Search results

Mental budgeting, as a part of mental accounting theory, is expected to impact a household's budgetary management in terms of expenses. The purpose of this paper is to study whether and how mental budgeting can explain differences in farmers' reactions to different incentives of low-toxicity pesticide use.

Based on data from a survey of 393 vegetable farmers in the Sichuan Province, this analysis, using a Likert Scale approach, first explores whether farmers utilize mental budgeting. Secondly, using a Probit model, this paper analyzes how mental budgeting affects farmers' intentions to switch to low-toxicity pesticide use when faced with different incentives.

The results show that the majority of farmers categorize agricultural inputs into different groups and that 26.46% of the investigated farmers utilize mental budgeting for pest control practices. In addition, farmers who utilizing mental budgeting report a higher willingness to switch to low-toxicity pesticides when they're presented with a specific subsidy. Furthermore, if offered a price premium for quality, the willingness to switch to low-toxicity pesticides for farmers utilizing mentally budget is lower compared to other farmers.

This paper examines the existence of mental budgeting among farmers. It provides a better understanding of how farmers categorize agricultural inputs and their mental mechanisms with respect to agricultural expenses. Finally, this paper is the first to study the effects of mental budgeting on farmers' reactions to different incentives aimed at stimulating the adoption of low-toxicity pesticides.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that common method variance, specifically single-source bias, threatens the validity of a university-created student assessment of instructor instrument, suggesting that decisions made from these assessments are inherently flawed or skewed. Single-source bias leads to generalizations about assessments that might influence the ability of raters to separate multiple behaviors of an instructor.

Exploratory factor analysis, nested confirmatory factor analysis and within-and-between analysis are used to assess a university-developed, proprietary student assessment of instructor instrument to determine whether a hypothesized factor structure is identifiable. The instrument was developed over a three-year period by a university-mandated committee.

Findings suggest that common method variance, specifically single-source bias, resulted in the inability to identify hypothesized constructs statistically. Additional information is needed to identify valid instruments and an effective collection method for assessment.

Institutions are not guaranteed valid or useful instruments even if they invest significant time and resources to produce one. Without accurate instrumentation, there is insufficient information to assess constructs for teaching excellence. More valid measurement criteria can result from using multiple methods, altering collection times and educating students to distinguish multiple traits and behaviors of individual instructors more accurately.

This paper documents the three-year development of a university-wide student assessment of instructor instrument and carries development through to examining the psychometric properties and appropriateness of using this instrument to evaluate instructors.

Competition among higher education institutions has pushed universities to expand their competitive advantages. Based on the assumption that the core functions of universities are academic, understanding the teaching–learning process with the help of student evaluation of teaching (SET) would seem to be a logical solution in increasing competitiveness. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The current paper presents a narrative literature review examining how SETs work within the concept of service marketing, focusing specifically on the search, experience, and credence qualities of the provider. A review of the various factors that affect the collection of SETs is also included.

Relevant findings show the influence of students’ prior expectations on SET ratings. Therefore, teachers are advised to establish a psychological contract with the students at the start of the semester. Such an agreement should be negotiated, setting out the potential benefits of undertaking the course and a clear definition of acceptable performance within the class. Moreover, connections should be made between courses and subjects in order to provide an overall view of the entire program together with future career pathways.

Given the complex factors affecting SETs and the antecedents involved, there appears to be no single perfect tool to adequately reflect what is happening in the classroom. As different SETs may be needed for different courses and subjects, options such as faculty self-evaluation and peer-evaluation might be considered to augment current SETs.

When security managers choose to deploy a smart lock activation system, the number of units needed and their location needs to be established. This study aims to present the results of a penetration test involving smart locks in the context of building security. The authors investigated how the amount of effort an employee has to invest in complying with a security policy (i.e. walk from the office to the smart key activator) influences vulnerability. In particular, the attractiveness of a no-effort alternative (i.e. someone else walking from your office to the key activators to perform a task on your behalf) was evaluated. The contribution of this study relates to showing how experimental psychology can be used to determine the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of physical building security measures.

Twenty-seven different “offenders” visited the offices of 116 employees. Using a script, each offender introduced a problem, provided a solution and asked the employee to hand over their office key.

A total of 58.6 per cent of the employees handed over their keys to a stranger; no difference was found between female and male employees. The likelihood of handing over the keys for employees close to a key activator was similar to that of those who were further away.

The results suggest that installing additional key activators is not conducive to reducing the building’s security vulnerability associated with the handing over of keys to strangers.

No research seems to have investigated the distribution of smart key activators in the context of a physical penetration test. This research highlights the need to raise awareness of social engineering and of the vulnerabilities introduced via smart locks (and other smart systems).