Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PII: S1871-1413(17)30217-2
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.07.009
Reference: LIVSCI3260
To appear in: Livestock Science
Received date: 24 September 2016
Revised date: 4 July 2017
Accepted date: 24 July 2017
Cite this article as: Igor Senger, João Augusto Rossi Borges and João Armando
Dessimon Machado, Using structural equation modeling to identify the
psychological factors influencing dairy farmers’ intention to diversify agricultural
production, Livestock Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.07.009
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Using structural equation modeling to identify the psychological factors influencing
Igor Sengera1, João Augusto Rossi Borgesb2, João Armando Dessimon Machadoc
a
Federal University of Santa Maria, CESNORS, Linha 7 de Setembro, BR-386 Km40, Frederico Westephalen,
Brazil
b
Federal University of Grande Dourados, Rodovia Dourados – Itahum, Km 12, Dourados, Brazil
c
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Avenida João Pessoa, 31, Porto Alegre, Brazil
igorsenger@ufsm.br
joaoborges@ufgd.edu.br
joao.dessimon@ufrgs.br
Abstract
Actions and public policies have been developed to encourage Brazilian farmers to diversify
their agricultural production. However, such actions have been unable to encourage
production and economic diversification. This article uses the theory of reasoned action
(TRA) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to understand the intention of dairy farmers
to diversify agricultural production. Results showed that the TRA had better explanatory
model. Corroborating the theory, results revealed that attitude and subjective norm positively
influence the intention of farmers to diversify agricultural production. Implications for public
1
Telephone: +55 (55) 37448964.
2
Telephone: +55 (51) 97499180.
1 Introduction
In Brazil, actions and public policies have been developed to encourage Brazilian
farmers to diversify their agricultural production. The National Program for Strengthening
Family Agriculture (Pronaf), the National School Meal Program (PNAE), the Food
Acquisition Program (PAA), the National Plan for Sustainable Rural Development and
Solidarity and the Shares for the Diversification of Production and Income in Tobacco
Cultivated Areas, are some examples designed to encourage farmers to produce food and
therefore diversify production on their farms. Although such policies have encouraged
farmers to produce food, these actions have been unable to encourage the productive and
intentions of farmers regarding the diversification and the factors that influence intention.
Previous literature on the main drivers of farm diversification found that there is a set
of factors influencing farmers’ decisions to diversify their agricultural production and to start
new business. For instance, previous studies showed that farm characteristics (i.e., size of the
farm, farm type, location of the farm), and farmers characteristics (i.e., educational level, age,
gender) influence farmers’ decisions to diversify (Bateman and Ray, 1994; Mcnally, 2001;
Mishra et al., 2004; Pfeifer et al., 2009). Others studies focused on the motives underlying
farmers’ decisions to diversify. This strand of literature found that farmers’ financial and
nonfinancial goals, such as generating additional income, the continuance of farming and
ranching, and the enhancement of quality of life influence farmers’ diversification decisions
(Barbieri and Mahoney, 2009). In addition, Jongeneel et al. (2008) found that farmers’ trust in
Hansson et al. (2013) found that the decision to start new ventures depends on the situation of
the family farm (i.e., if the spouse support the creation of new venture). In summary, previous
literature found that the drivers of farmers’ decisions to diversify and to start new business are
In this study, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned
behavior (TPB) are used to understand the intention of farmers to diversify3 agricultural
production. According to the TRA and the TPB the intention is originated from two latent
constructs: attitude and subjective norm, and an additional TPB construct, perceived
behavioral control. Both theories have been used to understand different farmers’ decisions. In
a first study, which is part of the same research project, Senger et al. (2017) found, by using
correlation coefficient, that attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control are
significant and positively correlated with intention. Martínez-García et al. (2013) used the
TRA to study the decisions of livestock producers and found that attitude and subjective norm
are correlated with the intention of farmers to use improved pastures. Borges et al. (2014)
correlated the intention of farmers to use pasture improvement with the three constructs of
TPB (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control). However, these three
studies used only correlations, evaluating the relation between the constructs of TRA/TPB
one at a time. Additionally, this methodology does not allow assessing the relative importance
of the TRA/TPB constructs. To overcome the limitations of the use of correlations, Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) has been suggested (Bleakley and Hennessy, 2012). SEM allows
the simultaneous estimation of all relationships in the TRA/TPB models and also identifies
The combination of TRA/TPB and SEM has been used in different agricultural
3
In the context of this paper, diversification concerns the development of activities inside the farm,
focusing on agriculture. By this definition, diversification entails the processing and improvement of
products (e.g. making and selling cheese rather than milk), adding value to the products (e.g. creating
a cheese brand), and selling products on the market (Barbieri and Mahoney, 2009; Ilbery, 1991;
Mahoney et al., 2004; Ploeg and Roep, 2003; Turner et al., 2003).
intention to purchase genetically modified agricultural products (Chen, 2008), intention to
adopt precision farming technologies (Kurosh and Saeid, 2010), the use of agricultural
(Price and Leviston, 2014). However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study using
TRA/TPB and SEM to analyze the intention of farmers to diversify agricultural production.
In the light of the foregoing, the objective of this study was to use TRA and TPB to
determine the effect of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control on the
2 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned behavior
(TPB) assume that the intention to act is the immediate determinant of behavior (Ajzen,
2005). According to these theories, the stronger the intention to engage in a behavior, the
Both theories assume that there are independent latent constructs that influence the
intention. These constructs are: attitude and subjective norm. Attitude refers to the degree to
which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation in relation to behavior (Ajzen and
Madden, 1986; Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 2005). Individuals form their attitudes based on their
perception of what can be true about a particular subject and this perception may or may not
sometimes supported by beliefs and values (Willock et al., 1999). Subjective norm, which is a
social factor, corresponds to the perceived social pressure of performing or not such
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is an extension of TRA. The TPB presents an
additional construct called perceived behavioral control. This construct is also assumed to
constructs are, the stronger is the intention of an individual to express the analyzed behavior
(Ajzen, 1991).
their farms in the next five years was measured. Therefore, farmers will have high intention to
diversify their production when they: understand the production diversification as being more
favorable (attitude); when they realize a high social pressure to diversify (subjective norm);
and when they perceive their own ability to implement this strategy in their properties as
positive (perceived behavioral control). Figure 1 shows the conceptual models to be tested in
TRA TPB
ATT + ATT +
+
INT SN INT
SN + PBC +
3 Methodology
3.1 Measures
The research instrument used in this study had two sections: the first containing
demographic questions and characterization of the farms, and the second with the items to
directly measure the construct intention, and also the items to measure directly and indirectly
the constructs attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. For the purpose of
According to Fishbein and Ajzen (2010), direct measures are considered sufficient to
predict intention. Seventeen items were used to represent the TRA/TPB constructs. The
statements used to measure each item are shown in Table 1. The items were measured using a
five-point scale, with one being the value assigned to negative answers and five to positive
answers. Five-point scales have been used in agricultural studies (Bergevoet et al.,
2004; Barbieri and Mahoney, 2009; Ferguson and Hansson, 2015; Hansson et al, 2013; Zubair
and Garforth, 2006; Heong and Escalada., 1999; Sok et al, 2015), since they are considered
short enough for respondents to distinguish between the response options (Hansson et al,
2012).
Table 1: Statements used to measure each item of intention (INT), attitude (ATT), subjective
norm (SN) and perceived behavioral control (PBC) and the scales used to measure each of
them.
INT3 Will you diversify agricultural production on your farm Certainly Not
in the next five years? Certainly Yes
SN1 Most people who are important to me think I should Strongly Disagree
diversify agricultural production on my farm in the next Strongly Agree
five years.
SN2 Most people that I hear opinions approve that I diversify Strongly Disagree
agricultural production on my farm in the next five years. Strongly Agree
SN3 Do you think that most farmers like you, will diversify Certainly Not
their agricultural production on their farms in the next Certainly Yes
five years?
PBC1 If you want to diversify agricultural production on your Definitely Not
farm in the next five years, you have enough knowledge. Definitely Yes
PBC3 How confident are you to diversify agricultural Extremely Not Confident
production on your farm in the next five years? Extremely Confident
PBC4 The diversification of agricultural production on your Strongly Disagree
farm the next five years depends on you only. Strongly Agree
PBC5 For you, the diversification of agricultural production on Strongly Disagree
your farm the next five years is under your control. Strongly Agree
Since the objective of this study is to determine the effect of attitude, subjective norm
and perceived behavioral control in the intention of farmers to diversify production, initially
farmers specialized in milk production were identified. The participation of rural activities in
the gross income of the property was used as a criterion to distinguish between specialized
farms from diversified ones (Hansson et al., 2010). Thus, if 50% or more of the income came
from a single activity, the farmer was considered to be specialized, and the greater this value,
were 460 farmers that sold milk during 2013. Agricultural extension technicians that work in
the region indicated 120 farmers specialized in milk production to be part of the sample of
farmers. If a farmer was not found or unwilling to participate in the survey, then another
farmer was selected. In some cases, a farmer indicated another farmer, often someone in his
own community. The final sample consisted of 101 farmers which were personally surveyed
by an interviewer, representing 22% of milk farms in the region, or 84% of farm that have
50% or more of income from milk production. The survey was conducted during November
The method used in this study was Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with latent
constructs. To test the proposed model, the two-step approach proposed by Anderson and
Gerbing (1988) was used. First, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to obtain a
satisfactory Measurement Model (MM). Second, a structural model was developed and tested.
This research tests and compares two Measurement Models (MM), the MM/TRA and
the MM/TPB, which are shown in Figure 2. The MM/TRA model had three latent constructs:
intention (INT), attitude (ATT), and subjective norm (SN). The MM/TPB model adds up the
In both measurement models all latent constructs were allowed to freely inter-relate
to each other. However, all the items were allowed to load on only one latent construct. For
instance, the item INT1 only loaded on the latent construct INT (intention). Moreover, the
To assess the construct validity of the measurement models (MM), we examined the
convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was verified by checking the
magnitude, direction and significance of standardized factor loads on each latent construct. In
addition, average variance extracted (AVE) and construct reliability (CR) were used to
minimum value of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010). Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing
the average variance extracted (AVE) for each latent construct with the squared inter-
construct correlations associated with that latent construct. To ensure discriminant validity the
AVE for each construct should be greater than the squared inter-construct correlations
associated with that latent construct (Borges and Lansink, 2016; Hair et al., 2010).
used. Initially it was analyzed the validity of the measurement models by statistical qui-
square (x2), together with the degrees of freedom (df), and the probability value (p
value). Byrne (2001) recommends that the rate x 2 / df should not be greater than five. It was
also checked the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the 90 percent
confidence interval for RMSEA, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI) and the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR). It was also checked the
diagnostics model, as Hair et al. (2010) consider that this may indicate potential
improvements to the model or specify issues that were not previously identified. The
diagnostic measures used were the standardized residuals and modification indices. In this
study, all guidelines and threshold values used to evaluate the validity of the construct, the
measurement model validity and diagnostic measures were based on Hair et al. (2010).
MM TRA MM TPB
Figure 1: Measurement models used for TRA and TPB.
After obtaining a satisfactory measurement model, we run the structural model (SM).
Hair et al. (2010) point out that in the structural model a set of multiple regressions is
estimated and the emphasis is on the nature and magnitude of the relation between the latent
appropriate method to understand the causal relation between the constructs of TRA/TPB and
Among the 101 farmers in the final sample, 75.2% were male and 24.8% female
(woman also work on household chores). Most farmers (69.3%) work full time on the farm.
95% of the farmers have no other income source than agriculture. 37.6% of the farmers have
completed elementary school, 32.7% incomplete high school, 17.8% completed high school
postgraduate studies. 84.2 % of farmers rely on technical assistance. Among these farmers,
44.7% have private technical assistance, 20% are mainly using government technical
assistance, and 35.3% have both. Other socioeconomic characteristics of the sample are
presented in Table 2.
4. Results
the activities on their farms in the next five years was low. All items used to measure
intention presented mean below 3. See Table A1 in the appendix. Intra-construct correlations
for intention were high, ranging from 0.58 to 0.75. In Table A1 in the appendix, the mean,
standard deviation and correlations among all the items used to measure each construct are
presented.
used to measure attitude presented mean above 3. The attitude intra-construct correlations
ranged from 0.10 to 0.59. The correlations between the items of intention with the items of the
high. The three items used to measure subjective norm presented mean of at least 3. The
subjective norm intra-construct correlations ranged from 0.11 to 0.55. The correlations
between the items of the constructs intention and subjective norm were 0.22 to 0.53.
Farmers did not perceive that they have capability to diversify their production since
all items used to measure perceived behavioral control presented a low mean. The highest
mean of the five items used to measure this construct was 3.2, and the lowest mean was
2.2. The perceived behavioral control intra-construct correlations were also low. The items
PBC3 and PBC4 showed negative correlation (0.22). The other correlations between the items
In general, it was observed that the correlations between the constructs intention and
perceived behavioral control are lower when compared to the correlation between intention
and attitude, and intention and subjective norm. The exception was the PBC3 item, which
correlated with the four items of intention, and these correlations ranged from 0.33 to 0.49.
According to the guidelines for GOF statistics (Hair et al., 2010), the results for the
validity of the measurement model (MM/TRA) showed that the model did not provide a good
fit to the data (x2 =76.12; df=54; p=0.0128; and x 2/df =1.4; RMSEA=0.07; 90 percent
the factors loadings, average variance extracted (AVE) and construct reliability (CR) are
shown in Table A2 in the appendix. The correlation matrix is presented in Table A3 in the
Appendix. These results suggested that the MM/TRA should be re-specified, particularly
focusing on the subjective norm construct, since the item SN3 had a low factor loading.
The results of the re-specified MM (rMM/TRA) without the item SN3 showed a
satisfactory fit to the data (x2=56.82; df =44; p=0.0512; and x2/df =1.3; RMSEA=0.062; 90
SRMR=0.06). The insignificant x2 demonstrated that the model is well adjusted. The AVE
was recalculated for all the items, which improved mainly the convergent validity of the
subjective norm construct. In addition, the subjective norm construct reliability (CR) also
The results of the standardized factor loadings of rMM/TRA are shown in Table 3.
All items showed the expected sign and were significant to the critical level of 5%. The factor
loadings for all items of the constructs intention, attitude and subjective norm were above the
minimum value of 0.4. The AVE of the construct attitude was 46.3%, being just below the
50% recommended. For the constructs intention and subjective norm, the AVE was above
50%. The reliability of the construct (CR) for all the analyzed constructs was above the
Therefore, the results of factors loadings, AVE and CR, analyzed together, indicate
convergent validity of rMM/TRA. Moreover, all the correlations between the TRA constructs
were significant at the 5% critical level and greater than 0.5. Furthermore, the AVE for all
constructs was greater than the square of the inter-construct correlations associated with that
Table 3: Standardized factor loadings for each item of the respective constructs of TRA, with
standard errors between brackets, and the average variance extracted (AVE) and construct
SN
INT ATT
(Subjective
(Intention) (Attitude)
norm)
INT1 0.89 (0.03) ATT1 0.79 (0.05) SN1 0.95 (0.08)
INT2 0.77 (0.04) ATT2 0.58 (0.07) SN2 0,61 (0.08)
INT3 0.86 (0.03) ATT3 0.66 (0.06)
INT4 0.78 (0.04) ATT4 0.48 (0.09)
ATT5 0.83 (0.04)
AVE (%) 68.4 46.3 66.0
CR 0.90 0.81 0.79
These results indicate the discriminant validity of the model. The analysis of
standardized residuals among the items of the constructs did not identify major
problems. Therefore, it is considered the rMM/TRA satisfactory and that it could then be used
The results of the GOF statistics for MM/TPB showed a poor fit of the model to the
data (x 2 =191.31; df =117; p=0.0000; and x2/df =1.6; RMSEA=0.08; 90 percent confidence
significance given by x 2 demonstrates that the model needs to be adjusted. Results of the
factors loadings, average variance extracted (AVE) and construct reliability (CR) are shown
in Table A4 in the appendix. The correlation matrix is presented in Table A5 in the Appendix.
These results suggested that the MM/TPB should be re-specified, particularly focusing on the
subjective norm and perceived behavioral control constructs, since items SN3, PBC1, PBC4
and PBC5 had low factor loadings. Therefore, it was decided to re-specify and re-estimate the
The results of the rMM/TPB still showed limitations (x2=78.02, df=63, p=0.0493 e
x2/df=1.2, RMSEA = 0.056, 90 percent confidence interval for RMSEA=0.003 – 0.088, CFI =
0.97, TLI = 0.96, e SRMR = 0.065). Results of the factors loadings, average variance
extracted (AVE) and construct reliability (CR) are shown in Table A6 in the appendix. The
the perceived behavioral control construct persisted. Therefore, both the MM/TBP and the
agricultural production.
Before examining the structural model, the measurement models of the TRA and
TPB are compared. Using SEM, it was possible to independently test and compare the
models. The results presented in Table 4 showed that rMM/TRA showed better fit to the data
compared to the other models. Therefore, the rMM/TRA was used to run a structural model.
Table 4: Fit indices of theory of reasoned action (TRA) and theory of planned behavior (TPB)
RMSEA < 0,08 with CFI of 0.95 or higher 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.06
SRMR 0.08 or less (with CFI of 0.95 or higher) 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06
a
based on Hair et al. (2010).
After a satisfactory measurement model (MM) was obtained, a structural model (SM)
was estimated to test the assumptions underlying the TRA. The SM has the same GOF
statistics of those of the rMM/TRA, as the SM has the same number of correlations between
Results of the structural model are shown in Table 5. The regression coefficient of
attitude on intention was significant and positive, indicating that hypothesis H1 (Attitude has a
positive influence on the intention of farmers) was not rejected. Furthermore, the regression
coefficient of subjective norm on intention was also positive and significant, suggesting that
H2 (Subjective norm has a positive influence on the intention of farmers) was not rejected. The
farmers) was rejected, since the TRA model, considered satisfactory in this study, ignores this
construct.
Together, the constructs attitude and subjective norm explained 49.3% of the
variance in intention. The regression coefficient indicated that attitude was the main
Table 5: Results of the impact of attitude (ATT) and subjective norm (SN) on intention (INT)
The comparative analysis of the four measurement models showed that the re-
specified measurement model based on the theory of reasoned action (rMM/TRA) was more
parsimonious to our data compared to the measurement models based on the theory of
planned behavior. Particularly, in the rMM/TRA the items reliably represent the latent
constructs intention, attitude, and subjective norm. Indeed, to obtain a valid measurement
model based on the theory of reasoned action only one item was excluded (SN3) from the
analysis because it had a low factor loading. On the other hand, the measurement models
based on the theory of planned behavior presented some limitations, particularly in the items
used to measure the perceived behavioral control construct. Indeed, the perceived behavioral
control construct presented low internal reliability in our study, which also occurred in
previous studies (Saba and Vassallo, 2002). A possible explanation for the low internal
reliability of the perceived behavioral control is that individuals who answered the
questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior interpret the terms ‘control’ and
‘difficulty’ in different ways. In other words, the items used in the questionnaire to measure
the perceived behavioral control construct aim to capture whether people think they are under
control of the behavior and whether they think it is difficult to perform the behavior. Clearly,
if people think that they have control of the behavior, but still think that they would have
difficulty to perform the behavior, the items used to measure these dimensions will not be
strong correlated, and therefore, will not reliably represent the perceived behavioral control
construct. For instance, in the context of this paper, farmers may have found that
diversification of agricultural production is under their control, but at the same time consider
Based on the results of the rMM/TRA, we run a structural model (SM). In SM, the
two TRA constructs attitude and subjective norm explained 49.3% of the variance in farmers’
intention to diversify, which is a common fit in similar studies in agricultural contexts (Adrian
et al., 2005; Borges and Lansink, 2016; Price and Leviston, 2014) and in behavioral sciences
In the structural model, results of the impact of attitude and subjective norm on
intention are in line with Hansson et al. (2012) and Senger et al. (2017), who analyze the
influence of TRA and TPB constructs on farmers’ intention to diversify. However, Senger et
al. (2017) found that the construct perceived behavioral control positively influence farmers’
intention to diversify. As previously explained, we could not check the impact of perceived
behavioral control on intention, because the items used to measure did not reliably represent
this construct. These contradictory results might be explained because Senger et al. (2017) did
not use a confirmatory factor analysis to check whether the items used to measure the
perceived behavioral control construct reliably represent this construct, and based their
The regression coefficients of the structural model indicated that the effects of
particular, the findings showed that attitude had a larger influence than subjective norm of
farmers’ intention to diversify. This result is in line with Hansson et al. (2012), who also
found that attitude had a higher impact than subjective norm on Swedish farmers’ intention to
diversify. Studies that used the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior
in agricultural contexts presented mixed results of the relatively impact of attitude, subjective
norm, and perceived behavioral control on intention and behavior (Borges and Oude Lansink,
2016; Borges et al., 2016; Lalani et al., 2016; Sok et al., 2016; van Dijk et al., 2016). The
mixed result of the relative impact of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral
control is expected, because the prediction of intention varies, for instance, across behaviors,
The high impact of attitude showed that the positive evaluation of diversifying
agricultural production was the main determinant of farmers’ intention to diversify. Therefore,
increase farmers’ intention to diversify. For instance, a possible intervention could be the
production. This strategy has been suggested by other studies in agricultural context to
increase farmers’ intention to adopt innovations and to even diversify their agricultural
production (Borges and Oude Lansink, 2016; Martínez-Garcia et al., 2013; Senger et al.,
2017).
Although attitude was the main determinant, subjective norm also influenced
farmers’ intention to diversify their agricultural production. This result is in line with previous
studies conducted with Brazilian farmers, and emphasizes the important role of social
pressure and the opinion of others in influencing farmers’ decision in Brazil (Borges et al.,
2016; Senger et al., 2017). According to Burton (2004), there are important referent groups to
which people often refer their behavior, because individuals do not act independently from
cultural and social influences. Specifically in Brazil, previous research found that family,
friends, rural extension agents, and government could be used to increase social pressure and
influence farmers’ behavior (Borges et al., 2016; Senger et al., 2017). We believe that an
intervention target to involve family members in the decision to diversify would increase
social pressure upon farmers, and this could result in a higher intention to diversify. We
believe that because family members seem to play an important role on farmers’ decisions.
Because our research focused on a specific Brazilian region and on milk farmers, the
implications for policy makers do not necessarily generalize to other regions and to farmers
working with different products. However, our results showed that the combination of the
theory of reasoned action, the theory of planned behavior with structural equation modeling is
suggesting that future research could use this approach to study diversification in other
contexts.
Appendix
Table A1: Mean (x), Standard Deviation (SD) and correlation among all items of intention (INT), attitude
(ATT), subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC)
Table A2: Standardized factors loadings for each item of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) constructs
intention (INT), attitude (ATT) and subjective norm (SN), with standard errors between brackets, and the
average variance extracted (AVE) and construct reliabily (CR) for each construct of the MM/TRA.
Table A3: Correlation matrix of theory of reasoned action (TRA) latent constructs intention (INT), attitude
(ATT), and subjective norm (SN)
INT ATT SN
INT 1 0.41 0.42
ATT 0.64 1 0.39
SN 0.64 0.62 1
Diagonal elements are the constructs variances; values below the diagonal are the correlations between the latent
constructs; values above the diagonal are the square of the correlation among constructs.
Table A4: Standardized factor loadings for each item of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) constructs
intention (INT), attitude (ATT), subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC), with standard
errors between brackets, and the average variance extracted (AVE) and construct reliability (CR) for each
construct of the MM/TPB.
TPB INT ATT SN PBC
INT1 0.88 (0.03) ATT1 0.78 (0.05) SN1 0.88 (0.06) PBC1 0.33 (0.12)
INT2 0.77 (0.04) ATT2 0.58 (0.07) SN2 0.65 (0.07) PBC2 0.42 (0.10)
INT3 0.86 (0.03) ATT3 0.65 (0.06) SN3 0.22 (0.11) PBC3 0.69 (0.09)
INT4 0.77 (0.04) ATT4 0.47 (0.08) PBC4 0.09 (0.13)
ATT5 0.83 (0.04) PBC5 0.28 (0.11)
AVE (%) 68.2 46.3 42.2 17.5
CR 0.89 0.81 0.64 0.45
Table A5: Correlation matrix of theory of planned behavior (TPB) latent constructs intention (INT), attitude
(ATT), and subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC)
INT ATT SN PBC
INT 1 0.41 0.42 0.50
ATT 0.64 1 0.39 0.27
SN 0.65 0.63 1 0.35
PBC 0.71 0.52 0.59 1
Diagonal elements are the constructs variances; values below the diagonal are the correlations between the latent
constructs; values above the diagonal are the square of the correlation among constructs.
Table A6: Standardized factor loadings for each item of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) constructs
intention (INT), attitude (ATT), subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC), with standard
errors between brackets, and the average variance extracted (AVE) and construct reliability (CR) for each
construct of the rMM/TPB.
Table A7: Correlation matrix of theory of planned behavior (TPB) latent constructs intention (INT), attitude
(ATT), and subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC).
INT ATT SN PBC
INT 1 0.41 0.38 0.53
ATT 0.64 1 0,35 0,32
SN 0.62 0.59 1 0,38
PBC 0.73 0.56 0.61 1
Diagonal elements are the constructs variances; values below the diagonal are the correlations between the latent
constructs; values above the diagonal are the square of the correlation among constructs.
REFERENCES
21
Adrian, A. M., Norwood, S. H., Mask, P. L., 2005. Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
toward precision agriculture technologies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 48, 256-
271.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision
Ajzen, I., 2005. Attitudes, personality and behavior, 2 ed. Open University Press,
Maidenhead.
Ajzen, I., Madden, T. J., 1986. Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions,
and Perceived Behavioral Control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22, 453-474.
Anderson, J. C., Gerbing, D. W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
Armitage, C. J., Conner, M., 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-
Barbieri, C., Mahoney, E., 2009. Why is diversification an attractive farm adjustment
strategy? Insights from Texas farmers and ranchers. Journal of Rural Studies 25, 58 - 66.
Bateman, D., Ray, C., 1994. Farm pluriactivity and rural policy: some evidence from Wales.
R. B. M., 2004. Entrepreneurial behaviour of dutch dairy armers under a milk quota system:
22
Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., 2012. The Quantitative Analysis of Reasoned Action Theory.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 640, 28-41.
Borges, J.A.R.; Tauer, L.W.; Lansink, A.G.J.M.O., 2016. Using the theory of planned
behavior to identify key beliefs underlying Brazilian cattle farmers’ intention to use improved
natural grassland: A MIMIC modelling approach. Land Use Policy 55, 193 – 203.
Borges, J. A. R., Lansink, A. G. J. M. O., Ribeiro, C. M., Lutke, V., 2014. Understanding
farmers' intention to adopt improved natural grassland using the Theory of Planned Behavior.
Byrne, B. M., 2001.Structural equation modeling with AMOS : basic concepts, applications,
Chen, M., 2008. An integrated research framework to understand consumer attitudes and
purchase intentions toward genetically modified foods. British Food Journal 110, 559-579.
23
Ferguson, R., Hansson, H., 2015. Measuring Embeddedness and Its Effect on New Venture
Creation - A Study of Farm Diversification. Managerial and Decision Economics 36, 314-
325.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action
Gazolla, M., 2004. Agricultura familiar, segurança alimentar e políticas públicas: uma análise
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7
Hansson, H., Ferguson, R., Olofsson, C., 2010. Understanding the diversification and
Hansson, H., Ferguson, R., Olofsson, C., 2012. Psychological Constructs Underlying
Hansson, H., Ferguson, R., Olofsson, C., Rantamäki-Lahtinen, L., 2013. Farmers’ motives for
diversifying their farm business: the influence of family. Journal of Rural Studies 32, 240-
250.
Heong, K. L., Escalada, M. M., 1999. Quantifying rice farmers' pest management decisions:
beliefs and subjective norms in stem borer control. Crop Protection 18, 315-322.
Hoffmann, R., Serrano, O., Neves, E. M., Thame, A. C. de M., Engler J. J. de C., 1987.
24
Ilbery, B. W., 1991. Farm diversification as an adjustment strategy on the urban fringe of the
Jongeneel, R.A., Polman, N.B.P., Slangen, L.H.G., 2008. Why are Dutch farmers going
Kurosh, R., Saeid, S., 2010. Agricultural specialists' intention toward precision agriculture
Mahoney, E., Armstrong, J., Barbieri, C., 2004. Farm and ranch diversification: one of the
Martínez-García, C.G., Dorward, P., Rehman, T., 2013. Factors influencing adoption of
improved grassland management by small-scale dairy farmers in central Mexico and the
McNally, S., 2001. Farm diversification in England and Wales – what can we learn from the
Mishra, A.K., El-Osta, H.S., Sandretto, C.S., 2004. Factors affecting farm enterprise
Lalani, B., Dorward, P., Holloway, G., Wauters, E., 2016. Smallholder farmers' motivations
for using Conservation Agriculture and the roles of yield, labour and soil fertility in decision
25
Pfeifer, C., Jongeneel, R.A., Sonneveld, M.P.W., Stoorvogel, J.J., 2009. Landscape properties
as drivers for farm diversification: a Dutch case study. Land Use Policy 26, 1106 – 1115.
Ploeg, J. D., Roep, D., 2003. Multifunctionality and rural development the actual situation in
Price, J. C., Leviston, Z., 2014. Predicting pro-environmental agricultural practices: The
social, psychological and contextual influences on land management. Journal of Rural Studies
34, 65-78.
Saba, A., Vassallo, M. 2002. Consumer attitudes toward the use of gene technology in
Senger, I., Borges, J.A.R., Machado, J.A.D., 2017. Using the theory of planned behavior to
understand the intention of small farmers in diversifying their agricultural production. Journal
Sharifzadeh, M., Zamani, G. H., Khalili, D., Karami, E., 2012. Agricultural Climate
Sok, J., Hogeveen, H., Elbers, A.R.W., Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M., 2016. Using farmers’
attitude and social pressures to design voluntary Bluetongue vaccination strategies. Preventive
Sok, J., Hogeveen, H., Elbers, A. R. W., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., 2015. Farmers’ beliefs
and voluntary vaccination schemes: Bluetongue in Dutch dairy cattle. Food Policy 57, 40-49.
26
Turner, M., Whitehead, D., Barr, D., Fogerty, M., Errington, A., Lobley, M., Reed, M., 2003.
Farm Diversification Activities: Benchmarking Study 2002. Final Report by the Universities
of Exeter and Plymouth to Defra. CRR Research Report 4. Exeter, University of Exeter. 2003.
van Dijk, W.F.A., Lokhorst, A.M., Berendse, F., Snoo, G.R., 2016. Factors underlying
Willock, J., Deary, I. J., Edwards-Jones, G., Gibson, G. J., Mcgregor, M. J., Sutherland, A.,
Dent, J. B., Morgan, O., Grieve, R., 1999. The Role of Attitudes and Objectives in Farmer
Zubair, M., Garforth, C., 2006. Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: the role of farmers’
Highlights:
27