Self-efficacy beliefs and their influence on farmer willingness to experiment with novel farming techniques

Introduction

On one side of a village in the Niamey region, a farmer plants drought-tolerant millet on a quarter-hectare trial plot after watching a neighbor's successful harvest. On the other side, a farmer with identical resources refuses the same seed, saying it probably won't work on his soil. The difference between these two farmers is not informationboth attended the same extension session. The difference is confidence [1] . Bandura's self-efficacy theory [2] proposes that people's beliefs about their own capabilities determine whether they attempt new tasks, how much effort they invest, and how long they persist when difficulties arise. In agriculture, selfefficacy has been linked to technology adoption in East Asia and Latin America [3,4] , but its role in West African smallholder contexts has received limited attention. Niger's extension system reaches only an estimated 8% of farming households [5] , making it important to understand which psychological factors amplify or weaken the impact of the limited advisory contact that farmers do receive. Experimentation -defined here as voluntarily trying an unfamiliar technique on part of one's farm -differs from adoption because it implies willingness to test before committing [6] . This distinction matters because many improved techniques require local adaptation that only farmer-level experimentation can provide. This research tested whether self-efficacy beliefs predict farmer willingness to experiment and whether that willingness translates into actual experimentation behavior.

Conceptual model

The research used Bandura's social cognitive theory [2] as its primary framework. Self-efficacy is shaped by four sources: mastery experiences (past success), vicarious learning (observing peers succeed), social persuasion (encouragement from trusted others), and physiological states (stress levels). The conceptual model posited that these sources feed into self-efficacy beliefs, which in turn predict willingness to experiment, which then predicts actual experimentation. Extension contact was modeled as a form of social persuasion. A feedback loop was hypothesized from experimentation outcomes back to selfefficacy, reflecting how trial results update confidence.

Material and Methods Material

A total of 267 smallholder farmers from 18 villages in the Niamey region were selected through multi-stage cluster sampling between March and August 2023. Villages were randomly selected from three communes, and within each village, 14-16 households were sampled from extension registration lists. A structured interview schedule measured self-efficacy using a 10-item scale adapted from Schwarzer and Jerusalem [7] (five-point Likert scale), willingness to experiment (four items), and actual experimentation behavior in the preceding two seasons (binary). Demographic and farming characteristics were also collected. Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Niamey Social Research Ethics Committee (Protocol UN-SREC-2023-015, February 2023). www.extensionjournal.com

Methods

Self-efficacy scores were categorized as low (1.0-2.4), moderate (2.5-3.9), and high (4.0-5.0). Path analysis tested the hypothesized model using AMOS 28 with maximum likelihood estimation. Model fit was assessed using CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR. Descriptive statistics and independent-sample t-tests compared self-efficacy by demographic groups. Significance was set at p<0.05.

Pilot research

The interview schedule was pilot-tested with 30 farmers from two non-sampled villages in January 2023. Three selfefficacy items were revised for cultural appropriateness after pilot respondents found the original phrasing abstract. One experimentation item was split into two separate questions to distinguish between trying new crop varieties and new cultivation methods. The revised instrument showed acceptable reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.78 for self-efficacy, 0.74 for willingness).

Results

Table Model fit was acceptable: CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.056, SRMR = 0.048. Self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of willingness to experiment (β = 0.47), and peer demonstration exposure was the strongest predictor of selfefficacy (β = 0.36). Three sources feed self-efficacy: mastery experiences, vicarious learning through peer demonstrations, and social persuasion through extension contact. Self-efficacy then predicts willingness, which predicts actual experimentation. The dashed line shows the feedback loop from experimentation outcomes back to self-efficacy.

Discussion

The strong path from self-efficacy to willingness (β = 0.47) confirms Bandura's prediction that confidence is a gateway to action [2] . Interestingly, peer demonstration exposure influenced self-efficacy almost twice as strongly as extension contact (β = 0.36 vs 0.19), suggesting that seeing a neighbor succeed is a more powerful confidence builder than hearing an agent explain a technique [8] . This has direct implications for extension strategy: investing in farmer-tofarmer demonstration networks may yield better returns than increasing the frequency of conventional advisory visits. The finding that women scored lower on self-efficacy aligns with gender research in West African agriculture showing that women face additional barriers to trying new practices including limited land control and restricted mobility [9] . Extension programs targeting women should include explicit confidence-building components such as womenonly trial groups and female lead farmer mentorship [10] . The cross-sectional design limits causal inference, and selfreported experimentation may overestimate actual behavior. The sample was restricted to one region, and results may differ in more remote areas with less extension access.

Limitations

The cross-sectional design prevents confirming the causal direction of the self-efficacy-experimentation relationship.

Self-reported behavior measures may be subject to recall bias. The sample covered only the Niamey region, limiting generalizability to other agro-ecological zones in Niger. The feedback loop from experimentation back to self-efficacy could not be tested without longitudinal data.

Conclusion

Self-efficacy beliefs emerged as a strong predictor of farmer willingness to experiment with novel farming techniques in Niger. Farmers who watched peers successfully demonstrate new methods showed markedly higher confidence than those who relied on extension advice alone. These results argue for shifting extension strategy from an informationcentered model to a confidence-centered one. Small-scale trial plots, peer demonstration networks, and graduated risk exposure can build the self-efficacy that transforms interest into action. Extension services that measure and target farmer confidence alongside farmer knowledge will likely see higher experimentation rates and, eventually, more sustainable adoption of improved practices.

References

1. Maddux JE, Rogers RW. Self-efficacy and behavioral intentions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983; 45(1):69-78.
2. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84(2):191-215.
3. Luh YH, Jiang WJ. Self-efficacy and technology adoption in agriculture. Agric Econ. 2019; 50(4):473488.
4. Borges JAR, Foletto L, Xavier VT. An interdisciplinary framework for farmers' adoption of agricultural innovations. Land Use Policy. 2019; 83:286-293.
5. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Country programming framework: Niger. Rome: FAO; 2019.
6. Sumberg J, Okali C, Reece D. Agricultural research in www.extensionjournal.com the face of diversity, local knowledge and the participation imperative. Agric Syst. 2003; 76(2):739753.
7. BenYishay A, Mobarak AM. Social learning and incentives for experimentation and communication. Rev Econ Stud. 2019; 86(3):976-1009.
8. Doss CR. Designing agricultural technology for African women farmers: Lessons from 25 years of experience. World Dev. 2001; 29(12):2075-2092.
9. Ragasa C. Improving gender responsiveness of agricultural extension. Washington (DC): International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); 2014. Discussion Paper No. 01361.
10. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. Annu Commun Res. 2003; 5:1-20.
11. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 52:1-26.
12. Conley TG, Udry CR. Learning about a new technology: Pineapple in Ghana. Am Econ Rev. 2010; 100(1):35-69.
13. Aker JC, Mbiti IM. Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. J Econ Perspect. 2010; 24(3):207-232.
14. Knowler D, Bradshaw B. Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy. 2007; 32(1):25-48.
15. Davis K, Nkonya E, Kato E, Mekonnen DA, Odendo M, Miiro R, et al. Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and poverty in East Africa. World Dev. 2012; 40(2):402-413.
16. Moser CM, Barrett CB. The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield-increasing, low external-input technology: The case of SRI in Madagascar. Agric Syst. 2006; 76(2):1085-1100.
17. Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Econ Dev Cult Change. 1985; 33(2):255-298.
18. Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Agric Syst. 2006; 90(1-3):140-166.
19. Maertens A, Barrett CB. Measuring social network effects on agricultural technology adoption. Am J Agric Econ. 2013; 95(2):353-359.