Table B.2.
Survival model adoption robustness checks – distributional assumptions.
| (1) | (2) | (3) Quadratic |
(4) | (5) IHS |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: quadratic and IHS predictors | |||||
| Cognitive ability (own precision, ρu) | 3.185*** [0.759] |
3.306** [1.972] |
3.541*** [0.848] |
5.185** [3.436] |
6.646*** [2.736] |
| Receptiveness (advice perceived precision, ρv) | 1.014 [0.045] |
1.013 [0.045] |
0.760 [0.151] |
0.729 [0.151] |
0.990 [0.182] |
| Cognitive ability × Receptiveness | 0.917*** [0.029] |
0.919** [0.037] |
0.923*** [0.025] |
0.943 [0.038] |
0.672** [0.136] |
| (Cognitive ability)2 | 0.982 [0.245] |
0.834 [0.239] |
|||
| (Receptiveness)2 | 1.026 [0.017] |
1.029* [0.017] |
|||
| Number of farmers | 131 | 131 | 131 | 131 | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weibull distribution | Exponential distribution | Gompertz distribution | ||||
| Panel B: different distributions | ||||||
| Cognitive ability (own precision, ρu) | 3.185*** [0.759] |
2.348*** [0.427] |
2.472*** [0.489] |
|||
| Receptiveness (advice perceived precision, ρv) | 1.014 [0.045] |
0.990 [0.034] |
1.009 [0.037] |
|||
| Cognitive ability × Receptiveness | 0.917*** [0.029] |
0.939** [0.024] |
0.935** [0.025] |
|||
| High ability/Low receptiveness (HL) | 1.729** [0.461] |
1.445* [0.296] |
1.566* [0.362] |
|||
| Low ability/High receptiveness (LH) | 1.162 [0.384] |
0.936 [0.248] |
1.027 [0.299] |
|||
| High ability/High receptiveness (HH) | 1.162 [0.293] |
1.099 [0.231] |
1.131 [0.255] |
|||
| Number of farmers | 131 | 131 | 131 | 131 | 131 | 131 |
| χ2 inequality tests | ||||||
| HL−HH > 0 | 0.088* | 0.095* | 0.090* | |||
| LH > 0 | 0.324 | 0.599 | 0.464 | |||
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 (2), (4), (6), and (8), “Low ability/Low advice measure” is the excluded category. Other control variables in all regressions include: high school diploma or less, digit span, age, female, acres operated, farming not principal occupation, years making decisions on farm, received computer refresher, and number of risky choices. The precisions and advice weight are all mulitplied by 100. Panel A: In columns (1) and (2) the sample is the full sample, in columns (3) and (4) the sample includes sole and joint proprietors only, and in columns (5) and (6) the sample includes sole proprietors only. Columns (7) and (8) contain all controls listed in note above in addition to household size, livestock/dairy are 25% of farm income, acres owned, purchased crop insurance, total household income, and share of household income from farming. Panel B: In columns (1) and (2) the advice measure is the original receptiveness, using the weight from all 25 rounds of the advice game. In columns (3) and (4) it is receptiveness using only the first 5 rounds of the advice game while in columns (5) and (6) it is the receptiveness using only the last 10 rounds of the advice game. In columns (7) and (8) it is responsiveness, rather than receptiveness. The χ2 inequality tests show the p-values for one-sided tests of the hypothesis that the coefficient on High ability/Low advice is greater than or equal to that on High ability/High advice, and the hypothesis that the coefficient on Low ability/High advice 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.