|
Field
Trial Title
|
Before
Men from Mars, Women from Venus? How Communication Barriers Transmit Gender Gaps from the Finance Industry to Entrepreneurship
|
After
Communication Frictions and the Gender Gap in Access to Credit
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
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. Each applicant was randomly informed that their application would be reviewed by either a male or a female loan officer. The applications included standard financial details and a short written explanation of why the borrower’s ability and willingness to repay the loan could be trusted, which we refer to as borrower narratives. By comparing how male and female officers evaluated these narratives, we examine whether women communicate less effectively when the loan officer they face is male. The findings will help us understand how communication barriers contribute to gender gaps in access to finance and how increasing the number of female officers might reduce these disparities.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
October 23, 2025 07:40 AM
|
After
December 11, 2025 11:48 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
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 is informed that their loan will be reviewed by either a male or a female loan officer, with the assigned officer gender determined randomly. 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.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
Approximately 300 borrower applications (individual-level randomization, not clustered) and 50 loan officers (clustered randomization for post-evaluation survey stage).
|
After
Approximately 600 borrower applications (individual-level randomization, not clustered) and 50 loan officers (clustered randomization for post-evaluation survey stage).
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
15,000 applicant-officer
|
After
150*50=7500 application-officer
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
Borrower-level treatment (unit = application; not clustered)
Officer gender shown = Male:
Planned invitations: 250 borrowers (≈ half female, half male overall sample stratified by borrower gender)
Expected completed applications: ≈150
Officer gender shown = Female:
Planned invitations: 250
Expected completed applications: ≈150
Note: Total invitations = 500 (250 female, 250 male). Expected completed applications ≈ 300 in total, with ≈ 150 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.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
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 microloans 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.
At the time of application, all applicants are informed that their loan will be reviewed by either a male or a female loan officer. The gender of the assigned officer is randomly determined by the research team and displayed on the application. Applicants are unaware that the officer’s gender assignment is part of a randomized design.
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 is then evaluated by multiple loan officers under two randomly assigned review conditions:
Narrative Visible: The officer sees the full application, including the borrower’s open-ended narrative.
Narrative Concealed: The officer sees the same application, but the narrative section is removed.
Officers assign standardized repayment-likelihood scores in both cases. These scores are used by the partner bank to make real loan approval decisions, ensuring that evaluations have real economic consequences. By comparing each application’s mean scores across visible and concealed conditions, we identify the marginal informational value of the narrative. Comparing these effects across the randomized officer-gender assignments allows us to test whether female borrowers’ narratives have lower informational value when the assigned officer is male.
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.
|
After
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.
|