Women are more likely to expect social sanctions for open defecation: Evidence from Tamil Nadu India.

Social sanctions can be effective for sustaining beneficial norms by harnessing the power of social pressure and peer monitoring. Yet, field evidence regarding how norms might be linked to perceived risk of sanction is limited. In this study, we focused on communities located in peri-urban areas of Tamil Nadu, India, and examined how people's perceived prevalence of a socially desirable behavior (i.e., toilet use) relates to the perceived risk of sanctions for deviating from this behavior (i.e., open defecation) in the sanitation domain. Cross-sectional data from 2427 participants in 75 communities revealed that the majority (77%, n = 1861) perceived the risk of informal sanctions related to open defecation. Among those, verbal reprimand was the most common (60%), followed by advice (30%) and gossip (7%). Results from multilevel logistic regression indicated that those who believed toilet use was prevalent in their community were more likely to perceive the risk of social sanctions for open defecation. Moderation analysis revealed that this relationship was robust among women, but attenuated among men. Our findings suggest that women are more likely to expect social sanctions if they deviate from what is perceived as the prevalent sanitation behavior (e.g., toilet use) in their community. Open defecation practices are known to cause psychosocial stress among women due to their experiences with sanitation insecurity, which may include fear of disapproval from community members. Our results highlight the need for gendered intervention strategies when sanitation programs leverage social influence for behavior change.

1 Introduction

Informal sanctions, such as gossip and shame, can be powerful in enforcing norms by deterring individuals from engaging in undesirable behaviors [1-8]. Recent findings from laboratory experiments suggest that an individual’s propensity to sanction someone who deviates from the norm is related to the prevalence of the desirable behavior [9, 10]. Specifically, when a socially desirable behavior becomes more prevalent among a social group, group members consider the deviators more deserving of punishment [10]. The effect of commonness on the willingness to sanction can be explained by Social Impact Theory [11] and the Social Influence Model [12]. According to these theoretical models, the degree to which social influence affects an individual’s beliefs or behaviors increases in proportion to the number of people who act in a uniform way or express uniform agreement on beliefs or behaviors [11, 12]. In this case, as more people behave in what is judged as a socially desirable way, perceived peer pressure on deviators intensifies. Norm internalization provides another perspective that offers an explanation of the association between perceived prevalence of behavior and the likelihood of perceiving the risk of sanctions. According to norm internalization, when a behavior is commonly practiced and approved by members of a social group, the norm may be internalized as ‘moral’ and norm-abiding behavior will be considered good or appropriate [13, 14]. Consequently, people expect informal external sanctions, such as shaming or gossiping, or experience internal ones, such as guilt or shame, when deviating from the norm [15, 16]. Taking these two perspectives together, we expect to observe a positive relationship between commonness and perceived risk of sanction in a natural setting. Specifically, as individuals perceive more people engaging in socially desirable behaviors, they should also be more likely to perceive the risk of sanctions for deviating from how the majority behaves.

Gender differences have been noted in both perceived risk of sanctions and conformity. Literature on the deterrence effect suggests that women tend to perceive a higher risk of sanctions, including shame and embarrassment, than men [17-20]. Women are also more sensitive to social influence, including the peer pressures associated with deviating from common behaviors of their social groups [21, 22]. It is likely that the commonness of behaviors increases the cost of deviation, and women could be more sensitive to the increased potential social cost. We therefore expect to observe a gender difference in the relationship between perceived behavior prevalence and the perceived risk of sanctions for deviating from such behavior. Specifically, this relationship is likely to be stronger for women than for men.

This study utilizes data from an ongoing sanitation behavior change trial in India to assess whether these relationships are observed in close-knit communities and whether there are differences across genders. Open defecation (OD) in India has drawn global attention for its negative impacts on health, economics, and human rights [23]. Substantial field evidence indicates that OD practices are related to increased psychosocial stress due to decreased privacy, increased risk of sexual harassment, and potential social sanctions such as gossip, particularly among women [24-27]. Using social pressure and peer monitoring can be effective for promoting toilet use [28]. However, such social components could potentially induce psychosocial stress (e.g., shame, guilt, and fear) [29], which might disproportionately affect women. Therefore it is increasingly important to understand how social beliefs about sanitation behaviors relate to social pressure, such as informal sanctions, and to quantitatively assess gender differences in this relationship. Findings from this study contribute empirical evidence from natural, community settings that can be used to refine social norms-focused theories, and help inform the development of gendered interventions [25, 26, 30].

This study aims to examine the correlation between two types of social beliefs: perceived prevalence of sanitation behaviors and perceived risk of OD sanctions in Tamil Nadu India. We hypothesized that 1) the perceived prevalence of toilet use is positively associated with the likelihood of perceiving the risk of sanctions of a transgressing behavior (i.e., OD); and 2) this relationship is moderated by gender. Women are more likely to perceive the risk of sanctions when they deviate from the behaviors practiced by the majority of their community members (i.e., toilet use), whereas this relationship is attenuated among men.

2 Methods

2.1 Data collection

Trained fieldworkers administered surveys in 2427 households in 75 peri-urban communities in Tamil Nadu, India to collect data from January 11th, 2020 to March 19th, 2020. Peri-urban refers to areas often at the periphery of cities [31]. Households in peri-urban areas of Tamil Nadu often have living structures that are close to each other and maintain close interpersonal relationships [32, 33]. Respondents were randomly selected from a complete listing of dwelling units/households in each sampling unit. We used sampling units (i.e., census wards) as proxies for communities. Further details regarding the sampling strategy can be found in the trial protocol [34].

All survey items were translated from English to the local language, Tamil, and back-translated into English by a third party to ensure its validity. We then piloted the questionnaire among 70 participants from communities similar to our study site to test for comprehension. Next we conducted extensive training sessions in which all enumerators received training from bilingual, experienced trainers to ensure the standard survey collection procedure. Any feedback received or revisions occurred during the training phase were reviewed and approved by a Tamil speaking supervisor to ensure quality. Prior to the survey administration, field workers obtained oral consent and provided a written version to all participants. The data were collected by Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) on hand-held tablets. This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board (Protocol #: 833854) which served as the central IRB. We also received the approval from the Social Research Institute (IRB registration number: IORG0009562) in India, which served as the local IRB at our study site.

2.2 Measurement

To measure the perceived risk of social sanctions for OD, we asked respondents, “If someone from your community defecated in the open, would anyone do or say anything in response to that?”. Those who responded yes were asked, “What would be done in response to someone who defecated in the open in your community?”. Based on the previous formative study findings, the response options included various intensities of sanctions, such as advice, verbal reprimand, gossip, fines, loss of public benefits such as ration cards, and violence [26, 33]. To measure the perceived prevalence of toilet use, we asked respondents, “Think about ten members of your community. Out of them, how many do you think use a toilet every time to defecate?". The answer ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 represented not prevalent at all, and 10 represented extremely prevalent [35, 36]. We also collected respondents’ demographic characteristics, including age, years of schooling, marital status, caste, primary defecation practices a week prior to the survey, and household economic status.

2.3 Analysis

To test whether the perceived prevalence of toilet use was associated with perceived risk of sanctions for OD, we used a multilevel logistic regression with perceived risk of sanctions as the dependent variable (coded as a binary variable, 1 = perceiving the risk of OD sanctions, 0 = not perceiving the risk of OD sanctions), and perceived prevalence of toilet use as the independent variable. We included respondents’ primary defecation behavior (coded as a binary variable, 1 = use toilets, 0 = open defecation), gender, age, years of schooling, marital status (coded as a binary variable with 1 = currently married, 0 = single/divorced/widow), caste, and household economic status (proxied by the number of relevant household assets owned, ranging from 0 to 10) as covariates, and accounted for the mixed effects of communities where respondents resided. To test whether the association between perceived risk of social sanctions for OD and perceived prevalence of toilet use differed between women and men, we conducted a moderation analysis. We used the perceived risk of OD sanctions as the binary dependent variable, the perceived prevalence of toilet use as the independent variable, and gender as a moderator. The analyses were conducted in R version 3.6, and a significance level of 5% was used.

3 Results

A total of 2427 respondents (women = 53%) were enrolled in the study. The average age of respondents was 45 years (SD = 16), ranging from 18 to 98. Among surveyed respondents, 98% were Hindu, 81% had access to any type of toilet, and 75% reported using a toilet primarily in the two days before the survey. The demographic characteristics, defecation practices, and social beliefs of the study population are described in Table 1. The majority (77%, n = 1861) expected a social sanction related to OD. Among those, verbal reprimand was the most common form of social sanction (60%), followed by advice (30%), gossip (7%), and violence (3%).

Table 1

Demographic characteristics, defecation practices, and social beliefs of the study population, Tamil Nadu, India 2020.

	Total (N = 2427)	Women (N = 1277)	Men (N = 1150)
Age mean (sd)	44.7 (16.0)	44.7 (16.0)	44.7 (16.1)
Years of schooling mean (sd)	7.9 (5.2)	7.0 (5.4)	9.0 (4.8)
Currently married n (%)	1738 (71.6)	851 (66.6)	887 (77.1)
Caste n (%)
General	298 (12.3)	69 (5.4)	229 (19.9)
Scheduled caste	474 (19.5)	319 (25.0)	155 (13.5)
Scheduled tribe	22 (0.9)	15 (1.2)	7 (0.6)
Other backward caste	1633 (67.3)	874 (68.4)	759 (66.0)
Religion n (%)
Hindu	2375 (97.9)	1249 (97.8)	1126 (97.9)
Muslim	21 (0.9)	12 (0.9)	9 (0.8)
Christian	31 (1.3)	16 (1.3)	15 (1.3)
Socio-economic status mean (sd)	4.5 (1.8)	4.4 (1.8)	4.7 (1.7)
Had access to a toilet n (%)	1955 (80.6)	943 (73.8)	1012 (88.0)
Reported primarily using toilets in the past 2 days n (%)	1819 (74.9)	884 (69.2)	935 (81.3)
Reported perceiving the risk of sanctions for open defecation n (%)	1861 (76.7)	1006 (78.8)	855 (74.3)
Perceived prevalence of toilet use mean (sd)	7.4 (2.6)	7.2 (2.8)	7.6 (2.2)

Our results showed that those who perceived toilet use as more prevalent in their communities were more likely to perceive the risk of social sanctions for OD (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.22, p < 0.001), which is consistent with hypothesis 1 (Table 2). Those who primarily used a toilet in the two days before the survey were more likely to perceive risk of social sanctions for open defecation (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.66, 2.96, p < 0.001). Compared to men, women were nearly twice as likely to perceive risk of sanctions for OD (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.41, 2.21, p < 0.001).

Table 2

Multivariable analysis of factors associated with perceived risk of social sanction for open defecation, Tamil Nadu, India, 2020.

	Perceived risk of sanctions for open defecation
	Odds ratio (95% CI)
	Without interaction	With interaction
Perceived prevalence of toilet use	1.16*** (1.11, 1.22)	1.04 (0.97, 1.12)
Gender (Ref. Men)
Women	1.77*** (1.41, 2.21)	0.54* (0.29, 1.00)
Perceived prevalence x Women		1.19*** (1.09, 1.29)
Primary defecation behavior (Ref. Open defecation)
Use toilets	2.22*** (1.66, 2.96)	2.25*** (1.68, 3.01)
Age	0.99 (0.99, 1.00)	0.99 (0.96, 1.00)
Marital status (Ref. Not currently married)
Currently married	0.74** (0.58, 0.95)	0.73** (0.57, 0.94)
Social economic status	1.04 (0.97, 1.12)	1.05 (0.98, 1.13)
Caste (Ref. General caste)
Scheduled caste	0.48*** (0.29, 0.80)	0.49*** (0.29, 0.81)
Scheduled tribe	0.11*** (0.04, 0.30)	0.10*** (0.04, 0.30)
Other backward caste	0.38*** (0.24, 0.58)	0.36*** (0.24, 0.56)
Years of schooling	1.00 (0.97, 1.03)	1.00 (0.97, 1.03)

Note: We used multilevel logistic regression with community cluster mixed effect. The total number of observations is 2427. Stars denote adjusted p-values.

*p<0.05

**p<0.01

***p<0.001.

Moderation analysis showed a gender difference in the relationship between the perceived prevalence of toilet use and the perceived risk of OD sanctions (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.29, p < 0.001). This interaction is illustrated in Fig 1. Post-hoc probing showed that women were more likely to perceive the risk of social sanctions for OD when they believed more people used a toilet (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.32, p < 0.001). However, this association was lower among men, and was not statistically significant (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.97,1.12, p = 0.24). This gender difference is robust while controlling for toilet use in the two days before the survey, women’s social status (proxied by age and marital status), years of education, caste, household economic status, and community of residence.

Fig 1

The average marginal effect of perceived prevalence of toilet use on the perceived risk of sanctions for open defecation by gender, Tamil Nadu, India, 2020.

4 Discussion

This study examines the relationship between the perceived prevalence of socially desirable sanitation behaviors and the perceived risk of sanctions for deviation (i.e., OD), as well as the gender difference in this relationship in the context of defecation behaviors in India. We found those who perceived toilet use as more prevalent were more likely to perceive the risk of sanctions for deviating from what the majority does (i.e., OD). Our finding is consistent with previous laboratory experiments in which people perceived the deviator as more deserving of punishment when the socially desirable behaviors were more common [10]. We also found that women were more likely to expect social sanctions for OD when they perceived more community members using a toilet. One perspective that offers an explanation is that women tend to be more relationship-oriented than men [37, 38], especially in close-knit communities in which behaving in a deviant way could hamper the development of social ties or the maintenance of interpersonal relationships with others.

Our findings contribute to the growing evidence about women’s vulnerability to the psychosocial stress related to sanitation and their experiences with sanitation insecurity [25, 26, 30]. Findings from other studies indicate that OD among women may experience fear and worry of disapproval from their community members. OD spots are commonly at a distance from people’s residences and often provide little privacy for women. In India, it is often considered a dishonor to one’s family if women are seen practicing OD [27]. Having to defecate in the open could indicate absence or inadequate access to sanitation, which has overarching impacts on women’s sanitation and menstrual hygiene management across life stages [30]. Inadequate menstrual hygiene management is also tied to school absenteeism for girls, which highlights the disproportionate impact on women who do not have adequate access to sanitation [39]. These negative experiences, both external, such as shaming or gossip, as well as internal, such as guilt or shame, may have long-term impacts on mental health and well-being [40]. Therefore, understanding gender differences in the social beliefs related to sanitation behaviors and how these social beliefs relate to each other can inform gendered sanitation interventions. Program implementers and policymakers that aim to promote beneficial behaviors, such as toilet use in close-knit communities, should consider potential psychosocial stressors and take gendered approaches.

In addition, we assessed the dynamics of people’s social beliefs in communities by extending the application of theories beyond the traditional laboratory experiment setting. The empirical evidence collected from study participants in their natural community settings as generated by this study contributes to the advancement and application of theories related to social norms.

Our study has a few limitations. First, the cross-sectional study design only allows for examinations of the correlation between the social beliefs of perceived prevalence of sanitation behaviors and perceived risk of OD sanctions. Future research with a longitudinal design is needed to better understand the complex relationships among different social beliefs and the implications of gender differences, accounting for contextual factors. Qualitative research can also provide context and insight into how these beliefs manifest in the local context to inform specific behavior change content or strategies. Second, respondents might underreport their OD practice due to social desirability bias, given the substantial national and regional programs that encourage toilet use in our study areas. Those who reported perceiving risks of social sanctions for OD could also be more likely to underreport their OD practice to avoid negative feelings. Therefore the positive correlation between toilet use and perceived risk of sanctions could be smaller than estimated. Third, our survey measures were developed and validated in similar peri-urban communities in Tamil Nadu, India, which could be context-specific. However, evidence from rural Odisha (India) that highlighted similar psychosocial stressors suggests these measurements and findings may be applicable in similar contexts [40].

To conclude, our findings suggest that women are more likely to expect social sanctions for deviating from what is perceived as the prevalent sanitation behavior (e.g., toilet use) in their communities. Open defecation practices may bring about psychosocial stress among women due to increased sanitation-related insecurity, including the fear of disapproval from their community members. While leveraging social influence and peer monitoring can be effective in promoting toilet use, behavior change strategies that include such intervention components should be gendered and context-specific.

4 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-24216

Women are more sensitive to perceiving the risk of social sanctions for deviating from the norm: field evidence from sanitation practices in Tamil Nadu, India

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kuang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please find below the reviewer's comments, as well as those of mine.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Valerio Capraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

I have now collected one review from one expert in the field. The review is very positive and suggests a minor revision. I have read the paper and I agree with the reviewer. Therefore, I would like to invite you to revise your article for Plos One. Also, please include the instructions in the Appendix.

I am looking forward for the final version.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. During our internal checks, the in-house editorial staff noted that you conducted research or obtained samples in another country. Please check the relevant national regulations and laws applying to foreign researchers and state whether you obtained the required permits and approvals from India. Please address this in your ethics statement in both the manuscript and submission information. In addition, please ensure that you have suitably acknowledged the contributions of any local collaborators involved in this work in your authorship list and/or Acknowledgements. Authorship criteria is based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals - for further information please see here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship.

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

4. In the Methods, please discuss whether and how the questionnaire was validated and/or pre-tested after translation. If this did not occur, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

5. The reference to caste/ backward caste may be demeaning and derogatory. Please note that according to our submission guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines), potentially stigmatizing labels should be deleted or changed to more current, acceptable terminology.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Summary

The paper presents results from a survey on open defecation in a poor area of India. The authors study correlation between perceived prevalence of toilet use (strength of the social norm of using toilets instead of open defecation) and perceived risk of sanctions for open defecation. The authors find that people who perceive the norm of toilet use to be stronger, also perceive the risk of social sanctions when not committing to the norm to be higher. The result is driven by women’s perceptions and not by men’s.

Comments

1. The paper is well written. However, the authors should stress more that their main result is of a purely correlational nature. The authors mention it in their discussion, but pointing out the limitations earlier would be useful too.

2. The title is somewhat confusing. The authors could try to make it more understandable – without reading the paper it is not clear what the authors mean.

3. I would recommend to cut the last two sentences in the abstract.

4. “Those who primarily used a toilet in the two days before the survey were more likely to perceive risk of social sanctions for open defecation (OR=2.22, 95% CI:1.66, 2.96, p<0.001).” – some participants who perceive a higher risk of social sanctions for open defecation might be lying when answering whether they used a toilet in the last days. The authors should acknowledge the possibility of lying in the text.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

24 Sep 2020

Valerio Capraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

September 15, 2020

Dear Dr. Capraro,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled "Women are more sensitive to perceiving the risk of social sanctions for deviating from the norm: field evidence from sanitation practices in Tamil Nadu, India" (manuscript #: PONE-D-20-24216). Your comments and those of the reviewer were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. We appreciate the suggested modifications and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

In the remainder of this document, yours and the reviewer’s comments are shown in bold, our response is shown in plain typeface, and sections from the revision are contained within quotation marks.

We also made minor changes in the results sections to improve clarity of the reporting. Specifically, we 1) fixed the rounding errors and typos; 2) replace the post-hoc subgroup analysis by women and men with post-hoc probing with women or men as baseline groups. Those changes did not significantly alter the results of our analysis but provide clarity. We hope that the revised manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Thanks very much for your support, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Jinyi Kuang

Editor:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Revised.

2. During our internal checks, the in-house editorial staff noted that you conducted research or obtained samples in another country. Please check the relevant national regulations and laws applying to foreign researchers and state whether you obtained the required permits and approvals from India. Please address this in your ethics statement in both the manuscript and submission information. In addition, please ensure that you have suitably acknowledged the contributions of any local collaborators involved in this work in your authorship list and/or Acknowledgements. Authorship criteria is based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals - for further information please see here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship.

Thanks for raising this concern. We obtained approval from the local IRB in India prior to data collection. We added the following text to the ethical statement in both the manuscript and submission information:

“This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board (Protocol #: 833854) which served as the central IRB. We also received the approval from the Social Research Institute (IRB registration number: IORG0009562) in India, which served as the local IRB at our study site.”

We acknowledged our data collection partner, Kantar Public in Delhi, India, and the field workers who conducted data collection for this study in the acknowledgment section.

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

We provided the survey questions and choice options in English in the measurement section. To provide further details and ensure the replicability of our research, we uploaded a copy of the survey items used in this study in both English and the local language (Tamil) as supporting materials to the OSF repository along with the dataset and analysis files. The link can be found in the data availability section. As reported in the method section, this study draws the cross-sectional data from an ongoing Cluster Randomized Trial (CRT). We will make all datasets and instruments of the overarching CRT available to the public in their entirety after the completion of the CRT.

4. In the Methods, please discuss whether and how the questionnaire was validated and/or pre-tested after translation. If this did not occur, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

To clarify this point we added the following:

“All survey items were translated from English to the local language, Tamil, and back-translated into English by a third party to ensure its validity. We then piloted the questionnaire among 70 participants from communities similar to our study site and conducted tests for comprehension. Next, we conducted extensive training sessions in which all enumerators received training from bilingual, experienced trainers to ensure a standard survey collection procedure. Any feedback and revisions during the training phase were reviewed and approved by a bilingual supervisor to ensure its validity.”

5. The reference to caste/ backward caste may be demeaning and derogatory. Please note that according to our submission guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines), potentially stigmatizing labels should be deleted or changed to more current, acceptable terminology.

Thanks for pointing this out. We share your concern and we understand that these terminologies may sound demeaning. However, these are the official terminologies currently used by the Government of India [1], Government of Tamil Nadu [2], other national-level surveys including the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) [3,4], and peer-reviewed studies from India [5,6]. We adopted these terminologies in our survey to ensure it fit the local context, is understood by the respondents and enabled our results to be replicable and comparable with other studies in similar contexts.

Reviewer #1 Comments:

1. The paper is well written. However, the authors should stress more that their main result is of a purely correlational nature. The authors mention it in their discussion, but pointing out the limitations earlier would be useful too.

Thanks for the suggestions. We used “association” throughout the manuscript to emphasize the correlational nature of the relationship between the perceived risk of sanctions for OD and the perceived prevalence of toilet use. In addition to specifying this as a limitation, we added the “correlational” term in our study aim to further clarify the correlational nature of these two types of social beliefs.

“This study aims to examine the correlation between two types of social beliefs: perceived prevalence of sanitation behaviors and perceived risk of OD sanctions in Tamil Nadu India.”

2. The title is somewhat confusing. The authors could try to make it more understandable – without reading the paper it is not clear what the authors mean.

We revised the title to “Women are more likely to expect social sanctions for open defecation: evidence from Tamil Nadu India”

3. I would recommend to cut the last two sentences in the abstract.

Thanks for the suggestion. We think the last two sentences in the abstract reflect some key discussion points and the implications of this study. It linked to prior studies that highlighted women’s vulnerability to sanitation related psychosocial stress. Given the wide readership of PLOS ONE, we believe these discussion points would be of particular interest to program implementers and policymakers who aim to promote toilet use with a social norm focused approach.

4. “Those who primarily used a toilet in the two days before the survey were more likely to perceive risk of social sanctions for open defecation (OR=2.22, 95% CI:1.66, 2.96, p<0.001).” – some participants who perceive a higher risk of social sanctions for open defecation might be lying when answering whether they used a toilet in the last days. The authors should acknowledge the possibility of lying in the text.

Thanks for pointing this out. We add the following text to the limitation section:

“Second, respondents might underreport their OD practice due to social desirability bias, given the substantial national and regional programs that encourage toilet use in our study areas. Those who reported perceiving risks of social sanctions for OD could also be more likely to underreport their OD practice to avoid negative feelings. Therefore the positive correlation between toilet use and perceived risk of sanction could be smaller than estimated.”

References

1. National Commission for Backward Classes. [cited 5 Sep 2020]. Available: http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Home.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f

2. Government of Tamil Nadu. List of backward classes approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu. [cited 5 Sep 2020]. Available: http://www.bcmbcmw.tn.gov.in/bclist.htm

3. Vart P, Jaglan A, Shafique K. Caste-based social inequalities and childhood anemia in India: results from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) 2005–2006. BMC Public Health. 2015;15: 537. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1881-4

4. India - National Family Health Survey 2015-2016. [cited 5 Sep 2020]. Available: https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/2949/datafile/F29/V1573

5. Shaikh M, Miraldo M, Renner A-T. Waiting time at health facilities and social class: Evidence from the Indian caste system. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0205641. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205641

6. Subramanyam MA, Kawachi I, Berkman LF, Subramanian SV. Socioeconomic Inequalities in Childhood Undernutrition in India: Analyzing Trends between 1992 and 2005. PLOS ONE. 2010;5: e11392. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011392

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-sanction.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Sep 2020

Women are more likely to expect social sanctions for open defecation: evidence from Tamil Nadu India

PONE-D-20-24216R1

Dear Dr. Kuang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Valerio Capraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

5 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-24216R1

Women are more likely to expect social sanctions for open defecation: evidence from Tamil Nadu India

Dear Dr. Kuang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Valerio Capraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE