No abstract

Studies in the adoption of improved farm practices have used various measures. Adoption has been studied both as singlepractice adoption behaviour (Gross, 1949; Gross & Taves, 1952; Hoffer, 1942; Lindstrom, 1958; Ryan & Gross, 1943, 1950; Wilkening, 195ob, 1953) and as multipractice adoption behaviour (Bauder, 1960; Bose, 1961, 1962; Bose & Dasgupta, 1962; Bose, Dasgupta, & Das, 1963; Copp, 1956; Dasgupta, 1963a, 1963b; Duncan & Kreitlow, 1954; Fliegel, 1956; Freeman, 1961; Hoffer, 1942; Marsh & Coleman, 1954a, 1954b, 1954c; Pedersen, 1951; Rahim, 1961; Ramsey, Polson, & Spencer, 1959; Rogers, 1957, 1958, 1961, 1962; Rogers & Burdge, 1962; Rogers & Capener, 1960; Rogers, Havena, & Cartano, 1962; Rogers & Leuthold, 1962; Wilkening, 195oa, 1952). In the former case, the ratio of farmers adopting a practice to the farmers not adopting it has been used as a measure; while in the latter case, the ratio of the number of practices adopted to the number of practices advocated has usually been used as a measure of adoption. In a few cases, the The journal of Applied Behavioral Science time of adoption has also been used (Bose, 1962; Bose, Dasgupta, & Das, 1963; Dasgupta, 1963a, 1963b; Rahim, 1961; Rogers, 1957, 1958, 1961, 1962; Rogers & Burdge, 1962; Rogers & Capener, 1960; Rogers, Havena, & Cartano, 1962; Rogers & Leuthold, 1962). Adoption is complex behaviour. It involves a number of variables. A simple index based on one variable may not give an accurate measure of adoption. This paper presents a new scale for measuring adoption behaviour, taking into account the different variables involved. The final scale was tried in a village in North India, the results of which have been reported (Chattopadhyay & Pareek, 1964a).

The ('why" of human behavior has been the most intriguing and the most difficult question to answer. And yet it is the basic question, as "how" very much depends on the answer to this question.Those who are interested in planning programs of change and spelling out how change should be introduced in order to make it more effective and lasting, are concerned with the question why people behave the way they do. Why do people start new industries? Why do people adopt improved farming techniques? Why do people use contraceptive methods? Answers to such questions have wide implications for action programs.

Entrepreneurs, like all creative people, have to contend constantly with various kinds of mental stresses springing from a variety of sources. The entrepreneurs may not even be conscious of these stresses or where they originate from. Pleading that if the entrepreneurs are aware of the nature and pattern of their stresses they would be better able to cope with them, the author presents here an instrument which can help the entrepreneurs discover the sources of their stresses and gauge their intensity.

Development is the process of unfolding the unique potential and strengths of individuals and groups in a society. This process is fostered by the presence of certain values that constitute a special culture—a combination of assertiveness (autonomy, achievement, and creativity) and extension (concern for others and collective action). Each societal culture has characteristics that have both functional and dysfunctional aspects for development. The task of action research is to sift functional from dysfunctional aspects, to build on and strengthen the former, and to reduce and manage the latter. This article describes projects that led the author to this formulation and to his current emphasis on the role of political culture in development. Implications for the role of psychologists and other social scientists in contributing to the functionality of political culture are presented.