Producers’ motivation for collective action for kola production and marketing in Cameroon

Collective action has been used as a strategy to improve the benefits of smallholder producers of kola nuts in Cameroon. Despite demonstrated benefits, not all producers are involved in the collective action. The presented study used a modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) namely the Collective Action Behaviour model (CAB model) to analyse kola producers’ motivation for collective action activities. Five hypotheses are formulated and tested using data obtained from 185 farmers who are involved in kola production and marketing in theWestern highlands of Cameroon. Results which were generated using Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach for Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) showed that farmers’ intrinsic motivators and ease of use influenced their behavioural intent to join a group marketing activities. The perceived usefulness that was mainly related to the economic benefits of group activities did not influence farmers’ behavioural intent. It is therefore concluded that extension messages and promotional activities targeting collective action need to emphasise the perceived ease of use of involvement and social benefits associated with group activities in order to increase farmers’ participation.

Giving Is Nicer than Taking: Preschoolers Reciprocate Based on the Social Intentions of the Distributor

Recent research has found that even preschoolers give more resources to others who have previously given resources to them, but the psychological bases of this reciprocity are unknown. In our study, a puppet distributed resources between herself and a child by taking some from a pile in front of the child or else by giving some from a pile in front of herself. Although the resulting distributions were identical, three- and five-year-olds reciprocated less generously when the puppet had taken rather than given resources. This suggests that children’s judgments about resource distribution are more about the social intentions of the distributor and the social framing of the distributional act than about the amount of resources obtained. In order to rule out that the differences in the children’s reciprocal behavior were merely due to experiencing gains and losses, we conducted a follow-up study. Here, three- and-five year olds won or lost resources in a lottery draw and could then freely give or take resources to/from a puppet, respectively. In this study, they did not respond differently after winning vs. losing resources.