4.5 Article

Preferences, personality, aspirations, and farmer behavior

Journal

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
Volume 52, Issue 6, Pages 901-913

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/agec.12669

Keywords

agriculture; aspirations; locus of control; risk preferences; self-efficacy; Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the impact of risk preferences, personality, and aspirations on farmers' economic choices, finding that aspirations and personality factors have significant influence on the adoption of preventive measures, while risk preferences play a crucial role in crop insurance demand. Additionally, locus of control and risk preferences are identified as the best predictors for farmers' entrepreneurial choices. The results indicate a considerable domain specificity of preferences, personality, and aspirations in economic choice models.
There is a growing literature that incorporates not only economic preferences, such as risk preferences, but also personality and aspirations into economic choice models. Here, we investigate how these concepts relate to each other and can explain observed economic choices. More specifically, we explore the role of risk preferences, personality (self-efficacy and locus of control), and aspirations for farmers' choices to adopt preventive measures against pests, buy cropinsurance, and to be entrepreneurially active. To this end, a sample of 568 Swiss fruit growers is analyzed. We find that for the adoption of preventive measures against pests, the best predictors are the farmers' locus of control and their aspirations. For crop insurance demand, all behavioral variables, and especially risk preferences, contribute to explain farmers' choices. For farmers' entrepreneurial choice, we find that locus of control and their risk preferences are the best predictors. Our results reveal considerable domain specificity of preferences, personality, and aspirations in economic choice models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available