Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:05:42.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modifying the Neo-Classical Approach to Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Gary D. Lynne
Gary D. Lynne*
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The dualistic nature of humans has been recognized for centuries. The intriguing question is the extent to which the human being with her/his display of concern for others can simultaneously act as an egoist, the latter being descriptive of the homo oeconomicus rendition of the human. Multiple utility theory suggests a way to approach research on such issues. A test case of water conserving technology adoption behavior by Florida growers is examined. Empirical evidence supports moving toward an expanded version of the mono-utility or I-utility model to include a We-utility.

Keywords

behavioral economicsconservation technologymeta-preferencesmultiple utilitysocioeconomicstechnology adoption
Type
Invited Papers and Discussions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , July 1995 , pp. 67 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajzen, Icek. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Org. Beh. and Hum. Dec. Proc. 50 (1991): 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, leek and Fishbein, Martin. “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research.” Psych. Rev. 84(1977): 888–918.Google Scholar
Ajzen, leek and Fishbein, Martin. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1980.Google Scholar
Ameniya, Takeshi. Advanced Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Bagozzi, Richard P. “Expectancy-Value Attitude Models: An Analysis of Critical Measurement Issues.” Internat. J. of Res. in Marketing 1 (1984): 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Timothy J. “A Methodological Assessment of Multiple Utility Frameworks.” Econ. and Phil. 5(1989): 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin, Christine A. and David, E. “Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications.” Land Econ. 58(1982): 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai. “The Case for a Multiple-Utility Conception.” Econ. and Phil. 2(1986): 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai. “Normative-Affective Factors: Toward a New Decision-Making Model.” J. Econ. Psych. 9(1988a): 125–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai. The Moral Dimension, Toward a New Economics. New York: The Free Press, Macmillan, 1988b.Google Scholar
Feather, Norman T.Expectations and Actions: Expectancy-Value Models in Psychology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1982.Google Scholar
George, David. “Does the Market Create Preferred Preferences?” Rev. of Soc. Econ. (1993): 323–346.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Fred. Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. “Against Parsimony: Three Easy Ways of Complicating Some Categories of Economic Discourse.” Econ. and Phil. 1(1985): 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, Alan W., Lynne, Gary D., Rahmani, Mohammad, Franklin Casey, C., and Laforest, Linda C.. Factors Influencing Adoption of Energy and Water-Conserving Irrigation Technologies in Florida. Completion Report to the Florida Energy Extension Service. Gainesville: Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, 1993.Google Scholar
Kolm, Serge-Christophe. “Altruism and Efficiency.” Ethics 94 (1983): 18–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, Mark A. “The Utility of Multiple Utility: A Comment on Brennan.” Econ. and Phil. 9(1993): 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynne, Gary D., Franklin Casey, C., Hodges, Alan, and Rahmani, Mohammed. “Conservation Technology Adoption Decisions and the Theory of Planned Behavior.” J. Econ. Psych, (in press).Google Scholar
Lynne, Gary D. and Rola, Leandro R.. “Improving Attitude-Behavior Prediction Models with Economic Variables: Farmer Actions Toward Soil Conservation.” J. of Soc. Psych. 128 (1988): 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynne, Gary D., Shonkwiler, J.S., and Rola, Leandro R.. “Attitudes and Fanner Conservation Behavior.” Land Econ. 70(1988): 12–19.Google Scholar
Nowak, Peter J. “Adoption and Diffusion of Soil and Water Conservation Practices.” in English, Burton C., Maetzold, James A., Brian Holding, R., and Heady, Earl O.. Future Agricultural Technology and Resource Conservation. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory.” Phil, and Pub. Affairs 6(1977): 317–344.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. “Self-Command in Practice, in Policy, and in a Theory of Rational Choice.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 74,2 (May 1984a): 1–11.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C.Choice and Consequence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984b.Google Scholar