Communication Frictions and the Gender Gap in Access to Credit

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.

The intervention is designed to test whether (1) the informational value of borrower-written narratives in small-loan applications varies with the gender of the assigned loan officer, and (2) whether post-evaluation exposure to borrower gender information amplifies gender-based stereotypes among officers.

The study is implemented in partnership with a commercial bank in Afghanistan that issues standardized, collateral-free micro-loans to eligible small business owners. The intervention consists of two main stages:

Stage 1: Loan Application and Review Process

Eligible micro-entrepreneurs are invited by the partner bank to apply for a standardized, non-collateralized small loan with fixed, non-negotiable terms. Each application includes standard hard information (business characteristics, repayment history, etc.) and an open-ended narrative where applicants explain, in their own words, why the bank should trust 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.

Each loan application is anonymized before being evaluated, meaning that all identifying details—including names, photos, and any gender-indicative information—are removed. Each application will have three versions:

Version 1. Narrative Concealed: The officer sees the application (hard information), but no narrative is shown.
Version 2. Narrative Written for Female Loan Officer Visible: The officer sees the application plus the borrower’s narrative addressed to a female officer.
Version 3. Narrative Written for Male Loan Officer Visible: The officer sees the application plus the borrower’s narrative addressed to a male officer.

Officers assign repayment-likelihood scores in all versions. These scores are used by the partner bank to make real loan approval decisions, ensuring that the evaluations carry economic consequences. By comparing each application’s mean scores across the visible and concealed conditions, we identify the marginal informational value of the narrative. By further comparing this marginal value when borrowers face an opposite-gender loan officer, we test whether the informational content of borrower narratives is lower when the assigned officer is of a different gender.

Stage 2: Post-Evaluation Survey (Officer Follow-up)

After all reviews and loan decisions are completed, loan officers participate in a short post-evaluation survey. Each officer receives a private report listing the applications they reviewed and the scores they assigned. For a randomly selected half of officers, the report also reveals the true gender of each borrower. For the other half, gender remains undisclosed.

The survey elicits officers’ beliefs about borrower credibility, communication ability, and repayment quality, as well as self-assessed confidence in their own scoring. Comparing responses between these two groups allows us to test whether exposure to borrower gender information ex post amplifies gender-stereotypical beliefs, particularly among male officers.

2025-11-15

2026-06-01

Evaluation Score (Likert scale, 1 to 10)

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.”

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.

This study tests whether the marginal informational value of borrower-written narratives in small-loan applications varies with the gender of the officer assigned to review the file. In partnership with a commercial bank in Afghanistan, adult micro-entrepreneurs are invited to apply for a small standardized, collateral-free loan. Each application includes standard hard information and an open-ended narrative where applicants explain, in their own words, why the bank should trust 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 prior to review, and loan officers cannot view borrower names, photos, or any identifying information that implies gender.

Each application is scored by multiple officers under 3 randomly assigned conditions at the officer-application level:

Version 1. Narrative Concealed: The officer sees the application (hard information), but no narrative is shown.
Version 2. Narrative Written for Female Loan Officer Visible: The officer sees the application plus the borrower’s narrative addressed to a female officer.
Version 3. Narrative Written for Male Loan Officer Visible: The officer sees the application plus the borrower’s narrative addressed to a male officer.

Officers provide standardized repayment-likelihood scores that the partner bank uses in its real lending decisions under fixed, non-negotiable terms. For each application, the difference in mean scores across versions identifies the marginal informational value of the narrative.

Following the evaluation phase, we conduct a post-review survey to assess whether exposure to borrower gender information shapes or amplifies officers’ gender-related beliefs about borrower quality or communication ability. Each loan officer receives a summary report listing the applications they reviewed along with the scores they assigned. For a randomly selected half of the officers, the report also includes the gender of each borrower; for the other half, gender remains undisclosed. Comparing responses across these groups allows us to test whether communication frictions arising from facing a loan officer of a different gender can partly explain loan officers’ gender-based stereotypes about borrowers, particularly among male officers.

Randomization is conducted in the office using a computer program.

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.

No

Approximately 600 borrower applications (individual-level randomization, not clustered) and 50 loan officers (clustered randomization for post-evaluation survey stage).

150*50=7500 application-officer

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.