Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Understanding Adoption Behaviour of Small Farmers from Cognitive and Contextual Perspectives


Affiliations
1 Margdarshak Development Projects & Consulting Private Limited, Noida- 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Ghaziabad-201014, Uttar Pradesh, India
 

Background/Objectives: To propose an extended version of agriculture technology adoption model with cognitive and contextual factors such as coopetition, status quo bias, and self-efficacy.

Methods/Statistical analysis: The research is proposed among small farmers in Neemrana block Alwar, Rajasthan in India. Data were collected from 143 small farmers from 20 villages located in the Neemrana block through survey questionnaire. Hierarchal Regression analysis has been applied to analyse data.

Findings: Previous research has explained adoption behavior from social, psychological, economic, and political perspectives. This research explained adoption behaviour from cognitive and contextual factors. Results suggested that self-efficacy, coopetitive network, and perceived usefulness of technology have positive and significant effect, whereas, status quo bias has negative and significant effect on farmer’s adoption behavior.

Application/Improvements: The study is a contribution to the literature of agriculture extension program. It has major implications for policy on agriculture development.


Keywords

Adoption, Coopetition Network, Ease of Use of Technology, Perceived Usefulness of Technology, Selfefficacy, Status Quo Bias.
User
Notifications

  • P.S. Birthal, D.S. Negi, A.K. Jha, D. Singh. Income sources of farm households in India: determinants, distributional consequences and policy implications. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2014; 27(1), 37-48.
  • Missing the big, bleak picture. https://www.lokniti.org/lokniti_news/2015/may/news/missing-the-big-bleak-picture-138. Date accessed: 03/04/2015.
  • P. Kumar, P.K. Joshi, S. Mittal. Demand vs supply of food in India - futuristic projection. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy.2016; 82(5), 1579-1586.
  • R. Chand, S.S. Raju, L.M. Pandey. Growth crisis in agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly. 2007; 42(26).
  • A.A. Adesina, J. Baidu-Forson. Farmers' perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agricultural Economics. 1995; 13, 1-9.
  • B. Melesse. A review on factors affecting adoption of agricultural new technologies in Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science and Food Research. 2018; 9(3).
  • K. Kariyasa, Y.A. Dewi. Analysis of factors affecting adoption of integrated crop management farmer field school (ICM-FFS) in swampy areas. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics. 2015; 1(2), 29-38.
  • M.A. Akudugu, S.K.N. Dadzie. Adoption of modern agricultural production technologies by farm households in ghana: what factors influence their decisions? Journal of Biology. Agriculture and Healthcare. 2012; 2(3).
  • R.J.F. Burton. Reconceptualising the 'behavioural approach' in agricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies. 2004; 20, 359-371.
  • T. Yamano, S. Rajendran, M. Malabayabas. Psychological constructs toward agricultural technology adoption: evidence from Eastern India. Paper presented the 87th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. 2013.
  • J.A.R. Borges, L. Foletto, V.T. Xavier. An interdisciplinary framework to study farmers’ decisions on adoption of innovation: Insights from Expected Utility Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2015; 10(29), 2814-2825.
  • V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science. 2000; 46(2), 186-204.
  • A.G. Silva, M. Canavari, K.L. Sidali. A technology acceptance model of common bean growers’ intention to adopt integrated production in the brazilian central region. Journal of Land Management, Food and Environment. 2017; 68(3), 131–143.
  • K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, S. Salehi. Agricultural specialists’ intention toward precision agriculture technologies: Integrating innovation characteristics to technology acceptance model. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2010; 5(11), 1191-1199.
  • D. Kahneman, J.L. Knetsch, R.H. Thaler. Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspective. 1991; 5(1), 193-206.
  • P.J. Hsieh. Healthcare professionals' use of health clouds: Integrating technology acceptance and status quo bias perspectives. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2015; 84(7), 512-23.
  • Y. Fan, C. Chen, C. Wu, Y. Fang. The effect of status quo bias on cloud system adoption. Journal of Computer Information Systems. 2015; 3, 55-64.
  • A. Banerjee, E. Duflo. Poor economics: rethinking poverty & the ways to end it. India: Random House. 2013.
  • A. Karnani. The bottom of the pyramid strategy for reducing poverty: a failed promise. DESA Working Paper No. 80. New York, USA: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2009; 1-14.
  • T. O'Donoghue, M. Rabin.Doing It Now or Later. The American Economic Review. 1999; 89(1), 103-124.
  • W. Samuelson, R. Zeckhauser. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of risk and uncertainty. 1988; 1, 7-59.
  • A. Desdoigts, F. Cordaro.Learning versus status quo bias and the role of social capital in technology adoption: The case of cocoa farmers in Côte d’Ivoire’, Working Papers 20160005. Pars, France: Université Paris Panthéon Sorbonne, UMR Développementet Sociétés. 2016.
  • F. Luthans. The need for and meaning of Essay positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2002; 23, 695–706.
  • A. Bandura. Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review.1977; 84(2), 191-215.
  • M.E. Gist, T.R. Mitchell. Self-Efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review. 1992; 17(2), 83-211.
  • R. Wood, A. Bandura. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management Review. 1989; 14(3), 361-384.
  • J. Sequeira, S.L. Mueller, J.E. Mcgee. The influence of social ties and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intentions and motivating nascent behavior. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 2007; 12(3), 275– 293.
  • D.H. Lindsley, D.J. Brass, J.B. Thomas. Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review. 1995; 20(3), 645-678.
  • D.D. Roy. Self-efficacy of agricultural farmers: a case study. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. 2009; 35(2), 323-293.
  • P. Varma. Enhancing rice productivity and food security: a study of the adoption of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in selected States of India. Ahmedabad, India: Centre for Management in Agriculture Indian Institute of Management. 2016; 1-106.
  • J. Johny, B. Wichmann, B. Swallow. Role of social networks in diversification of income sources in rural India. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2014 AAEA Annual Meeting, Minneapolis. Minnesota, USA. 2014; 1-27.
  • R.B. Bouncken, J. Gast, S. Kraus, M. Bogers. Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science. 2015; 9(3), 577-601.
  • M. Bengtsson, S. Kock. Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial marketing management. 2010; 29(5), 411-426.
  • D.R. Gnyawali, B. Park. Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy. 2011; 40, 650–663.
  • P. Ritala, A. Golnamb, A. Wegmann. Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon.com. Industrial Marketing Management. 2014; 43, 236–249.
  • D. Kossyva, K. Sarri, N. Georgopoulos. Co-opetition: a business strategy for SMEs in times of economic crisis. South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics. 2014; 12(1), 89-106.
  • B. Park, M.K. Srivastava, D.R. Gnyawali. Impact of coopetition in the alliance portfolio and coopetition experience on firm innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2014; 26(8), 893-907.
  • C. McCarthy, C.P. Ford, E. Krumpholz, M.P. Chow. Accelerating innovation through co-opetition: the innovation learning network experience. Nursing Administration Quarterly. 2018; 42(1), 26-34.
  • P. Ritala, L. Sainio. Coopetition for radical innovation: technology, market and business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 2014; 26(2).
  • P. Ritala. Coopetition Strategy – When is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and market performance. British Journal of Management. 2012; 23(3), 307-324.
  • R.B. Bouncken, V. Fredrich. Co-opetition: Performance implications and management antecedents. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2012; 16(5).
  • R. Jana, S. Bandyopadhyay, A.K. Choudhuri. Reciprocity among Farmers in farming system research: application of social network analysis. Journal of Human Ecology. 2013; 41(1), 45-51.
  • E. Pignatti, G. Carli, M. Canavari. What really matters? A qualitative analysis on the adoption of innovations in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Informatics. 2015; 6(4), 73-84.
  • C. Rota, P.A. Nasuelli, C. Spadoni, I. Valmori, C. Zanasi. Factors Affecting the Sustainable Use of ICTs for Agriculture at the Farm: The Case of Image Line Network Community, Sustainable agriculture through ICT innovation. 2013.
  • A.M. Adrian. Factors influencing adoption and use of precision agriculture. A Dissertation’, Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Alabama: Auburn. 2006; 1-181.
  • J. Zhang, Z. Xiaoping, X. Zhang, Z. Fu Z. Farmers’ information acceptance behavior in China. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2010; 5(3), 217-221.
  • J.S. Ashari, Z.A. Mohammed, R. Terano. Rice farmers’ perception and attitude toward organic farming adoption. Journal Agro Ekonomi. 2016; 34(1), 35-46.
  • F. Olusegun, S.O. Ogunseye. Applying an enhanced technology acceptance model to knowledge management in agricultural extension services. Data Science Journal. 2008; 7(22).
  • D. Zhou, A. Shalmani. The acceptance of solar water pump technology among rural farmers of northern Pakistan: A structural equation model. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2017; 3(1).

Abstract Views: 9

PDF Views: 3




  • Understanding Adoption Behaviour of Small Farmers from Cognitive and Contextual Perspectives

Abstract Views: 9  |  PDF Views: 3

Authors

Keerti Prajaapti
Margdarshak Development Projects & Consulting Private Limited, Noida- 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India
Shabyasachi
Ghaziabad-201014, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract


Background/Objectives: To propose an extended version of agriculture technology adoption model with cognitive and contextual factors such as coopetition, status quo bias, and self-efficacy.

Methods/Statistical analysis: The research is proposed among small farmers in Neemrana block Alwar, Rajasthan in India. Data were collected from 143 small farmers from 20 villages located in the Neemrana block through survey questionnaire. Hierarchal Regression analysis has been applied to analyse data.

Findings: Previous research has explained adoption behavior from social, psychological, economic, and political perspectives. This research explained adoption behaviour from cognitive and contextual factors. Results suggested that self-efficacy, coopetitive network, and perceived usefulness of technology have positive and significant effect, whereas, status quo bias has negative and significant effect on farmer’s adoption behavior.

Application/Improvements: The study is a contribution to the literature of agriculture extension program. It has major implications for policy on agriculture development.


Keywords


Adoption, Coopetition Network, Ease of Use of Technology, Perceived Usefulness of Technology, Selfefficacy, Status Quo Bias.

References