Communication Frictions and the Gender Gap in Access to Credit

Last registered on December 11, 2025
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Communication Frictions and the Gender Gap in Access to Credit
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0017067
Initial registration date
October 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
October 23, 2025, 7:40 AM EDT

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

Last updated
December 11, 2025, 11:48 AM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Navid Neshat
Affiliation
Tulane University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Yongseok Kim
PI Affiliation
Tulane University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-11-15
End date
2026-06-01
Keywords
Finance & Microfinance, Gender
Additional Keywords
soft information; entrepreneurship; gender gap; communication; loan officers; women
JEL code(s)
G2, J16
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study explores how gender affects communication between borrowers and lenders. In partnership with a bank in Afghanistan, we invited micro-entrepreneurs to apply for small loans. The application collects standard financial information, and it also gives borrowers the opportunity to write a message to the loan officer explaining, in their own words, why their ability and willingness to repay can be trusted. Each applicant can provide one explanation addressed to a male loan officer and one addressed to a female loan officer. Providing financial information is mandatory, but writing a message is optional. By analyzing the narratives written by the same applicant, we assess whether individuals—and particularly female applicants—communicate differently when the message is directed to an opposite-gender loan officer. Next, we recruit loan officers to evaluate the applications and test whether the marginal value of borrower narratives is lower when they communicate with opposite gender. These findings will allow us to evaluate whether gender-based communication barriers contribute to disparities in access to finance and whether increasing the number of female loan officers could help reduce these gaps.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Kim, Yongseok and Navid Neshat. 2025. "Communication Frictions and the Gender Gap in Access to Credit." AEA RCT Registry. December 11. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17067-1.1
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
This study examines how borrowers’ written communication in small-loan applications influences loan officers’ evaluations and actual lending outcomes at a partner bank. Eligible micro-entrepreneurs complete standardized, collateral-free loan applications that include a short narrative describing their ability and willingness to repay. Each applicant can provide one narrative addressed to a male loan officer and one addressed to a female loan officer. All applications are anonymized before review so that loan officers cannot see any borrower identifiers. Loan officers evaluate applications using the bank’s regular scoring procedures, and loan decisions are based on these evaluations. After the evaluation phase, officers complete a short follow-up survey about their review experience. Some details of the study design are temporarily withheld to preserve research integrity and will be made public once data collection and analysis are complete.
Intervention Start Date
2025-11-15
Intervention End Date
2026-06-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Evaluation Score (Likert scale, 1 to 10)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The primary outcome is the loan officer’s evaluation score, measured on a scale from 1 to 10, reflecting how likely they believe the applicant is to repay the loan by the maturity date, where 1 indicates “very unlikely to repay.”

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study examines how written communication in loan applications affects how applicants are perceived by loan officers. We collaborate with a financial institution to collect anonymized loan applications that include a short open-ended section where borrowers describe their credibility and repayment ability. Professional loan officers evaluate these applications, and the bank’s lending decisions are based on these evaluations. To protect privacy, all applications are anonymized before review, and loan officers cannot see any borrower information that reveals gender or identity. The study aims to better understand how borrower communication influences officers’ assessments. More details of the study are temporarily withheld to preserve the integrity of the research and will be made public once the study concludes.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is conducted in the office using a computer program.
Randomization Unit
Borrower-level randomization:
The gender of the officer shown to applicants (“male officer” vs. “female officer”) is randomized at the individual borrower application level.

Officer–application-level randomization:
The narrative visibility condition (“Narrative Visible” vs. “Narrative Concealed”) is randomized independently for each officer–application pair.

Officer-level randomization:
In the post-evaluation survey stage, whether borrower gender is revealed in the officer’s feedback report (“Gender Revealed” vs. “Gender Hidden”) is randomized at the officer level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Approximately 600 borrower applications (individual-level randomization, not clustered) and 50 loan officers (clustered randomization for post-evaluation survey stage).
Sample size: planned number of observations
150*50=7500 application-officer
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Borrower-level treatment (unit = application; not clustered)

Officer gender shown = Male:
Planned invitations: 300 borrowers (≈ half female, half male overall sample stratified by borrower gender)
Expected completed applications: ≈250

Officer gender shown = Female:
Planned invitations: 300
Expected completed applications: ≈250

Note: Total invitations = 600 (300 female, 300 male). Expected completed applications ≈ 500 in total, with ≈ 250 per arm.

************

Officer–application condition (unit = officer–application evaluation; not clustered)

Narrative Visible: approximately 50 percent of officer–application evaluations

Narrative Concealed: approximately 50 percent of officer–application evaluations

Exact counts depend on the final number of evaluations per application. The split is designed to be 1:1 across all officer–application observations.

************

Post-evaluation survey treatment (unit = loan officer; clustered at officer level)

Borrower gender revealed in officer report: 25 clusters (officers)

Borrower gender hidden in officer report: 25 clusters (officers)

Total officers = 50, randomly assigned 25/25 across the two survey arms.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Indiana University IRB
IRB Approval Date
2025-05-08
IRB Approval Number
26362
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information