Credibility assessment of agricultural information sources by smallholder farmers across communication channels

Introduction

A tobacco farmer in Pelagonia receives conflicting advice: the extension agent recommends reducing nitrogen application, a neighboring farmer swears by higher doses, and a social media post promotes an untested organic alternative. The farmer must decide whom to believe before planting season begins. This scenario plays out daily across smallholder communities where multiple information sources compete for farmer attention and trust [1] . Which sources farmers judge credible determines which advice they follow, making credibility assessment a critical bottleneck between information availability and technology adoption [2] . Source credibility research in communication studies identifies expertise, trustworthiness, and dynamism as core dimensions [3] . But agricultural information credibility operates differently from media or political credibility because farmers can directly test recommendations against observable field outcomes. This feedback loop means credibility is earned and lost through practical verification rather than rhetorical persuasion alone [4] . Despite its importance, credibility assessment by farmers across different communication channels has received limited empirical attention [5] . This research examined how smallholders in North Macedonia evaluated the credibility of six information sources and how these judgments predicted adoption decisions [6] .

Research area description

The Pelagonia region lies in southwestern North Macedonia (approximately 41.0°N, 21.4°E), encompassing the country's largest agricultural plain. The region produces tobacco, wheat, sunflower, and vegetables across holdings averaging 2.8 hectares. Farm households access extension through the National Extension Agency, farmer cooperatives, input dealers, community radio, and increasingly through mobile applications and social media platforms [7] .

Material and Methods

Material

The research surveyed 284 smallholder farmers from six municipalities in Pelagonia, selected through proportionate stratified sampling by farm size and crop type. A structured questionnaire measured credibility perceptions across six sources (extension agents, fellow farmers, radio, mobile apps, input dealers, social media) using validated multi-item scales. Semi-structured interviews (n=32) explored the reasoning behind credibility judgments [8] .

Methods

Data collection ran from October 2021 through March 2023 at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje. Credibility was measured on a 5-point composite scale with four subscales: perceived expertise, trustworthiness, experiential verification, and message consistency [9] . Adoption behavior was tracked for three specific recommendations delivered through each channel during the research period. Multiple regression tested credibility as an adoption predictor. Threshold analysis identified the credibility score below which adoption probability declined sharply [10] . Ethics approval was obtained (Protocol UKIM-REC-2021-061, September 2021). www.extensionjournal.com

Ethical considerations

The UKIM Research Ethics Committee approved this research (Protocol UKIM-REC-2021-061, September 2021). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. No individual source credibility ratings were shared with extension agencies or input dealers to prevent potential retaliation against farmers providing critical assessments. Source credibility was the strongest adoption predictor (OR=1.54). A credibility threshold around 3.5/5 marked a sharp decline in adoption probability sources below this score were rarely acted upon regardless of information quality.

Results

Comprehensive interpretation

The credibility hierarchy separated into three tiers: highcredibility interpersonal sources (extension agents, fellow farmers), moderate-credibility broadcast sources (radio, mobile apps), and low-credibility commercial/social sources (input dealers, social media). The 3.5/5 threshold suggests a cognitive boundary where farmers shift from active consideration to dismissal of information sources.

Discussion

Extension agents achieving the highest overall credibility while fellow farmers led on trustworthiness and verification creates an interesting complementarity. Farmers trust neighbors' experiential knowledge but value agents' technical expertise [3] . This suggests extension strategies pairing agent expertise with farmer-to-farmer trust networks could maximize credibility across all dimensions [11] . The low credibility of social media (2.14/5) despite growing usage reflects farmers' ability to distinguish between accessibility and reliability [12] . Input dealers scoring low on trust (2.41) despite moderate expertise (2.94) reveals that farmers recognize commercial interests as credibility-undermining [13] . The 3.5 threshold has practical significance information channels falling below this score contribute little to adoption regardless of investment. This finding challenges the assumption that simply increasing information delivery through any channel will improve technology uptake [14] .

Practical applications

Extension systems should leverage the credibility complementarity between agents and fellow farmers through structured lead farmer programs where extensiontrained farmers deliver recommendations through trusted peer channels. Investment in low-credibility channels like social media should focus on building verification mechanisms rather than increasing volume. Sources below the 3.5 credibility threshold need credibility-building interventions before they can effectively promote adoption [15, 16] .

Conclusion

Smallholder farmers in Pelagonia applied sophisticated credibility assessments that clearly differentiated information sources. Extension agents and fellow farmers occupied distinct but complementary credibility niches expertise versus experiential trust. A credibility threshold around 3.5/5 separated actionable from dismissed information sources. Source credibility predicted adoption more strongly than education or farm characteristics, confirming that how farmers evaluate information sources matters more than the volume of information available. Extension strategies should be designed around credibility dynamics rather than assuming that any delivered message will be equally received.

References

1. Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 1985;33(2):255-298.
2. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003.
3. Hovland CI, Janis IL, Kelley HH. Communication and Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1953.
4. Leeuwis C, van den Ban A. Communication for Rural Innovation. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2004.
5. Hightower R, Brady M, Baker TL. Investigating the role of the physical environment in hedonic service consumption. Journal of Business Research. 2002;55(9):697-707.
6. State Statistical Office. Agricultural Census of North Macedonia 2020. Skopje: SSO; 2021. www.extensionjournal.com
7. MAFWE. Agricultural Extension Service Annual Report 2021. Skopje: Ministry of Agriculture; 2022.
8. Kumar R. Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide. London: Sage; 2019.
9. Ohanian R. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising. 1990;19(3):39-52.
10. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied Logistic Regression. Hoboken: John Wiley; 2013.
11. Swanson BE, Rajalahti R. Strengthening Agricultural Extension and Advisory Systems. Washington DC: World Bank; 2010.
12. Kalyango Y, Adu-Gyamfi E. The digital divide and its implications for agricultural communication. Journal of Applied Communications. 2019;103(2):44-58.
13. Genius M, Koundouri P, Nauges C, Tzouvelekas V. Information transmission in irrigation technology adoption and diffusion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2014;96(1):233-248.
14. Maertens A, Barrett CB. Measuring social networks' effects on agricultural technology adoption. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2013;95(2):353359.
15. Aker JC. Dial A for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agricultural Economics. 2011;42(6):631-647.
16. Spielman DJ, Davis K, Negash M, Ayele G. Rural innovation systems and networks. Agriculture and Human Values. 2011;28(2):195-212.