.ooc§oov . n -'.,..o.‘- 0-, ‘W ‘I LS- 6' 0 >0‘. 9 9‘. 00¢ f CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON 0F .9“ ~-- .5- Q . - . — . . w s . l ' o- O I 0.. 5.. 1.. a ":r :.J .9. o- . lo 0 . c 4 .—.O u .. o. ”H . . . . . . o o a . . ADUPTEBS 0F FARMEH CHARACTE‘MSTI‘CS 0F ABUPTEBS AND NON C-UDFERATI'V‘ES A MUNG VII'LLAGERS ill" . IHELS 1.5 SAM’IR N. .MAAMARY~ . . .. , . o v. ., . . u . . a . . . .y.... . V . .v . . - o I a. . o _ h.- v. . . . . o . . .. . . 3. . . . ._ . . . . . . o . ... . . oo o .u . a ~ — l . .. . . . .' . . n ' v . . . . . . .. . _ . t .. . . . _ . . . . . ... . .. .r , A . uvA . ._ . . , . .. .~lv' v.4 . . . . . . . . . p ., . . . . . . -o.. .c.. o .99 . .. .... o. -.oo‘».v.o0‘ . ..,. V o ... l .. o.vOu>¢..-O. . . n ... . .. .. .v... < .. 0 ‘0'. . .o . o o. o .. ‘ V. .cllo o'l“. . . .. .o . . . - A... _ . . . .. oo. o n v. at .a! . .1 . . n l r . .0 Ce. ‘0'. . _ . . .. . .. . v ~ . . . . cc... . .0. .9. . . u ., . r . . v . o I was . _ .. . _. . .o .1 .0 . o . .. .V . . - . . ....o ; . . _ v . .. .. . .. a. . oxf . ... .. . . . . l.. .0. u.. . o . v . to O. to... 0'. ... . u.. .o . o _ . v. v t I :7. o o . n. b o . o. 0-1. v I 0' .. i O o. . ..v .. - a..otv .4 o . . .. v . on .o 1.... . 0.. o . o.t.r .a . .. v .. .o «.v.. . . . 4. .. . .0 o . .. . o' . . . . ¢ .. u . a .o . . . 0' on. . u .. c - VI. .1 . . .V—. p. . , u .0 .. . V A .-.lv . 000’“ 1. u o. .. 0 ¢ 1.0 . .~ .4 . o o u. it .. . n I I. . . a o o . v . .. . O. o.0 . . . o . u live.- . . o v . o : a .0 o a .. D I .p u . u . an. I t . u 0.... . . . I o c I . .. A O‘- . v . .o .. v . . v a . o. . .. . _ .c . . _ .. . . .- . ' .. o 1 . ‘ .7 _ o o ' ..... o. . o .. .vbs . . . . o . a u .9. . a a .v0. . . .v I. . o. 0'6 . .. .. c v . o . ,o... . o . o u v v ¢a ..o. . I: u o. . o . .0 t o.o '_v . . . u . n . I I O . .40. . o .. . .1 I91. . . . . . a. o . u o o... r . -.. . .n . r0 . . a . ¢ 0: .0 o v.5 _ . o . . .'u . l r 4 0t. . . . . ... a . nu . r u.l ..¢ . .4 . I ‘ v . _ u . O I. . . . a .u I .0. only... . 0: a . . . p . .a . . . . . . o . q .. . o .0 _ vrv... v . . .Iav‘ . . a . u I t r O . . . v v t c o. .. 01.1... . . . .. . , .. Vi... . . -. . .oo . u ..i.. . '. . . . vs .‘ . . . .. . .. . n 1 V o . . n '0 A u v to- O I . o. a . . - a¢I41 - o 0- . .o u I 09? . . . .. _ .a o . 00. 0.0.v. I V. . .. y o. a .. - . . . . .4... -. .... . . .a . J. . . . I .0... o o. y . o u . ‘ o. o oo o. . I n 0.. ; on . . . . ‘ . .n . . .n. .u. 9! . . o c. o . — oil v 9 . o . i . 4:. .0... n o ... ..co . .c .ootn'4. . v.0 . our 0 . . u. I. u .. o r . .. . .. .1 u so. It. vat... I. A... .1 c y . 0.. . o - . .. . o:.-v . v . l n o o . . c u . . a. u ' an . o. .c -.. . . . . . . .. ~10 . . » . ~.. 0 n c . t. v. - . I . v . n . . o . ..o . ow o . A, o ..... o a.. .r. . — A D u y . 4 . . u .0 --.1 o . . v 1.. V ..o u . a vv? . . o a ... . a . . u _ I O. . . t t I . .... o . V . . - .. u t o . u a o o .o . . o . IA . . o . V b: . u . .i ' . . ‘ . . .. . . O U ..H I O V n.V. . . . . . . \. V . . o l . . n . . n . . . .. y n . .. .u on . .J . . . I r r . o . u n t . . a c O V.. . l - O-- I a I n . . A It . . .. . . . . . ... . O r . I o .. ~ . . a . u . . . n O o a o a c t . . . . 6‘ I 0 ¢ I I . 0 . . . o . a. . . 0 . . . o . I o . . . . o. O Q: . 9 I: u . y 0 ..-.a . oo-l'l .1 u c -. . . . _ - . .1? . o I O O .1 . . . i1 0- It. - . . I a . .. 0... 0.0000 onor.- \ In‘ol V n. .L. . o .o a. “.cov'¢.‘d....d “fl.orc. . . .- . O I b , .Dl ’1 Eli Michigan 5‘3“ University CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF FARMER COOPERATIVES AMONG VILLAGERS By Samir N. Maamary A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication 1965 ABSTRACT CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF FARMER COOPERATIVES AMONG VILLAGERS by Samir N. Maamary In recent years considerable research has been done on the adOption of recommended farm practices. However, little has been done to apply the conceptual framework from these previous research studies to other areas of human behavior, such as adopting an ideology or joining a cooperative. Furthermore, most of the past research has been done in very developed countries, mainly in the United States and Europe. It seems that those factors which have been found to be associated with the adoption of technological changes in agriculture would also be associated with the adoption of farmer cooperatives. The general hypotheses of positive associations between cooPera- tive adoption and farmers',resources, knowledgeability, and attitudes towards innovations, were tested in the present study. The dependent variable, cooperative adoption, was correlated with twelve independent variables: knowledgeability of new farm practices, education, extension contact, size of farm, agricultural innovativeness, social participation, social status, aspiration, Opinion leadership, mass media exposure, and empathy. A non-experimental research design was used in the study. Data gathering was carried out through personal interviews with farm house- holds in eight Indian villages in Uttar Pradish and with farm households in two Andean villages in Colombia. Samir N. Maamary The findings show that all twelve independent variables were significantly related, and in the predicted direction, to c00perative adoption in India. In Colombia, however, only three independent variables, change agent contact, social participation, and empathy, were significantly related, and in the predicted direction, to cooperative adoption. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is highly indebted to his advisor, Dr. Everett M. Rogers, Associate Professor of Communication, for the assistance, professional guidance, and valuable suggestions offered throughout the analysis of data and writing of the present thesis. The constructive criticism offered by Dr. Rogers was very helpful in providing specific guidelines in regard to the overall problem. The author is also greatly thankful and appreciative toward Dr. Erwin P. Bettinghaus, Associate Professor of Communication, and Dr. J. Allan Beegle, Professor of Sociology, for serving on the author's examining committee. Permission given by UNESCO, PIIP (Programa Interamericano de Informacién Popular), and NICD (National Institute of Community Develop- ment) for making use of their data in the present study is thankfully acknowledged. A final word of appreciation is expressed to the author's graduate colleagues in the Department of Communication for their helpful suggestions. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Importance of the Problem . . . . . . . . 2 Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . u Definition of Concepts . . . . . . . . . u II REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Innovation Process . . . . . . . . . 5 Personality and Social Structural Factors Related to Adoption . . . . . . . . . 8 The COOperative As An Innovation . . . . . . 10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 III THEORETICAL APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . 1n Role of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . 1“ Role of Resources . . . . . . . . . . 1“ Role of Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . l5 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 IV METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . 19 Gathering the Data . . . . . . . . . . 19 Measurement of Variables . . . . . . . . 21 CHAPTER v FINDINGS O O O O O O 0 General Hypothesis I . General Hypothesis II . General Hypothesis III . VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . Limitations of the Study Future Research . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . iv PAGE 24 24 28 28 31 32 33 35 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1 Relationships of Farmer Cooperative Adoption to Selected Independent Variables in India . . . . . 25 Table 2 Relationships of Farmer Cooperative Adotpion to Selected Independent Variables in Colombia . . . . 25 Table 3 Comparison of Ad0pters and Non-AdOpters of Farmer Cooperatives in India . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table u Comparison of Adopters and Non-Adopters of Farmer COOper‘at ives in COlOUIb 13 o o o e o o e o o o 27 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure l Paradigm of the Innovation Process . . . . . . . . . 9 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Cannon (19u5, p. 76) said, "The seeds of great discoveries are constantly floating around us, but they only take rest in minds well prepared to receive them." Why and when do or do not people adopt new ideas? What are the characteristics of those who do or do not adopt a particular idea? Can we predict the type of individuals who welcome a particular idea? What are the most successful methods of convincing individuals to adopt recommended ideas? These questions have occupied and still are occupying the minds of behavioral scientists. Social scientists generally agree that social values and personal characteristics influence the acceptance or rejection of an innovation, and that one must understand these social values and personal characteristics before understanding the behavior of the peOple. As Linton (1952, p. 7n) stated, "If we know what a society's culture is, including its particular system of values and attitudes, we can predict with a fairly high degree of probability whether the bulk of its members will welcome or resist a particular innovation." The present study is concerned with a comparison of characteristics of ad0pters and non-adopters of an idea in two different cultures. The innovation studied is the act of joining a farmer cooperative organization. The reSpondents are villagers in Colombia and India. 2 IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM Throughout the world, developing countries are attempting in a relatively brief Span of time to narrow the gap between themselves and those nations with a richer technology and a higher level of living. Developing countries are launching and carrying forward nationwide pro- grams of directed social change and are inviting from outside thousands of specialists to strengthen these programs. CoOperative development is given a high priority and a prominent role in these programs of change. Much has been stressed about the benefit of farmer cooperatives. In spite of the potential benefit of c00peratives and the deep interest and strong support of local governments, a very small minority of rural people in developing countries have joined cooperatives. Also, very few of the cooperatives that have been organized have succeeded. Cooperatives have been tried in many different countries and in every type of economic activity. They succeeded and failed simultaneous- ly among people of similar and widely different cultures and political systems, such as in communist, capitalist, democratic, and dictatorial types. Many research studies have attempted to determine the factors in- fluencing the success or failure of c00peratives. One of the largest studies,* of 11,272 farmer cooperatives in the United States which went out of business during the 77 years from 1863 to 1939, showed the follow- ing reasons as causes of failure: difficulties of management; difficul— ties in membership; natural or unavoidable causes; insufficient business; *Farmer's COOperative Service (1958). 3 financing and credit difficulties; transportation problems; opposition from competing firms; declining prices; consolidations and mergers; and technological changes. 0f the many hundred studies that have been completed about c00p- eratives to date, a review of literature showed that only Campbell and Lionberger (196a) and Beal (1956) studied the personal characteristics of those who join farmer cooperatives. This occurred even though, as mentioned earlier, difficulties in membership were the second most often mentioned reason for the failure of c00peratives. Most past research emphasis was on the material, economic, and management aspects of c00p- erative activity. It is evident that more research needs to be done on the influences which induce people to join cooperatives and to continue as active members. Furthermore, all of the past research studies were completed on cooperatives in the United States. It cannot safely be generalized that the same factors which operated in the United States would also be opera- tive under widely different cultural conditions without further testing to take into account the unique factors of such cultures. Here lies the main importance of the present study, in which an attempt will be made to analyze and compare data gathered from two different countries: India and Colombia. An attempt will also be made to compare the findings of the present study with those of earlier studies from the United States in order to determine relationships that held true across several cultures. The eventual goal of this type of research is to accelerate the adoption and successful operation of cooperatives in developing countries. The present investigation may also be useful to shorten the time period 4 required for technically-sound innovations, other than cooperatives, to reach widespread use among rural families in developing societies. PURPOSES The purpose of the present study is to determine the personal and social characteristics of cooperative adOpters and non-adopters in two different developing countries: India and Colombia. It is hoped that once the general characteristics of the audiences are known, those who are concerned and working with cooperatives and those engaged in planning action programs, will deve10p better communication strategies and con- struct more effective means to deal with membership problems. They may also be able to achieve maximum effect in dealing with non-adopters of other innovations. A minor purpose of the present study will be to compare the con- sistency of the findings of the present study with those found in earlier research studies in the United States. The present study will also suggest hypotheses for future research. DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS 1. A farmer cooperative is a voluntary and non-profit organization which is organized, operated, and controlled by its members. It renders services at cost to its member patrons. 2. An adoEter is an individual who is presently a member of a cooperative organization. 3. A discontinuer is anyone who has ceased to be a member after previous- ly having been a cooperative member. 4. A non-adopter is a person who never was a cooperative member. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE For the past few decades, scientists have attempted systematic studies both of the adoption of new ideas and of social participation. Hundreds of variables were utilized in order to determine their rela- tionship to the adoption of new ideas and to social participation. A look at past research will help us to understand as to why and when people accept or reject certain recommended new ideas. Thus, we should be able to construct a conceptual model for adoption of farmer cooperatives. THE INNOVATION PROCESS It has been suggested by past research that an individual passes through a series of steps as he decides to adopt or reject an innovation. The innovation process is the series of steps, over time, through which an individual progresses while deciding whether or not to adopt a new practice, idea, or product. Among the first scientists who recognized that the adoption of a new idea consisted of stages were Ryan and Gross (19u3, p. 79). Ryan and Gross distinguished between "awareness" of hybrid seed corn, "convic- tion" of its usefulness, trfifl."acceptance," and "complete adOption" of the innovation. Pedersen's study of cultural differences in the acceptance of recommended farm practices in Wisconsin suggested that the events leading to adoption were similar for two nationality groups: Danes and Poles. 5 6 This finding concurs with that of Ryan and Gross's (1943) study in which they found that all farmers, regardless of their time of adoption, re- quired an individual and time-consuming self-demonstration before they converted to hybrid seed corn. Wilkening (1952, p. 16) pointed out that an individual's decision to adopt an innovation is a process composed of stages or steps. Wilkening (1953, p. 9) described the adoption of an innovation as "a process composed of learning, deciding, and acting over a period of time. The adoption of a Specific practice is not the result of a single decision to act but of a series of actions and thought decisions." Since these early studies, considerable research has been com- pleted by different scientists as to the validity of the adoption process. Although there is a general consensus on the existence of stages, there is not complete agreement as to the number of these stages. The number of stages utilized by different researchers varied from three to seven. The North Central Rural Sociology Subcommittee (1955, pp. 3-6) described five adoPtion stages. These stages are: 1. Awareness - The individual knows about the innovation but lacks complete information about it. 2. Interest - The individual deveIOps interest in the new idea and seeks additional information about it. 3. Evaluation - The individual makes mental application of the idea and weighs its merits for his own situation. u. Trial - The individual uses the innovation, usually on a small scale. 5. Adoption - The individual is satisfied with the innovation 7 and decides to continue its full use. The conceptual model of the innovation process,* which was de- veloped by White (1965, p. 3), consists of three stages or "meta- processes": Information + Persuasion + Decision-Making————€>Acceptance The information meta-process was defined as the point at which an individual becomes aware of and informed about a new idea. The important aspects of this stage are centered around information flow and informa- tion-seeking and exposure. The persuasion meta-process is defined as that stage at which an”. individual develops a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward a new idea. Once information is available, an individual will develop a favor- able or unfavorable attitude toward the new idea. If the attitude is unfavorable, he may reject. This rejection may be permanent or tempo- rary. If further positive information is forthcoming at a later time, an unfavorable attitude may become favorable, and the individual will pass to the decision-making stage. The decision—making meta-process is the final stage in the model. It is defined as the procedures that one goes through in choosing among alternatives. At this stage the idea is evaluated in terms of its rela- tion to the individual's self-perceived role and self-image. At each of these stages there are certain situational, personal, and social_factors that influence how an individual reacts to a given in- novation. A large amount of past research has been done to determine the *White called it the "acceptance process," but the present author prefers to term it the innovation process, as this nomenclature does not imply that it necessarily terminates in adoption rather than rejection. 8 effects of these various dimensions on the adoption of an innovation by an individual in a given social system. It was shown by numerous studies that the personality of the individual, social structure, nature of his enterprise, communication channels, and characteristics of the innova- tion, play an important role in the innovation process, and partially determine the final adoption or rejection of the innovation. Figure 1 shows the main variables that influence the final adoption or rejection of an idea. PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURAL FACTORS RELATED TO ADOPTION Social structural factors such as family norms, rigidity of the social system, group pressures, religion, and the degree of traditionalism all influence the beliefs, attitudes and values of the members of a social system. Rogers (1962, p. 59) stated "... the spread of innovations is not a simple matter of economic advantage, although economic factors may be important in many instances. Economic considerations are more likely of greater significance in modern societies than in traditional ones." Rogers further said, "... cultural values influence not only the original adoption or rejection of an innovation but also how the new idea will be integrated into the existing way of life." In Hoffer's (19u2) study of the acceptance of approved farming practices among Michigan farmers of Dutch descent, he found his re- apondents' values on frugality were a major barrier to the adoption of new celery-growing ideas. They refused to adopt disease-control sprays deveIOped by agricultural scientists. In a later study, Hoffer and Stangland (1958, pp. 112-120) found that Michigan farmers who were mmwoonm cowpm>oncw one mo Ewwomnmm .H .wam assume we zomwoosEH .: aphawnwnmaeoo .m hpwxoameoo .m wmm usm>om 9am umamm .H sampm>ossH one mo mofiumfinopomnmno \aoHpowmon manna coo owqmno mo mowocmwm sum: uomucoo .: compownmm spfiafinfieoho .m n\\\\\ ; mmmampfiaoaoEmoo .N cowumoo< waves meme .m> Hmcomnmm .H maocsmno coHumoficsseou Acowwoomon no sowumoom owwnmnouso mo onwm .m Assam ow mmwconmsm Bonm~w sum Hmufiomo .H mmooonm cowum>osoH «11 moonsOmmm memos Eoumhm Hmwoom .m unpopm HmHoom .H mnouomm Hmnsposnpm Hmwoow \)oocmsa pcoom n .. a “I all/II zpwawnmwoom cam umsnu HocOmnomnousH .m .mmmmmmmfl owemso on cofiumucafino .: n\\\\\ scaumnwmmm cam cofipm>wuoe uso5m>mwno< .m aofipmoom poacfivsoo maawxw new smooasosx .u mowsvfiwum cam mwfidm> HmnnuHDOIowoom .H Hospw>wosH any mo Newamcownom / mmozmaammzoo mmmooma mezmnmomezc 10 efficient, willing to take risks, and valued progress tended to adopt improved practices. Those who valued security highly and were conserva- tive in their outlook generally failed to adopt new practices. Wilkening's statement that acceptance on innovations may be viewed "as a function of the social and of the ideological system (ideas, values, and sentiments) of the farmers" has served as a guide in formu- lating research questions and explanatory models. Redfield's model of the folk-urban continuum postulated that peOple with folk value systems would resist change in agricultural techniques and those with "urban" value systems would accept them. The question that naturally arises is whether value orientations of villagers in Colombia and India interfer with or contribute to the success of efforts at promoting c00peratives. Adopters of new ideas generally have characteristics which are distinctive from those of non-adOpters. It was found that adopters of new farm practices have larger farms, higher incomes, higher educational levels, greater rationality in decision-making, more business orientation, more information sources, more cosmOpoliteness, and have other distinctive characteristics when compared to non-adopters. Our concern in the present study is to determine whether these characteristics are consistent for adopters and non-adopters of farmer cooperatives, a different kind of innovation than has generally been studied in past investigations. THE COOPERATIVE AS AN INNOVATION Becoming a cooPerative member, like the adoption of any voluntary innovation, is not the result of a simple and single decision to act, but a series of actions and thought decisions. An individual must hear, know about, and develop favorable attitudes towards a c00perative before ll adopting it. An individual must also perceive a relative advantage in becoming a cooperative adopter that he would not get otherwise, before he decides to join a cooperative society. AdOption of a cooperative, however, differs from adoption of tech- nological innovations to the extent that: 1. 5. A cooperative is a non-material innovation. Its results may have low visibility. Joining a cooperative requires a value-orientation on inter- personal trust,* which is seldom, according to many anthro- pological studies, found in peasant societies. A cooperative must be group-adopted. The unit of adoption is the individual, but he can adopt only after the group adopts. It is a non-compliance (the individual is not forced to adopt by a group decision) but also a non- independence decision. A cooperative, as compared to most technological innovations, is highly complex for farmers to understand. A cooperative cannot be tried on a small basis before full adoption. In their study of characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of the American Farmer's Cooperative (AFC) in two Northern and Western States, Campbell and Lionberger (1963, p. 30) found that the characteristics of operators in each of the three categories, adopters, past-adOpters, and *Interpersonal trust is the predisposition of an individual to enter into an ambiguous situation where the outcome depends on another person and where the possible loss is greater than the possible gain. l2 non-adopters, were distinctive with the adopters (members) and dis- continuers (past-members) having the most similar characteristics and the never-adopters (never-members) the most distinctive. For example, adopters and discontinuers had, as contrasted with never-adopters, larger-sized farms, larger gross dairy incomes, higher production ratios of grade A milk, and more favorable attitudes toward cooperatives. The variations that were found between categories were similar to those found in the studies of the adOption of material practices; that is, adopters were found to have larger farms, higher farm incomes, a higher proportion were favorable to dairying, more knowledge about the AFC, and used more sources of information, and to have distinctive attitudes. SUMMARY Past research studies on the adoption of new ideas by individuals indicated that: l. The adoption of a new idea may be conceptualized as a mental process through which an individual passes from first hearing about an innovation to final adoption. The innovation process is conceptualized in five stages or steps: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. 2. There are certain personal, social, and situational factors that influence the individual's behavior at each stage, and hence the final adoption, rejection, or discontinuance of the idea. 3. Adopters, as contrasted with non-adopters and past-adopters, have larger enterprises, higher incomes, higher educational 13 levels, more rationality in decision-making, more business orientation, higher social status, more information sources, are more cosmopolite, and have more favorable attitudes toward new ideas. CHAPTER III THEORETICAL APPROACH Many past research studies have sought to explain differences in individuals' adoption of innovations. Some writers emphasized that farmers lack knowledge of the principles involved in correct use of the new idea, of the production coefficients (including marginal rates of substituting one production element for another, and production relation- ships between alternative products), and of price data concerning pro- duction inputs and products. Others maintain that farmers have this knowledge, but that there are other variables such as institutional arrangements (leasing agreements, pricing policies, and marketing re- strictions), capital rationing, or economic risks and uncertainties that condition their adoption of new ideas. Still other analysts stress that the individual's value orientations, attitudes, and his aspirations are the important determinant of innovativeness. ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE Adoption of recommended farm practices may be a rational decision, that is, what experts or professionals consider as apprOpriate. If other factors are present, a decision is partly a function of an individual's knowledge about a new idea. Thus, knowledge provides the basis for decisions and actions. ROLE OF RESOURCES Lack of resources such as capital frequently limits adoption of new farm ideas. Many, but not all, innovations require economic resources. 1n 15 For example, joining a cooperative, except for a very small membership fee, does not require capital. Size of farm is one indication of the amount of potential resources available for investment in innovations. ROLE OF ATTITUDE Even if knowledge and resource limitations were removed, it can- not be assumed that a farmer will automatically adopt profitable innova- tions. An individual must have a favorable attitude and be motivated to make use of his knowledge and resources in order for adoption of the innovation to occur. 1. Social status is one's position in the social structure or system. It may either inhibit or enhance an indi- vidual's access to sources of information and his willingness to deviate from group norms. 2. £3323 are the most frequently occurring patterns of overt behavior for the members of a particular social system. Community norm on innovativeness is a matter of group expectation to which the individual generally feels obligated to conform. 3. Opinion leadership is the ability to influence informally other people's attitudes in a desired way and with a rela- tively high frequency. Opinion leaders often have a diverse range of relevant contacts with individuals out- side their social system. Opinion leaders are expected to be more innovative than their followers. 16 u. Social participation is the act of joining and taking part in formal or informal social groups or organizations. An individual who participates more in social organizations, is expected to be more cosmopolite, knowledgeable, and informed than a person who does not. Hence, an individual who participates in social organizations is expected to be more innovative than those who do not. Rogers (1962, p. 291) found that five independent variables, (1) social status, (2) norms, (3) communication behavior, (u) size of farm, and (5) opinion leadership, were related to innovativeness. The results indicate that 64.1 percent of the variation in innovativeness, the dependent variable, was explained by the combined effect of the five independent variables. HYPOTHESES General Hypothesis I: Adoption of farmer cooperatives i§_pgsi- tivelz related.£2 knowledgeability. Empirical Hypothesis Ia: Cooperative adoption.i§ positively £37 lated.£2 knowledge about agricultural innovations. An individual who knows more about different farm practices is more likely to know about cooperatives, and to adopt them, than an individual who knows less about various farm practices. Empirical Hypothesis Ib: Cooperative adoption is positively £3: lgtgg;£2_education. An individual who has a higher education, as com- pared to a person who has less education, is more likely to read, under- stand, and internalize what a cooperative is and what its benefits are. l7 Empirical Hypothesis Ic: Cooperative adoption is positively related £o_change agent contact. A person who contacts a change agent will be more exposed to favorable information about cooperatives than a person who does not contact a change agent. General Hypothesis II: Adoption of farmer cooperatives is positively related.to resources. Empirical Hypothesis II: Cooperative adoption is positively related _1_:_o_ size oi; farm. General Hypothesis III: Adoption o£_farmer cooperatives is positivelyrelated to favorable attitudes toward innovations. Empirical Hypothesis IIIa: Cooperative adoption is positively related to_favorable attitudes towards agricultural innovations. Empirical Hypothesis IIIb: Cooperative adoEtion.i§ positively related to social participation. Participation in social organizations is an index of one's attitudes toward association with and trust in peers. Empirical Hypothesis IIIc: Cooperative adoEtion is positively related.£o social status. One's position in the social system may either inhibit or enhance his access to sources of information and his willing- ness to deviate from group norms. Empirical Hypothesis IIId: Cooperative adoEtionIi§_positively related.to aspirations. An individual with high aspirations for improv- ing himself, as compared with an individual of low aspirations, is more likely to develop more favorable attitudes toward innovations that help him to achieve that which will contribute to his improvement. Empirical Hypothesis IIIe: Cooperative adoption is positively 18 related.£o_02inion leadership. Opinion leaders often have a diverse range of relevant contacts with individuals outside of their social system. Thus, they are more likely to develop more favorable attitudes toward innovations, and adopt them than will their followers. Empirical Hypothesis IIIf: Cooperative adoption is positively related to m_a_s_s_ 929.13 eXEOSLll‘e. Exposure to mass media widens one's vision and understanding of the real world. Thus, an individual with high mass media exposure is more likely to develop more favorable atti- tudes toward innovations than a person with low media exposure. Empirical Hypothesis IIIg: Cooporative adoption i§_positively related.to empathy. An individual who can put himself in the role of others is more likely to understand others, and hence, is more likely to associate with other people in a cooPerative activity than an un- empathetic person. CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY The present study uses data from part of a larger communication research study in India and Colombia. The respondents in both countries were heads of farm households, who lived in cluster villages in India and on scattered farmsteads in Colombia. The investigation in India was designed as the benchmark survey of a before-after field experiment. Measures of effect are the knowledge, attitudes, and adoption of agricultural and health practices in villages, certain of which will receive 1.5 year-long communication treatments of (l) literacy and reading materials, (2) radio farm forums, and (3) anima- tion (or village leader training). The research study in Colombia was designed to examine the process of diffusion of innovations as affected by Opinion leaders in peasant villages. GATHERING THE DATA In India, the study was sponsored by UNESCO under the supervision of Dr. Prodipto Roy in the National Institute of Community DeveloPment at Hyderabad. A research team of four anthropologist and sociologists completed personal interviews in eight selected villages in April, May, and June, 1964. In Colombia, the data were collected from three peasant villages on the diffusion of innovations by Dr. Everett M. Rogers, a Fulbright Lecturer at the Faculty of Sociology in the Universidad Nacional de 19 20 Colombia, Bogota, during 1963-1964. The data-gathering was sponsored by PIIP. Only two of these villages, Pueblo Viejo and San Rafael, had cooperatives, and hence only their data will be used in the present study. Advanced students in sociology at the National University of Colombia, all of whom had had previous interviewing experience, conducted the personal interviewing in 1963 and 196%. A virtual census was obtained of farm operators in the two villages; almost 90 percent of the eligible respondents were successfully interviewed. The number of farmers inter- viewed in Pueblo Viejo was 67 and in San Rafael, 36. Pueblo Viejo and San Rafael are located in the Andean Mountains in Central Colombia, about an hour's drive from Bogota, and are rela- tively modern in their norms (when compared to all Colombian peasant villages). These two communities are characterized by extremely small farms which are Operated by subsistence farmers of mixed Indian-Spanish stock with relatively low levels of education, low mass media exposure, and limited economic opportunities. The eight Indian villages are located in Uttar Pradesh, near Lucknow. These villages are typical Indian villages as to size, compo- sition, norms, and ways of life. A virtual census was obtained Of the farm operators in all Of the eight villages. Nearly 92 per cent of the eligible respondents were successfully interviewed. A total of 702 re- spondents were interviewed in the eight villages. The India study had Observers in each village to gain rapport before the interviewing. Some India respondents (perhaps 5 per cent) were non-agriculturists, and about 10 per cent were non-land owners. 21 All interviews in both India and Colombia were carried out in the local language of these countries. The data from India and Colombia were coded, transferred to large data sheets, and punched on IBM cards at the Computer Center, Michigan State University. MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES Relevant portions of the interview schedules that were used in India and Colombia are found in Appendix A. COOperative Membership Cooperative membership was dichotomized into adopters and non- adopters in both India and Colombia. Knowledgeability In India, agricultural practices knowledge scores were computed as the number of la practices that the respondent was aware of at the time of interviewing. There were no data as to knowledgeability in Colombia. Education Education was computed as the actual number of years of schooling completed by the respondent. Extension Contact In India, an extension contact index was computed as the total number of contacts that the respondent made with each of six extension agents in the year prior to interviewing. In Colombia, the extension 22 contact index was computed as the number of contacts the respondent made with the extension worker or workers in the past year. Size of Farm Farm size was computed as the actual number of bighas (1 acre = 1.75 bighas operated in India. In Colombia, it was computed as the actual number in fanegadas (l fanegada = - acres) operated. Agricultural Innovativeness In India and Colombia, an agricultural innovativeness index was computed as the relative time that the respondents first used each of the new farm practices. Social Participation Social participation was computed as the actual number of organi- zations to which the respondents belonged in India and Colombia. Social Status Social status, in both India and Colombia, was rated by inter- viewers at the end of the interview, on the basis of criteria such as appearance of the farm and home, wealth, etc. Aspiration Aspirations in India and Colombia were computed as the number of years of education and the level of occupational prestige the respondents wished for their sons. 23 Opinion Leadership In India, opinion leadership was computed as the ratio of choices received by the respondent, divided by the total number of choices made in the respondent's village. Mass Media Exposure Mass media exposure in India and Colombia was computed as the exposure to the five mass media, radio, newspapers, magazines, movies, and TV. Empathy Empathy, in both India and Colombia, was computed as the actual scores the respondents made to a series of questions which were rated by the interviewer. CHAPTER V FINDINGS The findings presented in the present chapter follow the same order as the hypotheses presented in Chapter III. Point biserial correlation was the statistic used to analyze the data in both India and Colombia (see Tables 1,2,3, and u). Point biserial correlation was used instead of product moment correlation because the dependent variable, cooperative adoption, was a dichotomy. General Hypothesis I G.H.I: AdoEtion of farmer cooperatives is positively related to kHOWledgeabilit ! 0 Empirical Hypothesis Ia: Cooperative adoption i§_positively related to knowledge 32223 agricultural innovations. rPb in India is .336, which is significant at the one per cent level. Thus, E.H.Ia is supported. There are no data as to knowledgeability in Colombia. Empirical Hypothesis Ib: Cooperative adoption is positively related _t_o education. rpb in India is .186, which is significant at the one per cent level. rPb in Colombia is -.O70, which is not signifi- cant at the five per cent level. Thus, E.H.Ib is supported in India and not supported in Colombia. Empirical Hypothesis Ic: Cooperative adoption is positively related _t_o_ change agent contact. rpb in India is .190, which is significant at the one per cent level. In Colombia, rpb is .385 which is 2H 25 Table 1. Relationships of farmer cooperative adoption to selected independent variables in India.* Independent Variables rpb** p*** Agricultural knowledgeability .336 .0005 Education .186 .0005 Extension contact .lHO .0005 Size of farm .277 .0005 Agricultural innovativeness .357 .0005 Social participation .637 .0005 Social status .294 .0005 Aspiration .229 .0005 Opinion leadership .285 .0005 Mass media eXposure .153 .0005 Empathy .28u .0005 *N = 702. at Point biserial correlation was the statistical method used to test the hypotheses. *ea , One ta11 test. Table 2. Relationships of farmer COOperative adOption to selected independent variables in Colombia.* Independent Variables rpb** p*** Education -.070 N.S. Extension contact .385 .0005 Size of farm -.129 N.S. Agricultural innovativeness .159 n.5, Social participation .511 .0005 Social status -.006 N.S. Aspiration for education of son -.ll6 N.S. Aspiration for occupation of son .051 N.S. Opinion leadership .159 N.S. Mass media exposure .1u5 N.S. Empathy 5 .211 .025 *N a 103. e* Point biserial correlation was the statistical method used to test the hypotheses. tee One tail test. 26 Table 3. Comparison of adopters and non-adopters of farmer COOperatives in India. Total Mean for Mean fOr Independent Variables Mean Adopters Non-AdOpters (N = 688) (N = 299) (N = u13) I. KNOWLEDGEABILITY l. Knowledgeability of farm practices 18.252 2l.u65 16.113 2. Education 0.776 1.123 .suu 3. Extension contact 15.581 17.316 lu.u26 II. RESOURCES Size of farm 4.203 5.69u 3.210 III. ATTITUDE 1. Agricultural innovativeness 8.597 10.69% 7.201 2. Social participation 1.016 1.85% o.u57 3. Social status 5.062 5.927 u.n86 u. Aspiration 3.753 H.17M 3.u7u 5. Opinion leadership 1.053 1.895 o.u92 6. Mass media exposure 10.u78 12.669 9.019 7. Empathy 1.609 2.312 1.1uo 27 Table 4. Comparison of adopters and non-adopters of farmer cooperatives in Colombia. TOtal Mean for Mean for Independent Variables Mean Adopters Non-Adopters (N = 103) (N = 31) (N = 72) I. KNOWLEDGEABILITY II. III. 1. Knowledgeability of farm practices 2. Education 3. Extension contact RESOURCES Size of farm ATTITUDE 1. Agricultural innovativeness 2. Social participation 3. Social status 4. Aspiration for son's education 5. Aspiration for son's occupation 6. Opinion leadership 7. Mass media exposure 8. Empathy 2.223 1.242 10.572 42.223 4.776 3.660 3.543 2.320 4.902 42.058 4.514 1.967 2.645 6.677 45.741 7.290 3.645 3.096 2.451 7.387 44.967 5.451 2.333 0.638 12.250 40.700 3.694 3.666 3.736 2.263 3.833 40.805 4.111 28 significant at the one per cent level. Thus, E.H.Ic is supported in both India and Colombia. General Hypothesis I is supported in the case of the three em- pirical hypothesis in India and supported in only one of the two empirical hypotheses in Colombia. General Hypothesis II G.H.II: Adoption o_f_ farmer cooperatives is positively related _1_:_o resources. Empirical Hypothesis II: Cooperative adoption if. positively related go size of £332. In India, rpb is .277, which is significant at the one per cent level. In Colombia, rPb is -.l29, which is less than .164 required for significance at the five per cent level. Thus E.H.IIa is supported in India and not supported in Colombia. General Hypothesis II is supported in the case of the empirical hypothesis in India and not supported in the case of Colombia. General Hypothesis III G.H.III: Adeption .o_f_ farmer COOperatives _i_._§_ positively related to attitudes. Empirical Hypothesis IIIa: COOperative adOption i§_positively related go agricultural innovativeness. In India, rpb is .357, which is significant at the one per cent level. In Colombia, rpb is -.251, which is in the opposite direction of E.H.IIIa, and significant at the one per cent level. Thus, E.H.IIIa is supported in India and not supported in Colombia. 29 Empirical Hypothesis IIIb: Cooperative adOption.i§ positively related Empirical Empirical Empirical Empirical 32 social participation. In India, rpb is .637, which is significant at the one per cent level. In Colombia, r is pb .511, which is significant at the one per cent level. Thus, E.H.IIIb is supported in both India and Colombia. Hypothesis IIIc: Cooperative adoption.i§_positively related £o_social status. In India, rpb is .294, which is significant at the one per cent level. In Colombia, rpb is -.006, which is not significant at the one per cent level. Thus, E.H.IIIc is supported in India and not supported in Colombia. Hypothesis IIId: Cooperative adoption i§_positively related £o_aspiration. In India, rpb is .229, which is significant at the one per cent level. In Colombia, rpb is -.116 and .051 for education and occupation of sons, both of which are not significant at the five per cent level. Thus, E.H.IIId is supported in India and not supported in Colombia. Hypothesis IIIe: Cooperative adoption ip positively related :2 opinion leadersth. In India, rpb is .285, which is significant at the one per cent level. In Colombia, r b is P .159, which is less than the .164 required for significance at the five per cent level. Thus, E.H.IIIe is supported in India and not supported in Colombia. Hypothesis IIIf: Cooperative adOption i§_positivelyrelated 32mm exposure. In India, rpb is .153, which is significant at the one per cent level. In Colombia, ’pb is .145, which is less than the .114 required for significance 30 at the five per cent level. Thus, E.H.IIIf is supported in India and not supported in Colombia. Empirical Hypothesis IIIg: Cooperative adOptiOn is positively related £2 empathy. In India rpb is .284, which is significant at the one per cent level. In Colombia, rpb is .211, which is significant at the five per cent level. Thus, E.H.IIIg is supported both in India and Colombia. General Hypothesis III is supported in the case of all seven empirical hypotheses in India and supported in the case of two of the seven empirical hypotheses in Colombia. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The present research study dealt with comparison of characteris- tics of adopters and non-adopters of farmer cooperatives among villagers in India and Colombia. Data gathering was carried out through personal interviews with farm households in eight Indian villages in Uttar Pradish and with farm households in two Andean villages in Colombia. A total of 702 and 103 respondents were interviewed in India and Colombia respectively. The findings of the present study show that farmer cOOperative adoption is positively related, in both India and Colombia, to extension contact, social participation, and empathy. The study shows also that cooperative adoption in India is positively related to size of farm, mass media exposure, extension contact, social participation, education, aspiration, empathy, agricultural innovativeness, social status, Opinion leadership, and agricultural knowledgeability. In Colombia, there was not a significant relationship between cooperative adoption and size of farm, mass media, education, aspiration, agricultural innovativeness, social status, and opinion leadership. Conclusion The findings of the present study in India, and in the case of extension contact, social participation, and empathy in Colombia, are consistent with the findings of past research studies of material 31 32 practices in the United States. They are also consistent with those found by Campbell and Lionberger's study of the American Farmer's Coopera- tives in two Northern and Western States. Campbell and Lionberger found that cooperative adopters, as contrasted with non-adopters, had larger sized farms, larger gross dairy incomes, higher production ratio of grade A milk, and more favorable attitudes toward the need for cooperatives. The difference between the findings in India and Colombia could be explained by: 1) In India, there is a strong government promotional prOgram for cooperatives while there is no such government program in Colombia. 2) In India, as contrasted with Colombia, farmers use more mass media. 3) In India, the government's aide, providing COOperative specialists to help the local cooperatives, made these latter very effi- cient and hence, highly recommended innovations. This was not the case in Colombia where the cOOperatives still are inefficiently run. An important conclusion may be drawn from the present study. Government promotional programs, including technical and financial as- sistance, and mass media play a vital role in the acceptance of farmer cooperatives in develOping countries. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The major limitation of the present study is that the data collected for the two larger studies in India and Colombia were not specifically de- signed for the analysis of the adoption of cooperatives. As a consequence, data for the present study was limited to that available. For example, membership in the cOOperatives was dichotomized into adopters and non- ' adopters, without taking into consideration their time of adOption. Thus, early adopters and late adOpters were grouped into one category: adOpters. 33 Non-adopters included past-adopters as well as discontinuers. Such lack of isolation of homogeneous categories could be dangerously misleading. Another shortcoming of the present study is the failure to specify the type of existing cooperatives in the villages concerned, and to de- termine whether COOperative membership was applicable for each respondent. For example, it would be illogical and unwise to expect a fruit grower to join an egg marketing cooperative. The failure to take into consideration the economic feasibility of a village cooperative is a further weakness of the present study. For example, it would be unsafe to assume that 311 farm COOperatives are economically feasible and hence, recommended innova- tions. It might be possible for many farmers, especially larger ones, to profit more from buying and selling of products through other firms than a cOOperative. This is especially true when COOperatives are inefficiently run. Thus, cooperatives pig p|be non-recommended innovations, at least in some villages and for some farmers. FUTURE RESEARCH Further research can lead to more definite generalizations about the cross-cultural comparison of characteristics of adOpters and non- adOpters of farmer COOperatives. Future research should take into consideration the factors mentioned in the limitations of the present study; that is, it should distinguish be- tween early adopters and late adopters on one hand, and between non-adopters and past-adopters on the other. The present hypotheses should also be tested in several developing countries. The type of farmer cOOperatives and the farmers to whom they apply, and the economic feasibility of the cooperatives, should be taken into account. 34 Further research is also needed to explore new variables, especial- ly more "dynamic" factors related to cooperative adoption. Most past social participation research has been concerned with "static" factors such as age, occupation, family status, education, and size of farm. These factors are static in the sense that, for the most part, they cannot be altered readily by change agents. Knowledge of the relationship of such static factors to cooperative adoption may be valuable for a description of existing patterns of participation. Such knowledge may also be of value to those attempting to organize new COOperatives or gradually change the membership of estab- lished cooperatives, if the assumption can be made that group participation patterns can be predicted from "static" characteristics. But findings on "static" variables alone appear inadequate for those members, leaders, and change agents interested in altering participation patterns without chang- ing membership. Beal (1956, p. 251) pointed out that "dynamic" variables such as understanding of the principles and operation of the cooperative, satisfaction, and perceived benefit obtained frOm COOperatives, can be changed. Beal found ten "dynamic" variables were significantly associated with COOperative participation: understanding of basic COOperative prin- ciples,knowledge Of facts about the COOperative, satisfaction with the cooperative, having a "say" in running the COOperative, feeling of responsi- bility to the cooperative, identity with the cooperative, definition of the role of cooperative, number of neighbors who belong to the COOperative, greatest benefit from cooperatives, and knowledge of existence of whole- sale Or regional cOOperatives. The importance of "dynamic" variables is that their utilization broad- ens the scope of social research to include new variables that will allow for a more complete analysis of the factors related to participation. BIBLIOGRAPHY Beal, George M. (1956), "Additional Hypotheses in Participation Research," Rural Sociology, 21: 249-256. Beal, George M., and Rogers, Everett M. (1960), The Adoption_ of Two Farm Practices in a Central Iowa Communit_ , Ames, Iowa— Agr1- cultural and Home Economics Experiment Station Special Report 26. Campbell, R.R., and Lionberger, H.F. (1963), "Adopters and Non-Adopters of an Idea in Uninstitutionalized Communications Systems," Paper read at the Rural Sociological Society, San Fernando Valley State College, Northridge, California. Fliegel, F.C. (1956), "A Multiple Correlation Analysis of Factors Asso- ciated with AdOption of Farm Practices," Rural Sociology, 21: 284-292. Hoffer, C.R. (1942), Acceptance o£_Approved Farming Practices Among Farmers of Dutch Descent, East Lansing, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Special Bulletin 316. Hoffer, C.R., and Stangland, D. (1958), "Farmers' Attitudes and Values in Relation to Adoption of Approved Practices in Corn Growing," Rural Sociology, 23: 112-120. Johnson, D.E., and A.W. van den Ban (1959), "The Dynamics of Farm Practice Change," Paper presented to Midwest Sociological Society, Lincoln, Nebraska. Linton, R. (1952), "Cultural and Personality Factors Affecting Economic Growth," in Bert F. Hoselitz (ed.), The Progress o£_Underdeveloped Areas, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Lionberger, H.F., and Hassinger, E.W. (1954), "Neighborhood as a Factor in Diffusing Farm Information in a Northern Missouri Farming Community," Rural Sociology, 19: 377-384. Marsh, C.P., and Coleman, A.L. (1955), "The Relationship of Farmer Characteristic to AdOption of Recommended Farm Practices," Rural Sociology, 20: 289-296. North Central Regional Rural Sociology Committee (1955), How Farm PeOple Accept_ New Ideas, Ames, Iowa, Agricultural Extension ‘Service Special— Report. Pederson, H.A. (1951), "Cultural Differences in the Acceptance of Recommended Practices," Rural Sociology, 16: 37-49. 35 36 Pitzer, R.L. (1959), The Influence of Social Values on the Acceptance of Vertical Integration by Broiler Growers, M.S. Thesis, Columbus, * . . “fl Oh1o State Un1vers1ty. Rogers, E.M. (1961), Characteristics of Agricultural Innovators and . _ w * Other AdOpter Cate or1es, Wooster, Ohio Agricultural Exper1ment Station Research Bulletin 882. Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of_Innovations, New York, Free Press of Glencoe. Rogers, E.M., and Burdge, R.J. (1962), Community Norms, Opinion Leader- ship, and Innovativeness Among Truck Growers, Wooster, Ohio 'Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 912. Rogers, E.M., and Pitzer, R.L. (1960), The Adoption of Irrigation py_ Ohio Farmers, Wooster, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 851. Ryan, B., and Gross, N.C. (1943), "The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities," Rural Sociology, 8: 15-24. Ryan, B., and Gross, N.C. (1950), Acceptance and Diffusion of Hybrid Corn Seed i2 Two Iowa Communities, Ames, Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 372. White, W. James (1965), "The Acceptance Process," Unpublished paper, East Lansing, Michigan State University, Department of Communi- cation. Wilkening, E.A. (1952), Acceptance of Im roved Farm Practices, Raleigh, North Carolina Agricultural Exper1ment Station Technical Bulletin 98. APPENDIX A DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENT USED IN INDIA AND COLOMBIA APPENDIX A DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENT USED IN INDIA AND COLOMBIA COOperative Membership A. India Are you or any member of your family a member Of a COOperative? B. Colombia Are you a member of the cooperative? Knowledgeability of Farm Practices A. India Have you heard about...? yes no 1. Line sowing for wheat 2. Japanese method of paddy cultivation 3. Green manure 4. Amonium sulphate 5. Modern plough 6. Insecticide 7. Cultivator 8. Improved paddy seed 9. New variety of potatoes 10. Inoculation for animal diseases 11. Sadabaher 38 no answer ll |||||||| 39 Have you heard about...? yes no no answer 12. Superphosphate 13. Rat poison l4. Punjab 591 improved variety of wheat Agricultural Practices Knowledge Scores were computed as the number of the 14 practices that the respondent was aware of at the time of interviewing in 1964. B. Colombia NO measure of this concept was available in the Colombia data. III. Education A. India How many years did you go to school? Education was indexed as the number of years of education that the head of the household received. B. Colombia How many years did you go to school? Education was indexed as the number of years of education that the head of the household received. IV. Extension Contact A. India How many times have you talked with the extension agent (V. L. W., B. D. 0., A. D. 0. [Agriculture], A. D. O. [Cooperative], Vet Doctor, or Pradhan). V. VI. no Total contact with change agents is computed as the number of 'contacts with each of six extension agents in the past year. B. Colombia Have you talked to people from the Extension Service in the past 12 months? Size of Farm A. India How many bighas do you farm in total(one acre = 1.75 pucca bighas)? B. Colombia What is the total area of your farm in fanegadas (one acre = fabegadas)? Agricultural Innovativeness A. India When did you first adopt? 1. Line sowing 2. Japanese method of paddy cultivation? 3. ‘Green manure? 4. Amonium sulphate? 5. Modern plough? 6. Insectiside? 7. Cultivator? 8. Improved paddy seed? 9. New varieties of potatoes? 10. Inoculation for animal diseases? 41 11. Sadabar? l2. Superphosphate? 13. Rat poison? l4. Punjab S91 improved variety of wheat? Agricultural Practices Adoption Index is computed by awarding a higher score for relatively earlier adoption of each innovation. B. Colombia Do you use: 1. Insecticide? 2. Potato fungicide? 3. Chemical fertilizer? 4. Weed-killer 2,4-D? 5. Hand-sprayer? 6. Feed concentrate? 7. Chicken vaccination? 8. Chicken varieties? 9. Black leg vaccination for cattle? 10. Vaccination for hoof and mouth disease? 11. Soil disinfection? 12. Use of tractor? 13. A garden? 14. New wheat variety? 15. New potato variety? 16. New barley variety? Agricultural Innovativeness Scores (the total Of sten scores for each practice that applies, divided by the number of practices that apply 42 to the respondent.) VII. Social Participation A. India Are you, or any of your household, members Of these organiza- tions? 1. Cooperative society 2. Panchayat 3. Caste panchayat 4. Youth club 5. Night school 6. Radio forum 7. Women's club 8. Defense force 9. Kirtan Mandal 10. Others The social participation scores were computed on the basis of one point for membership on each organization and two points for being an officer. B. Colombia Are you associated with...? 1. The cOOperative? 2. Do you buy from the cooperative? 3. Community Development Council? 4. Night Worship? 5. Christ Brotherhood? 6. Chicken Farmers' Committee? 1+3 8. Is your wife a member of the Housewives Club? 9. Are your children members of 4-S clubs? 10. Any others? The social participation scores were computed by awarding two points for each membership in an organization, and one point was awarded for purchasing at the COOperative. VIII. Social Status A. India The social status of each respondent was rated by the inter- viewer at the conclusion of the interview,judging from the general appearance and cleanliness of the house. 0 - Very low 1 - Low 2 Medium 3 High 4 Very high B. Colombia Social status of each respondent was rated by interviewer at the conclusion of the interview, judging from the general appearance and cleanliness of the house. IX. Aspiration A. India How many years of education do you wish your son could receive? an The educational aspiration scores were computed as the number of years of education desired. What occupation do you desire for your son? The occupational aspiration scores were computed as the com- bined level of occupational prestige desired. B. Colombia How many years of school would you like your oldest son to complete? The educational aspiration scores were computed as the number of years of education desired. What occupation would you like for your eldest son? The occupational aspiration scores were computed as the level of occupational prestige desired. X. Opinion Leadership A. India To whom do you go for advice or information about farm practices? Opinion leadership scores were computed as the percentage of choices received by the respondent divided by the total number of choices made in the respondent's village. B. Colombia Opinion leadership rating of respondents by judges in Facatativa. Rating varied from 0 (very low) to 9 (very high). XI. Mass Media Exposure A. India . , How many times a week do you listen to radio? B. 45 How many times do you read a newspaper [which in India, includes magazines also] per week? How many times do others read newspapers [and magazines] to you per week? How many films have you seen in the past year? How many CD Block Films (or those shown by any other agency in the village) have you seen last year? Mass media exposure scores are computed as the total sum of exposures to the five mass media. Colombia 1. How many times per week do you listen to radio? 2. How many times per week do you read newSpapers? 3. How many times per month do you read magazines? 4. How many times per year do you watch movies? 5. How many times per year do you watch T.V.? Mass media exposure scores for radio, newspapers, magazines, movies, and T.V. were computed separately for each community so that each respondent's score is relative to others in his own community. XII. Empathy A. India 1. If you were president of the panchayat [village council] here in your village, what would you do in the next year? 0 - Did not take role or no answer 1 - Simply takes role 2 - Takes role and suggests appropriate action 8. us 2. If you were M.L.A. District Collector, what would you do to provide roads in every village? 3. If you were the Minister of Agriculture, what would you do to encourage higher food production in India? Empathy scores are computed by adding the actual sum of scores, which vary from 0 to 6, of each respondent. Colombia 1. If you were the president of the Community Development Council, what would you do next year? 2. If you were the agricultural extension agent, what would you do to improve the price Of potatoes in this community? 3. If you were Mayor of Facatativa, what would you do to obtain a better highway for the community? 4. If you were the Minister of Education, what would you do for rural schools in Colombia? 5. If you were the President of the Republic, what would you do to fight against violence? Empathy scores were computed by adding the actual sum of scores which ranged from 0 to 9 (9 included 9 or 10). APPENDIX B Table l. Intercorrelations of Variables in India. Table 2. Intercorrelations of Variables in Colombia. - .——. V q‘ urn - WV .Ho>OH Home use o>wm on» we cocoowmwcmwm mom nonwouon ma :ho. mo non c< .mcowumaonnopca owes» ousoeoo Op cow: owpmmumum may mm: nomnv cowumaonnoo Hmwnoman unwome as . seumaem .NH mam. : onswomxo waves who: .HH mom. mod. . . anamnuemma eowesao .oa 33m. Ham. oma. u cospmnfiam< .m «mm. as». sou. 35:. n . menus» Hmnoom .m own. new. saw. osm. mmm. . eoapmaauwppwa Hmnoom .s cam. Hon. Ham. mom. mos. cam. - mmmao>mnm>occw amnspasownw< .m emu. mom. man. mam. ass. was. mom. . sham mo anew .m «we. use. Hmo. nae. use. was. son. (was. . pumnaou commaopxm .: emu. mam. ems. mmm. ems. was. man. 1mm. m:a.. - nonsmosem .m see. mmm. mmm. mmm. was. mom. was. mom. sea. emu. . sumaanmsweoazoex Hmnspanoenwe .a 3mm. mma. mm“. 3mm. 3mm. ems. 5mm. as. ass. was. omm. . compaoem o>wumnoaooo .H «a as on m is a o m a m a (H manmhhm> wOHmmHnmp .ANOh u zv emwvcH ow moaomwnm> mo mcomumawnnoonoucH .a manna _ m xHozmmm< an 49 moi. omm. mam. mmm. mHo.l who. 00H. HOH. mom. mum. Haw. mNo. 050.: Hmo.lsod.l mom. mac. :HH. «No.lzmm. mmm.umoa. 030. due. mmm. mmm. mum. mmm. mom.IHmH. Hmo. mHH.I $00.: NH $33.”; .aO>OH ucoo non o>wm may um oocmowmacmwm pom Oonwswoh mm sod. mo n c< .mcofiumamnnoonoucw omega Ovsmeoo 0» com: owumwpmum ecu mm: Awfinnv cowpmamnnoo Humnowwn unwome mnpmmam .NH mnemomxo waves new: .HH ownmnoomoa cowowmo .oa com mo cowpmmsooo now cowumnamm< .m com mo cowpmoooo pom oomumnwmm< .m acumen Howoom .e coHummwowunma ammoom .m mmOcO>wpm>Occ« Honouasownw< .m Show mo swam .: I poopcoo cofiwcouxm .m :No.l I cowumosom .m Hem. mma.- oma.- mm». 050.- . coauaoem u>aumnoaooo .H m w a moanmwnm> .Amoa u zv «waosoaov cw unanswnm> mo ecowumaonnoonoch .m edema m xHszmmc 7:1: m mm r