skip to main content
10.1145/2160673.2160696acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesictdConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Power to the peers: authority of source effects for a voice-based agricultural information service in rural India

Published:12 March 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Online communities enable people to easily connect and share knowledge across geographies. Mobile phones can enable billions of new users in emerging countries to participate in these online communities. In India, where social hierarchy is important, users may over-value institutionally-recognized authorities relative to peer-sourced content. We tested this hypothesis through a controlled experiment of source authority effects on a voice-based agricultural information service for farmers in Gujarat, India. 305 farmers were sent seven agricultural tips via automated phone calls over a two-week period. The same seven tips were each voice-recorded by two university scientists and two peer farmers. Participants received a preview of the tip from a randomly assigned source via the automated call, and played the remainder of the tip by calling a dedicated phone number. Participants called the follow-up number significantly more often when the tip preview was recorded by a peer than a scientist. On the other hand, in interviews conducted both before and after the experiment, a majority of farmers maintained that they preferred receiving information from scientists. This stated preference may have been expressing the more socially acceptable response. We interpret our experimental results as a demonstration of the demand for peer-based agricultural information dissemination. We conclude with design implications for peer-to-peer information services for rural communities in India.

References

  1. Amazon Mechanical Turk. Retrieved July 7, 2009 from http://www.mturk.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Appadurai. Putting hierarchy in its place. Cultural Anthropology, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. R. Birner and J. R. Anderson. How to make agricultural extension demand-driven? Technical report, International Food Policy Research Insititute, November 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Chaiken and D. Maheswaran. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3):460--473, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. R. B. Cialdini, R. R. Reno, and C. A. Kallgren. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. L. Dumont and M. Sainsbury. Homo hierarchicus. University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. J. Fisher. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. R. Gandhi, R. Veeraraghavan, K. Toyama, and V. Ramprasad. Digital green: Participatory video and mediated instruction for agricultural extension. Information Technologies & International Development, 5(1), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Honey Bee Network. Retrieved July 22, 2011 from http://www.honeybee.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Kitayama, S. Duffy, T. Kawamura, and J. Larsen. Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures: A cultural look at a new look. Psychological Science, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. R. Levine, S. Sato, T. Hashimoto, and J. Verma. Love and marriage in eleven cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. W. Maddux and M. Yuki. The "ripple effect": Cultural differences in perceptions of the consequences of events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. L. Mamykina, B. Manoim, M. Mittal, G. Hripcsak, and B. Hartmann. Design lessons from the fastest q&a site in the west. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI '11, pages 2857--2866, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Mines. Conceptualizing the person: Hierarchical society and individual autonomy in india. American Anthropologist, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. V. Parmar, D. Keyson, and C. de Bont. Persuasive technology to shape social beliefs: A case of persuasive health information systems for rural women in india. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. N. Patel, D. Chittamuru, A. Jain, P. Dave, and T. S. Parikh. Avaaj otalo: a field study of an interactive voice forum for small farmers in rural india. In CHI '10: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 733--742, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. D. L. Paulhus. Measurement and control of response bias. measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Measures of social psychological attitudes, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. R. E. Petty and J. T. Cacioppo. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(3):123--205, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. D. Ramachandran, J. Canny, P. D. Das, and E. Cutrell. Mobile-izing health workers in rural india. In CHI '10: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 1889--1898, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. W. Raudenbush and A. S. Bryk. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publications, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. K. Savani, M. W. Morris, and N. Naidu. Deference in indiansâĂŹ decision making: Introjected goals or injunctive norms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. B. P. Sinha, T. N. Sinha, J. Verma, and R. B. N. Sinha. Collectivism coexisting with individualism: an indian scenario. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. S. R. Sterling and N. Rangaswamy. Constructing informed consent in ict4d research. In Proc. IEEE/ACM Int'l Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. C. Storti. Speaking of India: Bridging the communication gap when working with Indians. Intercultural Press, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. R. Sulaiman V. Innovations in agricultural extension in india. Technical report, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. Verma and H. Triandis. The measurement of collectivism in india. merging past, present, and future in cross-cultural psychology. Selected papers from the Fourteenth International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. P. H. White and S. G. Harkins. Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5):790--807, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Power to the peers: authority of source effects for a voice-based agricultural information service in rural India

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          ICTD '12: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development
          March 2012
          374 pages
          ISBN:9781450310451
          DOI:10.1145/2160673

          Copyright © 2012 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 12 March 2012

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate22of116submissions,19%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader