Does Peer Use Influence Adoption of Efficient Cookstoves? Evidence From a Randomized Controlled Trial in Uganda

References

• Abadie, A. & Gay, S. (2004). The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study. Journal of Health Economics, 25, 599–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 291–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts, J. W. C., Frambach, R. T. & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2011). Generalizations on consumer innovation adoption: A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28, 134–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandiera, O. & Rasul, I. (2006). Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. The Economic Journal, 116, 869–902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayer, P. J., Pintoff, R. & Pozen, D. (2004). Building criminal capital behind bars: Peer effects in juvenile corrections. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 441882. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=441882
   Google Scholar
• Beltramo, T. (2010). Peer effects and usage of the solar oven: Evidence from rural Senegal (Doctoral dissertation). Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italy. Retrieved from http://dspace.unive.it/handle/10579/1033
   Google Scholar
• Beltramo, T., Blalock, G., Levine, D. I. & Simons, A. M. (2014). The effect of marketing messages, liquidity constraints, and household bargaining on willingness to pay for a nontraditional cookstove (Working Paper U.C. Berkeley CEGA #35, February). Retrieved from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4vj3w941
   Google Scholar
• Beshears, J., Choi, J., Laibson, D. & Madrian, B. (2006). The importance of default options for retirement savings outcomes: Evidence from the United States. In J. Brown J. Liebman & D. A. Wise (Eds.), Social Security policy in a changing environment (pp. 167–195). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4539.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bursztyn, L., Ederer, F., Ferman, B. & Yuchtman, N. (2012). Understanding peer effects in financial decisions: Evidence from a field experiment. NBER Working Paper 18241. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Card, D. & Giuliano, L. (2012). Peer effects and multiple equilibria in the risky behavior of friends. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 1130–1149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conley, T. G. & Udry, C. R. (2010). Learning about a new technology: Pineapple in Ghana. American Economic Review, 100, 35–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, G., Boisjoly, J., Kremer, M., Levy, D. M. & Eccles, J. (2005). Peer effects in drug use and sex among college students. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 375–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, A. D. & Rosenzweig, M. R. (1995). Learning by doing and learning from others: Human capital and technical change in agriculture. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 1176–1209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaeser, E. L., Sacerdote, B. I. & Scheinkman, J. A. (2003). The social multiplier. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 345–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guryan, J., Kroft, K. & Notowidigdo, M. J. (2009). Peer effects in the workplace: Evidence from random groupings in professional golf tournaments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1, 34–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrell, S., Beltramo, T., Levine, D. I., Blalock, G. & Simons, A. M. (2013). What is a “meal? Comparing methods to determine cooking events. Working Paper WP 2013–20. Cornell, NY: Cornell University. Retrieved from http://dyson.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/wp/2013/Cornell-Dyson-wp1320.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. & Goldstein, D. (2003, November). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302, 1338–1339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kling, J. R., Liebman, J. B. & Katz, L. F. (2007). Experimental analysis of neighborhood effects. Econometrica, 75, 83–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, D. I., Beltramo, T., Blalock, G. & Cotterman, C. (2013). What impedes efficient adoption of products? Evidence from randomized variation in sales offers for improved cookstoves in Uganda. Working Paper, Berkeley Center for Effective Global Action #14, June. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/86v4x8nn#page-1
   Google Scholar
• Lim, S. S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., Adair-Rohani, H., Amann, M., … Ezzati, M. (2012). A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 380, 2224–2260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luoto, J., Mahmud, M., Albert, J., Luby, S., Najnin, N., Unicomb, L. & Levine, D. I. (2012). Learning to dislike safe water products: Results from a randomized controlled trial of the effects of direct and peer experience on willingness to pay. Environmental Science & Technology, 46, 6244–6251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manski, C. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies, 60, 531–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mbondo, G. D. (2013). Social learning through social networks and technological appropriation: The role of peer effects in the adoption and use of the Internet in Cameroonian Tontines. International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–42.
   Google Scholar
• Meredith, J., Robinson, J., Walker, S. & Wydick, B. (2012, October). Keeping the doctor away: Experimental evidence on investment in preventative health products. Berkeley, CA: Center for Effective Global Action. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/24715228#page-1
   Google Scholar
• Miguel, E. & Kremer, M. (2004). Worms: Identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica, 72, 159–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffitt, R. (2001). Policy interventions, low-level equilibria, and social interactions. In S. Durlauf & P. Young (Eds.), Social dynamics (pp. 45–82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moretti, E. (2011). Social learning and peer effects in consumption: Evidence from movie sales. Review of Economic Studies, 78, 356–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison, D. G. (1979). Purchase intentions and purchase behavior. Journal of Marketing, 43, 65–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oster, E. & Thornton, R. (2009). Determinants of technology adoption: Private value and peer effects in menstrual cup take-up. NBER Working Paper 114828. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacerdote, B. (2011). Peer effects in education: How might they work, how big are they and how much do we know thus far? In E. A. Hanushek S. Machin & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (vol. 3, pp. 249–277). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/h/eee/educhp/3-04.html
   Google Scholar
• Uganda Bureau of Statistics and ICF International Inc. (2012). Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Kampala, Uganda: UBOS; Calverton, MD: ICF International Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Verplanken, B. & Wood, W. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25, 90–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar