Effect of collective efficacy and allyship trainings on social cohesion in Nigeria

Last registered on July 22, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Effect of collective efficacy and allyship trainings on social cohesion in Nigeria
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0019105
Initial registration date
July 13, 2026

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
July 22, 2026, 7:47 AM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
UC Berkeley
PI Affiliation
IFPRI
PI Affiliation
IFPRI
PI Affiliation
UC Berkeley

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2023-04-01
End date
2027-06-01
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
The study evaluates whether training interventions designed to strengthen women’s individual and collective efficacy and political participation influence social cohesion, and whether or not additionally training women’s husbands in male allyship further amplifies those effects. In a randomized controlled trial spanning 450 communities in southwestern Nigeria, we recruited 5,850 politically unaffiliated women into newly formed women’s groups (WGs) trained by ActionAid Nigeria. All communities first participated in an identical burn-in process in which women were recruited into WGs and received a basic civic education session during May-June 2023. Following this, communities were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a control group that received no further programming; a treatment group (T1) that received additional intensive training in advocacy, leadership, and organizing designed to build women’s individual and collective efficacy; and a second treatment group (T2) that received the same training as T1, with parallel allyship training offered to the male partners of participating women focused on men’s role in supporting women’s empowerment and gender equality. Analysis of the first endline survey yielded encouraging evidence that intensive women’s trainings designed to foster collective action produce positive effects across both political and economic domains. This study proposes to assess whether the trainings have positive spillovers on social cohesion.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Adida, Claire et al. 2026. "Effect of collective efficacy and allyship trainings on social cohesion in Nigeria." AEA RCT Registry. July 22. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19105-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
This pre-analysis plan (PAP) builds on the original Metaketa V Nigeria study, “Women’s Action Committees and Local Services in Nigeria.” It pre-registers the analysis for a new paper on the spillovers of the study interventions on social cohesion, made possible by additional data collection not planned at the time of the original PAP registration. The study evaluates whether training interventions designed to strengthen women’s individual and collective efficacy and political participation influence social cohesion, and whether or not additionally training women’s husbands in male allyship further amplifies those effects. In a randomized controlled trial spanning 450 communities in southwestern Nigeria, we recruited 5,850 politically unaffiliated women into newly formed women’s groups (WGs) trained by ActionAid Nigeria. All communities first participated in an identical burn-in process in which women were recruited into WGs and received a basic civic education session during May-June 2023. Following this, communities were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a control group that received no further programming; a treatment group (T1) that received additional intensive training in advocacy, leadership, and organizing designed
to build women’s individual and collective efficacy (an approximately 3 hour session once monthly over the following five months); and a second treatment group (T2) that received the same training as T1, with parallel allyship training (also an approximately 3 hour session once monthly over the following five months) offered to the male partners of participating women focused on men’s role in supporting women’s empowerment and gender equality. We carried out a first endline survey approximately 2-3 months after all trainings had concluded, and a second endline survey is planned for approximately 2.25 years after trainings conclude. The second endline will attempt to resurvey the exact same women interviewed at baseline. Some attrition is expected, and we will assess whether attrition is differential by treatment status following the same approach outlined in the original PAP and its first amendment for the original Metaketa V study. No
new data sources will be introduced. Analysis of the first endline survey yielded encouraging evidence that intensive women’s trainings
designed to foster collective action produce positive effects across both political and economic domains. This study proposes to assess whether the trainings have positive spillovers on social cohesion.
Intervention Start Date
2023-05-28
Intervention End Date
2023-12-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Social cohesion comprises the vertical and horizontal relations among members of society and the state, characterized by trust, inclusive identity, and cooperation for the common good (Chan et al. 2006). Within this framework, horizontal social cohesion refers to the quality of citizen-citizen relationships, or the sense of trust, solidarity, and shared purpose that holds communities together across group boundaries. It encompasses both bonding social capital (trust and attachment within groups) and bridging social capital (relationships and networks
that extend across groups and societal divisions) (Putnam 2000).

We measure horizontal social cohesion along two dimensions—generalized communal trust and out-
group social cohesion, capturing bonding trust within the community and bridging trust across group
boundaries, respectively (Putnam 2000). Considering vertical (citizen-state) trust, for both men and women, we will construct indicator vari-
ables for trusting the state and authority figures. The three remaining outcomes incorporate aspects of horizontal and vertical cohesion that are especially relevant in conflict-affected settings: perceived conflict resilience capacity, perceived effectiveness of civil society and local authorities, and freedom of movement and activity in the face of insecurity.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Generalized communal trust: we will construct indicator variables for trusting several groups:
• “Other women in my community can be trusted” (Response Options: Strongly agree = 1, Somewhat agree = 2, Neither agree nor disagree = 3, Somewhat disagree = 4, Strongly disagree = 5).
• “Most people can be trusted”
• “I trust my neighbors to look after my house if I am away”
• “Now I’m going to ask you a question about your community - both farmers and herders. To
what extent can people in this area be trusted?”
Whenever a respondent has as the answer “refused to answer” or “don’t know,” we will treat this as missing data. We will create an equally weighted index of these measures, called our Generalized Communal Trust Index (for men, this will exclude the first question in the above list). All raw index components will be standardized by dividing by the standard deviation in the control group. In other words, we will take equally-weighted averages of the standardized index components. We then standardize the average by dividing by the standard deviation in the control group. When there are missing component measures, we will use imputation strategies to minimize the loss of observations.

Next considering bridging trust and social cohesion with out-group members, we will consider an additional set of variables. We will test whether treated women and men report stronger social cohesion with Fulani community members, using the following measures:
• “With regards to some from the Fulani ethnic group, would you feel comfortable if they worked in your field?”
• “With regards to some from the Fulani ethnic group, would you feel comfortable paying them to watch their animals?”
• “With regards to some from the Fulani ethnic group, would you feel comfortable trading goods
with them?”
• “With regards to some from the Fulani ethnic group, would you feel comfortable sharing a meal with them?”
• “With regards to some from the Fulani ethnic group, would you feel comfortable with a close relative marrying a person of Fulani descent?”
• “How much do you trust people from the Fulani ethnic group?”
Response options for each of the questions are as follows: Not at all = 1, A little = 2, Somewhat = 3, A lot = 4, A great deal = 5. We will construct an equally-weighted index of these measures, called our Out-Group Trust Index, as a primary summary outcome, with higher values indicating greater out-group social cohesion. Whenever a respondent has as the answer “refused to answer” or “don’t know,” we will treat this as missing data. Again, all raw index components will be standardized by dividing by the standard deviation in the control group. In other words, we will take equally-weighted averages of the standardized index components. We then standardize the average by dividing by the
standard deviation in the control group. When there are missing component measures, we will use imputation strategies to minimize the loss of observations.

Considering vertical (citizen-state) trust, for both men and women, we will construct indicator variables for trusting the state and authority figures.
• “How much do you trust: National assembly?”
• “How much do you trust: Your local government councilors?”
• “How much do you trust: Your traditional leader?”
• “To what extent do you respect the political institutions of Nigeria?”
• “To what extent do you think that citizens’ basic rights are well protected by the political system
of Nigeria?”
“To what extent do you think that women’s basic rights are well protected by the political system
of Nigeria?”
• “To what extent do you feel your leaders are doing the best job possible for Nigerians?”
Response options for each of these questions are as follows: Not at all = 1, A little = 2, Somewhat = 3, A lot = 4, A great deal = 5. We will construct an equally-weighted index of these measures, called our Political Trust Index, as a primary summary outcome, with higher values indicating greater vertical social cohesion. Whenever a respondent has as the answer “refused to answer” or “don’t know,” we will treat this as missing data. Again, all raw index components will be standardized by dividing by the standard deviation in the control group. In other words, we will take equally-weighted averages of the standardized index components. We then standardize the average by dividing by the standard
deviation in the control group. When there are missing component measures, we will use imputation strategies to minimize the loss of observations. We will also look at each component measure separately in case the trainings impact trust on specific actors and institutions and not others.

Conflict resilience capacity: the items of interest for this measure are as follows:
• “If I am affected by a farmer-herder conflict, I feel confident that I would know what to do”
• “If I am affected by a farmer-herder conflict, I feel women in my community would be allies that
would help me”
• “If I am affected by a farmer-herder conflict, I feel men in my community would be allies that
would help me”
• “If I am affected by a farmer-herder conflict, I feel my baale would help me”
Response options for each of these questions are as follows: Strongly agree = 1, Somewhat agree =
2, Somewhat disagree = 3, Strongly disagree = 4. We will construct an equally-weighted index of these measures, called our Conflict Resilience Capacity Index, with higher values indicating greater conflict resilience capacity. Whenever a respondent has as the answer “refused to answer” or “don’t know,” we will treat this as missing data. Again, all raw index components will be standardized by dividing by
the standard deviation in the control group. In other words, we will take equally-weighted averages of the standardized index components. We then standardize the average by dividing by the standard deviation in the control group. When there are missing component measures, we will use imputation strategies to minimize the loss of observations. We will also look at each component measure separately
in case the trainings impact trust on specific actors and institutions and not others.

Perceived effectiveness index:
The federal government, The state government, Male traditional and religious leaders, Female traditional and religious leaders, The media, Male-led civil society organizations, Female-led civil society organizations
Response options for each of these questions are as follows: Extremely effective = 1, Somewhat effective = 2, Not very effective = 3, Not at all effective = 4. We will reverse-code all outcomes such that a higher overall index score indicates greater perceived effectiveness. We will then construct an equally-weighted index of these measures, called our Perceived Effectiveness Index, with higher values indicating greater perceived effectiveness of a range of institutions. Whenever a respondent has as the answer “refused to answer” or “don’t know,” we will treat this as missing data. Again, all raw index components will be standardized by dividing by the standard deviation in the control group. In
other words, we will take equally-weighted averages of the standardized index components. We then standardize the average by dividing by the standard deviation in the control group. When there are missing component measures, we will use imputation strategies to minimize the loss of observations. We will also use principal component analysis to assess whether these measures load clearly onto two factors corresponding to the horizontal and vertical dimensions of social cohesion, which would argue for constructing two separate indices. We do not pre-assign survey measures to one dimension or the other at this stage, as the mapping of each survey item is not straightforward in the Nigerian context—for instance, it is unclear whether media is best understood as a power-wielding institution more characteristic of vertical social cohesion, or as a check on authority more characteristic of the horizontal dimension.

Freedom of movement: We will construct an equally-weighted index of the following indicator variables (response options are Yes = 1, and No = 0), for both women and men, called our Freedom of Movement and Activity Index. Each index component will be reverse-coded so that higher values reflect greater freedom of movement and activity (coded as 0 for “don’t know” responses, as uncertainty about whether insecurity affected one’s activities most plausibly reflects an absence of meaningful constraint; and coded as missing for refusals):
• In the last two years, were there any areas that you avoided going to or through because of insecurity during the NIGHT?
• In the last two years, were there any areas that you avoided going to or through because of insecurity during the DAY?
• In the last two years, did insecurity ever prevent you from: Working when you wanted to work?
• In the last two years, did insecurity ever prevent you from: Going to the market?
• In the last two years, did insecurity ever prevent you from: Getting water to the household?
• In the last two years, did insecurity ever prevent you from: Going to your field/farm?
In the last two years, did insecurity ever prevent you from: Moving your animals to grazing areas?
• In the last two years, did insecurity ever prevent you from: Moving your animals to water?
• In the last two years, did insecurity ever prevent you from: Earning money or going to work?
• In the last two years, did insecurity ever prevent you from: Going to school?
All reverse-coded index components will be standardized by dividing by the standard deviation in
the control group. In other words, we will take equally-weighted averages of the standardized index
components. We then standardize the average by dividing by the standard deviation in the control
group. When there are missing component measures, we will use imputation strategies to minimize
the loss of observations.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The intervention began with an initial burn-in meeting, identical in content and length (just over 3 hours) across all study communities (T1, T2, and control). For T1 and T2, the intervention involved selected women receiving 5 additional trainings (beyond the burn-in training also received by the control group) over a period of 5 months. Each of these trainings lasted for just over 3 hours. For T2, husbands of women participants did not receive the burn-in meeting, but they did receive five trainings of just over 3 hours where each training session focused on showcasing why men should be allies and advocates for women’s empowerment, and specific discussions around how men can be effective champions for women’s empowerment and participation
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Bock randomized on a computer via R code.
Randomization Unit
Communities
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
450 (150 per treatment condition)
Sample size: planned number of observations
11,700 (13 women per cluster for 450 clusters, and 13 men per cluster for 450 clusters)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
150 clusters per treatment arm
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
0.07 for binary DV
Supporting Documents and Materials

Documents

Document Name
PAP for original study: “Women’s Action Committees and Local Services in Nigeria.”
Document Type
other
Document Description
File
PAP for original study: “Women’s Action Committees and Local Services in Nigeria.”

MD5: a7ac3a84c0a1f6a0ec297067fa059d92

SHA1: bbd100dc8ca0c6d0f45a1745507576e5fc4b97d0

Uploaded At: July 13, 2026

Document Name
Amendment for PAP for original study: “Women’s Action Committees and Local Services in Nigeria.”
Document Type
other
Document Description
File
Amendment for PAP for original study: “Women’s Action Committees and Local Services in Nigeria.”

MD5: 8639b7a4fce3dbf9d151bcf6d2aafb94

SHA1: d2a20c013f5825237ecc3be26ad10656d83f4664

Uploaded At: July 13, 2026

Document Name
PAP for this study
Document Type
other
Document Description
File
PAP for this study

MD5: 809a383ee7f8b4ec8785491cd98efde8

SHA1: 2f41c5d6f657643b797fb48ec1d3e02088387336

Uploaded At: July 13, 2026

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
UC Berkeley
IRB Approval Date
2023-02-23
IRB Approval Number
2022-08-15565