3%), Treatment 1 (personal aspirations workshop) (24.5%), Treatment 2 (personal and relational aspirations workshop) (24.2%), Treatment 3 (personal and relational aspirations workshop + community aspirations event) (23.0%).
Randomization Unit
Barangay
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
318 barangays
Sample size: planned number of observations
7,600 participants
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Control (90 clusters), T1 (78 clusters), T2 (77 clusters), T3 (73 clusters)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
See OSF registration for full details: https://osf.io/9zury/ In order to achieve a power of 0.80 (alpha = 0.05) and allowing for 10% attrition at longer-term follow-ups, our calculations indicate that our sample size of 7,603 participants (5,244 treated) clustered into 318 barangays (228 treated) allows us to detect the following minimum effect sizes for income between the control group (90 clusters) and each of the three treatment groups: Control vs. T1 (78 clusters) = 0.147; Control vs. T2 (77 clusters) = 0.147; Control vs. T3 (73 clusters) = 0.149. Our power for comparing each of the treatments against each other is as follows: T1 vs. T2 = 0.152; T1 vs. T3 = 0.154; T2 vs. T3 = 0.155.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION IRB – USA
IRB Approval Date
2024-04-02
IRB Approval Number
16547