DETERMINANTS OF TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION: PEER EFFECTS IN MENSTRUAL CUP TAKE-UP

243 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Peer Effects in Product Adoption (2019, unknown): “…in product and technology adoption decisions; one focus of this literature has been how social learning can help the diffusion of new technologies in developing countries (e.g., Foster and Rosenzweig, 1995; Conley and Udry, 2010; Oster and Thornton, 2012; Kremer and Miguel, 2007; Björkegren, 2018).”
Access to modern energy: a review of barriers, drivers and impacts (2016, background): “2009), lack of information and awareness (Dupas 2009, 2011a) and peer effects (Kremer and Miguel, 2007; Oster and Thornton, 2012) are among the most important barriers to health technology adoption, particularly when returns appear uncertain.”
Leveling with friends: Social networks and Indian farmers' demand for a technology with heterogeneous benefits (2015, methodology): “A more flexible modeling approach proposed by Oster and Thornton (2012), and the onewe take, is to use a series of binary variables for each possible number of in-network qualifying farmers.”
Social Learning and Incentives for Experimentation and Communication (2018, background): “…2014; Beshears et al., 2015), job information (Magruder, 2010; Beaman, 2012), health inputs (Kremer and Miguel, 2007; Godlonton and Thornton, 2012; Oster and Thornton, 2012; Miller and Mobarak, 2015), energy choices (Alcott, 2011) and doctors prescribing drugs (Coleman et al., 1957; Iyengar et…”