Table 3.
Hazard ratios, survival model for GM corn adoption.
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High school diploma or less | 0.686* [0.155] |
0.781 [0.208] |
0.807 [0.214] |
0.836 [0.237] |
||||
| Digit span | 1.092 [0.066] |
0.963 [0.066] |
0.944 [0.064] |
1.034 [0.075] |
||||
| Cognitive ability (own precision, ρu) | 2.171*** [0.369] |
2.351*** [0.432] |
2.894*** [0.662] |
3.185*** [0.759] |
||||
| Receptiveness (advice perceived precision, ρv ) | 0.947 [0.038] |
0.961 [0.048] |
0.997 [0.037] |
1.014 [0.045] |
||||
| Cognitive ability × Receptiveness | 0.922*** [0.025] |
0.917*** [0.029] |
||||||
| High ability/Low receptiveness (HL) | 1.866*** [0.433] |
1.729** [0.461] |
||||||
| Low ability/High receptiveness (LH) | 0.760 [0.281] |
1.162 [0.384] |
||||||
| High ability/High receptiveness (HH) | 1.250 [0.296] |
1.162 [0.293] |
||||||
| Age | 0.998 [0.019] |
0.997 [0.018] |
0.996 [0.020] |
|||||
| Female | 0.838 [0.229] |
0.822 [0.213] |
0.919 [0.287] |
|||||
| Acres operated (100 0’s) | 1.415*** [0.145] |
1.407*** [0.147] |
1.359*** [0.136] |
|||||
| Farming not principal occupation | 0.563 [0.214] |
0.539 [0.204] |
0.594 [0.219] |
|||||
| Years making decisions on farm | 0.984 [0.020] |
0.987 [0.019] |
0.982 [0.020] |
|||||
| Received computer refresher | 1.036 [0.431] |
0.899 [0.387] |
1.322 [0.550] |
|||||
| Number of risky choices | 0.952 [0.034] |
0.959 [0.035] |
0.959 [0.033] |
|||||
| k | 1.356 *** [0.136] |
1.377 *** [0.136] |
1.412 *** [0.132] |
1.685*** [0.157] |
1.442*** [0.139] |
1.708*** [0.162] |
1.378*** [0.136] |
1.625*** [0.152] |
| Number of farmers | 132 | 131 | 132 | 131 | 132 | 131 | 132 | 131 |
| χ2 inequality tests | ||||||||
| HL−HH > 0 | 0.039** | 0.088* | ||||||
| LH > 0 | 0.771 | 0.324 |
Hazard ratios for survival models. A hazard ratio below 1 implies that the variable makes adoption less likely. Robust standard errors in brackets. All regressions assume a Weibull survival distribution and include year and crop-reporting district fixed effects. In columns (7) and (8), “Low ability/Low receptiveness” is the excluded category. The precisions are multiplied by 100 for scaling. The χ2 inequality tests show the p-values for one-sided tests of the hypothesis that the coefficient on High ability/Low receptiveness is greater than or equal to that on High ability/High receptiveness, and the hypothesis that the coefficient on Low ability/High receptiveness is greater than or equal to 0 (i.e., testing that the hazard ratio is greater than or equal to 1).
We test whether they are significantly different from 1 (not 0) at 10% levels.
We test whether they are significantly different from 1 (not 0) at 5% levels.
We test whether they are significantly different from 1 (not 0) at 1% levels.