IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/15322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modifying The Neo-Classical Approach To Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models

Author

Listed:
  • Lynne, Gary D.

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 adaptation 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Lynne, Gary D., 1995. "Modifying The Neo-Classical Approach To Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:15322
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.15322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/15322/files/27010067.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.15322?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hirschman, Albert O., 1985. "Against Parsimony: Three Easy Ways of Complicating some Categories of Economic Discourse," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 7-21, April.
    2. Etzioni, Amitai, 1986. "The Case for a Multiple-Utility Conception," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 159-184, October.
    3. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Gary D. Lynne & J. S. Shonkwiler & Leandro R. Rola, 1988. "Attitudes and Farmer Conservation Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 12-19.
    6. Lutz, Mark A., 1993. "The Utility of Multiple Utility: A Comment on Brennan," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 145-154, April.
    7. Brennan, Timothy J., 1989. "A Methodological Assessment of Multiple Utility Frameworks," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 189-208, October.
    8. Schelling, Thomas C, 1984. "Self-Command in Practice, in Policy, and in a Theory of Rational Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S. Abu Turab Rizvi, 2001. "Preference Formation and the Axioms of Choice," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 141-159.
    2. Lynne, Gary D. & Casey, C. Franklin, 1998. "Regulation of technology adoption when individuals pursue multiple utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 701-719.
    3. Robert J. Sheeder & Gary D. Lynne, 2011. "Empathy-Conditioned Conservation: “Walking in the Shoes of Others” as a Conservation Farmer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 433-452.
    4. Elodie Brahic & Valérie Clément & Nathalie Moureau & Marion Vidal, 2008. "A la recherche des Merit Goods," Working Papers 08-08, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jun 2008.
    5. Stephen J. Meardon & Andreas Ortmann, 1996. "Self-Command In Adam Smith'S Theory Of Moral Sentiments," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(1), pages 57-80, February.
    6. Mark White, 2006. "Multiple utilities and weakness of will: A kantian perspective," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(1), pages 1-20.
    7. Chouinard, Hayley H. & Wandschneider, Philip R. & Paterson, Tobias, 2016. "Inferences from sparse data: An integrated, meta-utility approach to conservation research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 71-78.
    8. Bayard, Budry & Jolly, Curtis, 2007. "Environmental behavior structure and socio-economic conditions of hillside farmers: A multiple-group structural equation modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 433-440, May.
    9. Karl-Dieter Opp, 2013. "Norms and rationality. Is moral behavior a form of rational action?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 383-409, March.
    10. Lanse Minkler, 1999. "The Problem with Utility: Toward a Non-Consequentialist/Utility Theory Synthesis," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(1), pages 4-24.
    11. Donna Rowen & Michael Dietrich, 2004. "Incorporating Ethics into Economics: Problems and Possibilities," Working Papers 2004006, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2004.
    12. Lynne, Gary D. & Franklin Casey, C. & Hodges, Alan & Rahmani, Mohammed, 1995. "Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 581-598, December.
    13. Tomer, John F., 1996. "Good habits and bad habits: A new age socio-economic model of preference formation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 619-638.
    14. Morrison, Mark, 2005. "Identifying Market Segments for Technology Adoption," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137937, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    16. Jordan, Jeffrey L. & Elnagheeb, Abdelmoneim H., 1992. "The Structure Of Citizen Preferences For Government Soil Erosion Control Programs," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Joseph G. Eisenhauer, 2006. "The Shadow Price of Morality," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 32(3), pages 437-456, Summer.
    18. Maria & Irham & Slamet Hartono & Lestari Rahayu Waluyati, 2022. "The effect of environmental awareness on motivation in adopting farming conservation techniques in the various agro-ecological zones: a case study in critical land of Java Island, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1878-1896, February.
    19. John W. Cary & Roger L. Wilkinson, 1997. "Perceived Profitability And Farmers‘ Conservation Behaviour," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 13-21, January.
    20. Hosseini, Hamid, 1997. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of explaining economics of irrationality and uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 181-189.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:15322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.