1 of 33

Clara Delavallade

with Smita Das,

Ayodele Fashogbon and

Sreelakshmi Papineni

ICDE conference 2026

Turning Inward and/or Outward:

Which socioemotional skills matter the most for women in agribusiness?

2 of 33

Motivation

Labor market returns to socioemotional skills (SES) are well-documented in many high-income countries (Borghans et al. (2008); Almlund et al. (2011); Lindqvist and Vestman (2011); Heckman and Kautz (2012); Deming (2017); Edin et al. (2022)).

In LMIC settings, growing body of evidence showing that psychology-focused programs that strengthen SES can positively impact economic outcomes, especially for women (Campos et al. (2017), Chioda et al., (2021), Gielnik et al., (2012)).

But limited evidence on which SES are most important for productivity and economic outcomes (Lippman et al., 2015), for whom, in which social context?

Social role theory: societal expectations shape skill development differently for men and women, leading women to cultivate communal skills like empathy and collaboration, while men tend to develop agentic skills such as risk-taking and decision-making (Eagly, 1987; Eagly and Wood, 2012).

The labor market returns to socioemotional skills have now been well-documented in many high-income countries.
In low-income settings there is a growing body of evidence that show programs that strengthen socioemotional skills can positively impact economic outcomes, especially for women.
But there is limited evidence on which socioemotional skills are most important for economic outcomes, for whom, and in which context.
Social role theory suggests that societal expectations shape which skills men and women preferably develop based on which they anticipate will be best rewarded. It leads women to cultivate communal skills like empathy and collaboration, while men tend to develop agentic skills like risk-taking and decision-making because norms and gender stereotypes make them anticipate that these skills will be better rewarded.
This raises the question of whether different types of socioemotional skills generate different economic returns for men and women in difft normative contexts

3 of 33

Research Questions

Do SES trainings improve economic outcomes (business profits, investment, labor supply and income) for men and women receiving an agribusiness program in Nigeria?

SES may help translate knowledge into action

Possible pathways: business owner’s socioemotional skills, business practices, intrahousehold power relations, and empowerment and decision-making within the household?

Are there additional benefits to complementing interpersonal skills trainings with intra-personal skills?

Do impacts differ for men and women? And by prevailing gender norms?

Returns to SES may be higher in less restrictive environments, especially for women

We look at whether SES trainings improve economic outcomes, mostly business profits, investment, labor supply and income, for people receiving an agribusiness program.

The theory behind is that investing in socioemotional skills help people make more effective use of the capital and technical skills provided by the agribusiness program, in other words, translate knowledge into action. This could happen through various possible channels: enhanced SES like goal-setting, decision-making, networking, but also improved business practices, intra-HH bargaining power and agency, that may help navigate restrictive gender norms.

Second question: Comparing the 2 SES trainings. Are there additional benefits to complementing interpersonal skills trainings with intra-personal skills? we’ll come back to that distinction but psychology lit. suggests that intrapersonal skills (understanding and managing one’s own emotions) may be foundational and amplify returns to interpersonal skills (turned towards understanding and managing others’ emotions).

Do impacts differ for men and women? And by prevailing gender norms? (returns to SES could be higher in less restrictive norm environments – may be more rewarded for women to be assertive and negotiate in environments where they are not expected to stay home)

4 of 33

Background

APPEALS WYEP component (US$72m) aims to promote entrepreneurship in the agribusiness sector in 6 Nigerian states and targets young men (aged between 18 and 40 years) and women (over age 18).

Technical and Business training

Mentoring

Input grants ($5,300)

Business Plan preparation:
Business support services
Company name registration
Product certification

Holds financial and technical constraints constant

5 of 33

Background – Overall Impact of APPEALS

Sample of 8500 applicants restricted to 3 states (Cross River, Kaduna and Kogi) where there was oversubscription at shortlisting stage

RDD based on APPEALS admission score (mostly value chain knowledge)

Sample and Design

Results

No change on likelihood of employment.

Increases business ownership for men and women (+10 percentage points).

Higher business profits, revenues and capital for both men and women.

Higher job creation (number of employees) for women business owners.

Higher Men's SES: PSDM, Perseverance, PI and Empathy, Expressiveness and Negotiation

6 of 33

Study Design

4,500 APPEALS program participants across 6 states

(Technical + Business Skills + Grant)

Individual randomization stratified by gender, state and value chains

Inter_only

(~1500 – 50% women)

- 4-day SES training: Interpersonal only� �- Reinforcement emovi messages

Combination inter_intra

(~1500 – 50% women)

- 4-day SES training: Combination of Interpersonal skills + Intrapersonal skills� �- Reinforcement emovi messages

Control

(~1500 – 50% women)

- No SES training� �- Placebo COVID messages

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) design (within APPEALS)

We run our RCT within the APPEALS sample, so 4,500 individuals (half women) who all receive the APPEALS program.

We stratified randomization by state, value chain and gender and assigned individuals to either:

Receiving interpersonal socioemotional skills only (T1)

Receiving a combination of inter and intrapersonal skills (T2).

Both T1 and T2 were standard-length 4-day classroom-based trainings in local state training centers and reinforcement video messages of training material referred to as "emovis" that were sent via WhatsApp and SMS messages to reinforce skills taught in the classroom and increase accountability.

Control Group: Receives no SES training but placebo messaging on COVID-19 information.

We held training duration constant so the only variation is in content, e.g. the type of skills taught

7 of 33

	Intrapersonal	Interpersonal
Awareness	Emotional Awareness Self Awareness	Listening Empathy
Management	Emotional Regulation Self Control Personal Initiative Perseverance Problem Solving	Expressiveness Interpersonal Relatedness Influence Negotiation Collaboration

Intervention Design: ESTEEM framework�Effective Socio-emotional skills To gain Economic EMpowerment

https://poverty-action.org/socio-emotional-skills

8 of 33

Intervention content: 4 days of training�Outward - Example INTERpersonal exercises

Know YOUR & THEIR Fallback position

Build your case

Look for Win-Win solutions

Stay Calm

Resolving Conflict

LISTEN at the level of the HEAD for facts and perspective,

and the HEART for feelings

Practice asking OPEN questions &

listening ACTIVELY

(upsetting action)

(accurate feeling)

(from their perspective - how they think and feel)

(what you would prefer them to do)

Communicate your perspective

Quick overview of the training:

We contracted Alkimia, an experienced firm in SES training for youth in Sub-Saharan Africa, to design a curriculum and materials tailored for low-literacy learners in low-resource settings.

They conducted a training of trainers ensuring gender, language & cultural sensitivity across difft states.

[Then the training was implemented in classrooms in local centers. Training heavily relied on role playing. Received a lot of positive feedback on the ground.]

We asked them to develop 2 curricula with examples based in agribusiness for all exercises:

"Outward with Others". Interpersonal relates to teaching skills directed at observing and managing emotions in others. (listening, empathy, expressiveness, interpersonal relatedness, interpersonal influence, negotiation, and collaboration)

9 of 33

Intervention content: 4 days of training, 6-7 hours/day�Inward - Example INTRApersonal exercises

In each sphere:

How am I feeling?

What are my strengths and needs?

Who can help?

Life difficulties can be overwhelming!

What are ways you can keep your emotional jug from spilling?

How would Stoffel get past these obstacles?

Get creative and brainstorm solutions!

Consider pros and cons of each solution!

Identify steps, skills, people who can help!

10 of 33

Theory of Change

11 of 33

Empirical Strategy

12 of 33

Balance Test

13 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table 1: Labor Supply

Control Mean – Men: 0.97 Women: 0.93

Control Mean – Men: 0.40 Women: 0.32

Control Mean – Men: 0.23 Women: 0.28

Control Mean – Men: 0.32 Women: 0.31

T1: Inter

T2: Intra + Inter

14 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table 2: Business Performance

Control Mean – Men: 0.87 Women: 0.87

Control Mean (W) - Men: 691,644 Women: 387,595

Control Mean (W) - Men: 1,813,725 Women: 1,201,585

Control Mean (W) - Men: 71,548 Women: 56,895

T1: Inter

T2: Intra + Inter

15 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table 3: Household Income and Consumption

Control Mean (W) - Men: 171,280 Women: 167,072

Control Mean (W) - Men: 111,518 Women: 77,739

Control Mean – Men: 879.27 Women: 857.47

Control Mean – Men: 56.06 Women: 12.25

T1: Inter

T2: Intra + Inter

16 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table 4: Employment and Capital Investment

Control Mean – Men: 1.91 Women: 1.41

Control Mean (W) - Men: 450,785 Women: 308,795

T1: Inter | T2: Intra + Inter

17 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table 5: Business Practices

Control Mean – Men: 1.85 Women: 1.89

Control Mean – Men: 0.70 Women: 0.68

Control Mean – Men: 1.91 Women: 1.95

Control Mean – Men: 1.93 Women: 1.95

Control Mean – Men: 1.82 Women: 1.83

T1: Inter

T2: Intra + Inter

18 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS on self-reported SES

Overall, modest effects on self-reported SES, focused on interpersonal skills.

For men, SES training improves relationship management skills (maintaining relationships and negotiation) + generalized self-efficacy.

For women, SES training enhances self-reported empathy, networking, and negotiation.

Norms heterogeneity:

In more liberal norm settings, women’s reports are significantly higher for all skills —more confident reporting what they’ve learned.
But in more restrictive environments, where women perceive they would face judgment for earning more than their husbands, training lowers their self-assessment of almost all skills.
Self-reported skills don’t just reflect learning, but also what ‘s viewed as socially acceptable and safe expressing

Overall, SES training has modest effects on the reporting of SES, you’ll see more gains in actual skill acquisition.

But, still, the interpersonal focused training (T1) significantly improves specific reported interpersonal skills.

For men, SES training improves (self-reported) relationship management skills, including maintaining relationships and negotiation, in addition to generalized self-efficacy.

For women, SES training enhances self-reported empathy, networking, and negotiation.

Heterogeneity:

What happens with women’s self-reported skills is interesting: In more liberal norm settings, women’s reports are significantly higher for all skills —they feel more confident using what they’ve learned.

But in more restrictive environments, where women face judgment for earning more than their husbands, training actually lowers their self-assessment.

Why? One interpretation is that SES measures capture not only skill acquisition but also the extent to which individuals feel sociallypermitted to claim or express these skills. In restrictive settings, the training may increase the salience of prevailing gender norms and the potential penalties attached to violatingthem. Women may internalize these constraints and revise downward their value for theseskills, their perceptions of their own capabilities, or their likelihood of undertaking particularbehaviors to conform and avoid social judgment. In either case, That result also confirms that self-reported skills don’t just reflect learning, but also what ‘s viewed as socially acceptable and safe expressing.

19 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table 6a: Behavioral Measures Intrapersonal Skills - MEN

Control Mean: 0.00

Control Mean: -0.04

Control Mean: -0.03

Control Mean: 0.00

Control Mean: 0.04

Control Mean: 0.00

Control Mean: -0.02

Control Mean: 0.00

20 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table 6b: Behavioral Measures Intrapersonal Skills - WOMEN

Control Mean: -0.03

Control Mean: 0.001

Control Mean: -0.003

Control Mean: 0.026

Control Mean: 0.02

Control Mean: 0.01

Control Mean: 0.02

21 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table 6c: Behavioral Measures Interpersonal Skills - MEN

Control Mean: 0.04

Control Mean: -0.04

Control Mean: 0.06

Control Mean: -0.04

Control Mean: -0.25

Control Mean: 0.00

Control Mean: -0.03

Control Mean: 0.02

Control Mean: -0.04

Control Mean: 0.03

22 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table 6d: Behavioral Measures Interpersonal Skills - WOMEN

Control Mean: -0.006

Control Mean: -0.07

Control Mean: -0.04

Control Mean: -0.002

Control Mean: -0.296

Control Mean: -0.027

Control Mean: -0.013

Control Mean: -0.003

Control Mean: -0.028

Control Mean: -0.068

23 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table 7: Women’s Empowerment

Control Mean – Men: 8.6 Women: 9.1

Control Mean – Men: 1.4 Women: 1.2

24 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES by Gender Norms

Restrictive gender norms are defined using responses to the question:

This figure shows how treatment effects vary with perceived community norms.

For women, both trainings increase profits where they perceive less judgment, but the effects decline as norms are perceived as more restrictive. This suggests that socioemotional skills generate returns only when women are able to apply them without facing social sanctions.

For men, we see even more contrast. The combined training generates positive effects in liberal environments but negative effects in more restrictive ones. One interpretation is that some of the intrapersonal skills emphasized in the combined training (like emotional awareness) may conflict with traditional expectations of male behavior in these environments, which could affect business interactions and economic outcomes.

In other words, the training tends to be most effective in places where there is less social pressure around traditional gender roles.

the social environment really shapes which skills individuals acquire and whether they are able to apply the skills they acquire.

25 of 33

Conclusion: Moving beyond soft skills matter

Which skills matter depends on gender

For women: Interpersonal skills generate the largest economic returns: negotiation, empathy, collaboration

For men, intrapersonal skills matter more for business performance

Whether skills matter depends on social norms

The largest gains occur where women face fewer social penalties for economic participation

Norms appear to shape not only the returns to skills, but also whether people feel able to express and use them

Skills alone are not enough. Women's profits increase by 50%, but we find no corresponding gains in agency or household decision-making

Policy implications

Tailor SES curricula to context

Effective entrepreneurship programs must invest in both skills and the environments that allow those skills to pay off

Scale: SES training can be integrated into government programs at ~US$137 per participant

Moving beyond "soft skills matter"...

This study asks which socioemotional skills matter, for whom, and under what conditions?“\

Shows that the returns to SES depend not only on which skills are taught, but also on whether prevailing social norms permit individuals to express and deploy those skills.

�

2. Different skills matter for different people

Interpersonal skills generate the largest economic returns for women.

Intrapersonal skills appear more valuable for men.

"For women entrepreneurs, spending four days exclusively on interpersonal skills—negotiation, empathy, collaboration—generated business gains that were at least as large, and often larger, than combining interpersonal and intrapersonal content."

"For men, we see almost the opposite pattern. Improvements in profits are concentrated among those receiving the combined curriculum, suggesting that intrapersonal skills such as perseverance and emotional awareness may play a more important role."

So curriculum design matters.

3. Skills work best when the environment allows them to: Returns to SES are much larger under supportive gender norms.

"Perhaps our most important finding is that the returns to skills are socially determined."

"Women benefit most in communities where they perceive less social sanction for participating in economic activities."

"Interestingly, we find evidence that norms may shape not only the economic returns to skills, but also whether individuals feel able to express and use those skills."

"In other words, teaching negotiation is unlikely to generate the same returns if negotiating violates local expectations about how women should behave."

�4. Economic empowerment ≠ empowerment

"Women's businesses become more profitable, but their decision-making within the household remains unchanged."

5. Policy implications

Beyond Tailoring SES curricula to learners’ gender, our results call for pairing skills with norm change: if restrictive norms prevent people from using newly acquired skills, then teaching skills alone may not be sufficient. Complementary interventions targeting social norms may substantially increase returns."

Finally, these trainings are inexpensive—around US$137 per participant—and can be integrated into existing government entrepreneurship programs, making them a potentially scalable policy tool."

�

26 of 33

Thank You!

27 of 33

Timeline

Endline

Follow-up survey on full sample

Sept-Oct 2023 + Mop-up in Apr-July 2024

First follow-up on a smaller sub-sample

�SES�Measure-ment

Dec 2022

Reinforce-ment video messages over the phone

Aug –

Sept 2022

SES�Intervention

Socio-emotional skills training��Inter-�Inter+Intra

Sept 2021 – Feb 2022

BASELINE

Baseline data collection (phone-based)

Mostly in June-July 2020 but Enugu in Oct 2020

June –

Oct 2020

APPEALS training:��- Ag value chain training;

- Entrepre-neurial skills

Dec 2019 – July 2020

Screening Interview Stage and Survey

Census of applicants to APPEALS

May – Dec 2019

Jan 2021 – Dec 2022�Grant disbursement in multiple tranches

28 of 33

Per

29 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table A1a: Self-Reported Measures Intrapersonal Skills - MEN

Control Mean: 0.01

Control Mean: 0.04

Control Mean: 0.01

Control Mean: 0.04

Control Mean: 0.01

30 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table A1b: Self-Reported Measures Intrapersonal Skills - WOMEN

Control Mean: -0.07

Control Mean: -0.08

Control Mean: -0.06

Control Mean: -0.08

31 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table A1c: Self-Reported Measures Interpersonal Skills - MEN

Control Mean: 0.02

Control Mean: 0.004

Control Mean: -0.026

Control Mean: 0.034

Control Mean: 0.003

32 of 33

Results – Impact of APPEALS SES

Table A1d: Self-Reported Measures Interpersonal Skills - WOMEN

Control Mean: -0.07

Control Mean: -0.05

Control Mean: -0.04

Control Mean: -0.05

Control Mean: -0.11

33 of 33

Appendix

Table A2: Business Outcomes (Conditional on operating a business) - IE