







































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 2, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Karissa Palmer, Graduate Research Assistant, Texas A&M University, 2116 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2116, 

karissapalmer@tamu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3595-5213 
2. Robert Strong, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University, 2116 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2116, r-

strong@tamu.edu,  http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5279-4808 
3. Meg Patterson, Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University, 1266 TAMUS, Bryan, TX 77801, megpatterson@tamu.edu,  

 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6876-2931 
4. Chanda Elbert, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University, 2116 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2116, 

celbert@tamu.edu,  http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6115-6410 
48 

 

Improving Positive Food Waste Behaviors: An Egocentric 
Network Analysis Evaluation of Leading Women in 

Agriculture’s Advice Networks  
 

K. Palmer1, R. Strong2, M. Patterson3, C. Elbert4 

 
 

Article History 
Received: March 8, 2023 
Accepted: April 13, 2023 
Published: April 24, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
crisis, opinion leadership, trust, Farm 
Bureau, food security 
  

Abstract 
The multidimensionality of COVID-19’s consequences on food access and 
food waste behaviors was not immune to one gender versus another. The 
role of agricultural women leaders in alleviating food security concerns is 
not widely understood. An egocentric network analysis was conducted to 
assess the attributes possessed by social network peers and to discover 
variables that impact women’s food waste behavior. Researchers found 
that women’s advice networks were composed primarily of family or 
friends, known for more than five years, communicate weekly, can be 
described as an opinion leader, and share mutual trust. The density of 
women’s networks needs to be researched further to determine a 
strategic plan to expose women leaders to new information and other 
social networks. Data indicated women’s food waste behavior was 
influenced by their perceptions of COVID-19 as an opportunity for food 
waste change, innovation, and reputation enhancement. The need to 
develop current and future women agricultural leaders to improve food 
access and food sovereignty within global communities cannot be 
overstated. 



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

49 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Food security, the physical and economic access to safe nutritious food, affects approximately 
800 million people who suffer from poverty according to the United Nations Sustainable 
Development Goals (Ahn et al., 2022; United Nations, 2015). Research indicates that around 
one-third of food is wasted globally, meaning those leading in the agricultural industry need to 
prioritize the implementation of disposal practices to achieve food security (Slorach et al., 
2019). Consumers’ intention to reduce food waste stems from social emotions of guilt and 
shame (Jagau & Vyrastekova, 2017). Individuals’ become more worried about food waste as 
they grow older, especially women, whose attitudes are more disturbed by the negative 
impacts of wasted food (Cantaragiu, 2019).  

COVID-19 increased poverty and food insecurity levels for marginalized populations which were 
already vulnerable (Palmer & Strong, 2022; Pereira & Oliveira, 2020), requiring changes to the 
way people think and react to these issues. Proactivity, critical incident preparation, quick 
implementation, communication, and both a realistic and optimistic attitude have been cited as 
critical leadership competencies during COVID-19 (Stoller, 2020).  

Previous research indicated women were associated with more successful leadership qualities 
that led to a higher quality performance compared to male leaders (Gardner, 2017; Offerman 
et al., 2020). The Farm Bureau and other agricultural leadership organizations and the field of 
agricultural leadership shifted towards supporting women as the primary decision makers in 
both home and government (Satyavathi et al., 2010). The Farm Bureau supplies its leaders and 
members with the opportunity to develop professionally as leaders and become more effective 
during times of crisis (American Farm Bureau Federation, n.d.), therefore, the chosen sample 
was derived from a leadership program supported by the American Farm Bureau. 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Three theories framed this study: crisis leadership, opinion leadership, and trust. A crisis 
leadership model developed by Brockner and James (2008) was used to determine participants’ 
ability to view crises as an opportunity.  

Learning, reflection, damage control, treatment, divergent thinking, long-term outcomes, and 
stakeholder collaboration were factors described by Brockner and James’ (2008) crisis 
leadership theory that researchers chose to develop into a construct. Researchers in this study 
analyzed women’s perception of COVID-19, the most recent crisis, as an opportunity for food 
waste change, innovation, and reputation enhancement.  Several crises have occurred over the 
past few decades increasing the opportunity for researchers to investigate crisis leadership (Wu 
et al., 2021). According to the literature, a crisis is referred to as a rare public situation that 
causes unwanted outcomes for many individuals, including firms and their stakeholders, 
requiring immediate and effective leadership (James & Wooten, 2006). Crises differ among 
varying individuals and circumstances. Brockner and James (2008) discuss how innovation, 
change, and reputation enhancement are opportunities to be realized. Crises are predicted to 



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

50 

be perceived as opportunities when organization leaders adopt a learning orientation (Wooten 
& James, 2004). A leader’s ability to reflect and learn is critical for the success of an 
organization (Brockner & James, 2008).  

Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations theory was used to determine the effect of women’s 
opinion leadership in promoting food waste and food recovery strategies along with the effect 
from their personal networks. An opinion leader is a credible and trusted individual within a 
social system (Rogers, 2003). A role of an opinion leader is to reduce the uncertainty of an 
innovation in a social system (Rogers, 2003). To fulfill this role, an opinion leader must be aware 
of where the social system is relative to the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003) explains 
several attributes distinguished by opinion leaders: greater connection to the outside world, 
greater exposure to diverse media, high social engagement, higher socioeconomic status, more 
innovation, and greater interaction with change agents.  

A trust theory was chosen to determine the trust types between participants and their personal 
networks. McKnight and Chervany (2001) developed a model discussing five trust types: 
disposition to trust, institution-based trust, trusting beliefs, trusting intentions, and trust-
related behavior. The following terms are related to interpersonal trust. When an individual 
trusts interpersonally they do so by trusting other people, either personally, as in trusting 
behavior and trusting intentions, or based on their attributes, meaning trusting beliefs 
(McKnight & Chervany, 2001). Trusting beliefs mean the extent to which an individual 
confidently believes the other person has beneficial characteristics (McKnight & Chervany, 
2001). This is person-specific, not situation-specific. The willingness to depend on the other 
party with a sense of relative security, with the lack of control over the party, and the possibility 
of negative consequences is known as trusting intentions (McKnight & Chervany, 2001). 
Trusting intentions differ from disposition to trust in that it refers to specific other people 
rather than general other people (McKnight & Chervany, 2001). An individual who voluntarily 
depends on another with confidence even with the possibility of negative consequences is 
trust-related behavior (McKnight & Chervany, 2001). 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to describe the personal advice networks of women committee 
members in the southern region state Farm Bureau women’s leadership programs during 
COVID-19 that impact their food waste behavior, opinion leadership, and crisis leadership. Two 
objectives guided this study: 

1. Determine the attributes possessed by the leading women in agriculture’s network peers.  
2. Understand the relationships between independent variables and food waste behavior. 
 

Methods 
 
Egocentric network research is achieved by asking egos to elicit a set of alters from their social 
system (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Egocentric data collection consisted of asking questions in 



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

51 

which individuals’ responses provided relational information to better understand the influence 
of their personal network on egos’ behavior (Valente, 2010). Participating women were “egos” 
and the individuals in their social networks were “alters” (Borgatti et al., 2013). The population 
was (N = 159) women among 11 of the 12 U.S. southern regions state’s women’s leadership 
committees. The southern region states that participated in this study included Alabama, 
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, and Virginia. We were unable to collaborate with Kentucky due to lack of 
communication between the research team and leadership coordinator of Kentucky’s Farm 
Bureau. Data was collected in the fall of 2022, and 50 women responded, generating a response 
rate of 31.45%.  We compared early and late respondents, and no significant differences 
occurred (Lindner et al., 2001). Therefore, data was generalizable to the population.  

An electronic cross-sectional survey was distributed, via Qualtrics, to a sample comprised of 
women holding leadership positions within their states’ Farm Bureau Women’s Leadership 
Program. All 11 leadership coordinators who agreed to participate in this study were contacted 
and asked to share the survey link with their committee, once a week for five weeks. To assess 
egocentric networks, egos were asked three types of questions: name generators, name 
interpreters, and alter-alter ties (Borgatti et al., 2013). The name generator asked egos for a list 
of five people who sought advice since COVID-19 began, and the name interpreter questions 
asked egos to describe their alters. Alter-alter ties are the connections among alters and allow 
for the analysis of networks’ composition (Perry et al., 2018).  

All ego-level assessments were measured on a five-point scale (-2 = Strongly Disagree, -1 = 
Disagree, 0 = Neither Agree or Disagree, 1 = Agree, 2 = Strongly Agree.). The research team 
chose to code scales from negative two to positive two for better interpretation and 
readability. Ego’s food waste behavior was measured using a seven-item assessment developed 
by the researchers to determine egos’ food waste decisions and behaviors. Researchers 
developed the food waste behavior assessment using factors discussed by Brockner and James 
(2008) that relate to the behavioral responses of individuals during a crisis. Crisis leadership was 
determined by a three-item assessment with a five-point scale (strongly disagree = -2 to 
strongly agree = 2) for innovation, change, reputation enhancement based on women’s 
perception of crises as an opportunity according to Brockner and James (2008).  

The alter variables (gleaned from name interpreter questions) we chose to measure were: alter 
gender (0 = female, 1 = male, and 2 = other), alter relationship (0 = family, 1 = friend, 3 = 
neighbor, 4 = Farm Bureau, 5 = other, 6 = rancher, 7 = pastor, and 8 = neighbor), alter 
communication (0 = less than once per year, 1 = 1-2 times per year, 2 = every few months, 3 = 
every month, 4 = every few weeks, 5 = every week, 6 = every few days, 7 = every day), alter 
length known  (0 = less than 6 months, 1 = 6 months - 1 year, 2 = 1 to almost 2 years, 3 =  2 to 
almost 3 years, 4 =  3 to almost 4 years, 5 = 4 to almost 5 years, 6 = 5 or more years). The last 
five name interpreter questions measured alter trust in ego, ego trust in alter, ego describe 
alter as opinion leader, alter describe ego as opinion leader, and ego lead alter toward positive 
food waste decision on five-point scales (-2 = never, -1 = rarely, 0 = sometimes, 1 = usually, 2 = 
always).   



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

52 

Statistical Package for Social Sciences 27 was used to assess descriptive statistics for ego and 
alter-level data. Stata assisted with conducting more accurate correlation coefficients. The 11 
variables included in the correlation matrix were composed of two types: ego-level variables 
and network-level variables. There were three ego-level variables: crisis leadership sum score, 
opinion leadership sum score, and food waste sum score. These scores were based on the 
grand mean of responses to the three ego-level assessments described above. The remaining 
eight variables were network-level: proportion of network the ego has known five or more 
years, proportion of network that are Farm Bureau members, proportion of the network that 
ego communicates with weekly plus, proportion of network alter trusts ego “always,” 
heterogeneity of alter describe ego opinion leader, heterogeneity of egos lead alter toward 
positive food waste, heterogeneity of alter trusts ego, and heterogeneity of ego trusts alter. 
Researchers used ENet to calculate structural and compositional variables based on ego’s 
responses to the name interpreters mentioned above.   

A panel of faculty experts from a School of Public Health and a College of Agriculture at Texas 
A&M University assessed criterion and face validity and revised the opinion leadership 
construct, resulting in the removal of an item. The internal reliability of the instrument was 
determined by post-hoc Cronbach’s alpha scores (Cronbach, 1951). Cronbach’s alpha scores 
were determined for the three assessments within the instrument: food waste behavior (α = 
0.92, 7-items), crisis leadership (α = 0.96, 3-items), and opinion leadership characteristics (α = 
0.76, 5-items). 

Findings 
 
To answer objective one, researchers assessed attributes possessed by the alters to describe 
egos’ advice networks. The participants (n = 50) were able to collectively identify 243 (n = 243) 
alters through the name generator question. There was a total of 154 female alters (63.4%), 
while the other 36.5% were men (n = 89).  

The major type of relationship between ego and alter was family (43%, n = 105), followed by 
friend (66%, n = 27), Farm Bureau member (25%, n = 61), professional (2.9%, n = 7, rancher 
(0.4%, n = 1), pastor (0.4%, n = 1), and neighbor (0.4%, n = 1).  

Most egos communicated with the alters every day (25.9%, n = 63), every few days (20.6%, n = 
50), every week (17.3%, n = 42), every few weeks (15.2%, n = 37), every few months (11.5%, n = 
28), or every month (7.4%, n = 18). There were 2.1% (n = 5) of alters that communicated with 
ego less than 1-2 times per year.  

Many alters (89.3%, n = 216) have known the ego for five or more years. Fewer egos have 
known alters four to almost five years (3.7%, n = 9), three to almost four years (2.9%, n = 7), one 
to almost two years (2.5%, n = 6), less than six months (0.8%, n = 2), six months to a year (0.4%, 
n = 1), and two to almost three years (0.4%, n = 1).  



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

53 

A majority of alters always trust ego (85.6%, n = 208). There was 35 (14.4%) alters who usually 
trust ego. Regarding egos’ trust in alter, many alters are always trustworthy (82.7%, n = 201). 
There were 32 (13.2%) alters described as usually trustworthy, 4 (1.6%) as never, 3 (1.2%) as 
sometimes, and 3 (1.2%) as rarely.  

Opinion leadership used a five-item assessment to determine how likely women feel the 
possess the opinion leadership characteristics discussed by Rogers (2003): greater connection 
to the outside world, greater exposure to diverse media, high social engagement, higher 
socioeconomic status, more innovative, and greater interaction with change agents. The results 
were interpreted on a five-point scale (strongly disagree = -2, - 1 = disagree, 0 = sometimes, 1 = 
agree, to strongly agree = 2).  

Most alters were always described as an opinion leader (49.8%, n = 121). The remainder of 
alters were usually (32.1%, n = 78), sometimes (16%, n = 39), and rarely (2.1%, n = 5) described 
as opinion leaders. Alters would likely describe ego as an opinion leader always (41.6%, n = 
101). Followed by 87 (35.8%) alters that would usually describe ego as an opinion leader, 50 
(20.6%) who rarely, three (1.2%) who never, and two (0.8%) who rarely.  The majority of alters 
were sometimes (28.8%, n = 70), never (25.9%, n = 63), and usually (21%, n = 51) led toward 
positive food waste decision by ego, while the rest of alters were rarely (16.9%, n = 41) and 
always (7.4%, n = 18) led toward positive food waste decisions by ego.  

Objective two sought to understand the relationships between independent variables and food 
waste behavior. The seven items that measured women’s food waste during COVID-19 were: I 
assisted with food waste damage control, I learned about food waste, I reflected on my food 
waste management, I treated the food waste cause, I sought views of multiple stakeholders 
regarding food waste, I emphasized short and long-term food waste outcome, and I established 
norms for divergent thinking. Correlational analyses revealed statistically significant moderate 
and very strong correlations between ego crisis leadership sum and ego opinion leadership sum 
(r = .45, p = .00), ego food waste sum (r = .71, p = .00), and heterogeneity of alter led toward 
positive food waste (r = -.32, p = .03). This suggests that, as ego crisis leadership sum increases, 
especially in relation to ego food waste sum, their opinion leadership increases, and the 
heterogeneity of their network led toward positive food waste behavior by ego significantly 
decreases. In addition, researchers found statistically moderate correlations between ego 
opinion leadership sum and ego food waste sum (r = .35, p = .02) and heterogeneity of ego 
leads alter towards positive food waste (r = -.35, p = .02). Suggesting that, as ego opinion 
leadership increases, ego food waste sum increases, and the heterogeneity of their network led 
toward positive food waste behavior by ego significantly decreases.  

There was a moderate correlation between the proportion of network ego has known for five 
or more years and the proportion of network that communicate weekly plus (r = .30, p = .04). 
This indicates, as the proportion of network that ego has known for five or more years 
increases, their communication weekly plus increases. Low and substantial correlations were 
found between proportion network Farm Bureau and proportion network communicate weekly 
plus (r = -.66, p = .00) and proportion alter trust ego (r = -.28, p = .05). This suggests, as the 



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

54 

proportion of Farm Bureau members in an egos’ network increase, the network communication 
weekly plus and alter trust decreases. Researchers found statistically significant low and 
moderate correlations between proportion network communicate weekly and proportion 
network trusts ego (r = .31, p = .03) and heterogeneity between alter trusts in ego (r = -.29, p = 
.04). This argues, as ego communication with network increases, the proportion alter trust 
increases and heterogeneity of alter trust ego decreases.  

Furthermore, researchers found statistically moderate and substantial correlations between the 
proportion of network that trusts ego and the heterogeneity between alters that describe ego 
as an opinion leader (r = -.43, p = .00), heterogeneity between network trust in ego (r = -.68, p = 
.00), and heterogeneity between ego trust in network (r = -.39, p = .01). An increase in 
proportion network trusts ego, indicates a decrease in heterogeneity network describes ego as 
opinion leader, network trust in ego, and ego trust in network. A statistically significant 
moderate correlation was found between heterogeneity of network that describe ego as an 
opinion leader and heterogeneity network trusts ego (r = .45, p = .00). When the heterogeneity 
of network that describe ego as an opinion leader, the networks trust in ego increases. Lastly, a 
moderate correlation was found between heterogeneity network trusts ego and heterogeneity 
ego trusts network (r = .38, p = .01). As the heterogeneity of network trusts ego increases, so 
does egos trust in their network (see Table 1).   

  



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

55 

Table 1 
 
Correlations Between Predictor Variables  
 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 
1. Crisis Leadership Sum  48 -           

2. Opinion Leadership Sum (2) 47 .45** -          

3. Food Waste Sum 47 .71*** .35* -         

4. Proportion Network Known 
Five or More Years  

48    -        

5. Proportion Network Farm 
Bureau   

48     -       

6. Proportion Network 
Communicate Weekly Plus  

48    .30* -.66*** -      

7. Proportion Alter Trusts Ego 
Always  

48     -.28* .31* -     

8. Heterogeneity: Network 
Describe Ego Opinion Leader  

48         -.43* -    

9. Heterogeneity: Ego Lead 
Alter Toward Positive Food 
Waste  

48 -.32* -.35*       -   

10. Heterogeneity: Alter Trusts 
Ego 

48      -.29* -.68*** .45**  -  

11. Heterogeneity: Ego Trusts 
Alter  

48         -.39**   .39** - 

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. .01–.09 = Negligible association; .10–.29 = Low association; .30–.49 = Moderate association; 
.50–.69 = Substantial association; .70 or higher = Very strong association (Davis, 1971).  
 

  



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

56 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
This study promoted a deeper understanding of the advice networks of women leading in 
agriculture. The majority of an ego’s network fall within one of the five trust constructs: 
disposition to trust, institution-based trust, trusting beliefs, trusting intentions and trust-related 
behavior (McKnight & Chervany, 2001). By requiring women to provide the initials of five 
people they would go to for advice, the type of trust among egos and alters can be referred to 
as interpersonal and fall under the trust-related behavior construct which consists of 
cooperation, information sharing, informal agreements, decreasing controls, accepting 
influence, granting autonomy, and transacting business (McKnight & Chervany, 2001).  

Rogers (2003) explained how opinion leaders attempting to diffuse an innovation ultimately 
have a better outcome if they’re perceived as a credible and trusted individual. Alters who view 
ego as an opinion leader are more apt to adopt the food waste behaviors described by ego. 
However, this requires ego to disseminate food waste information among their social system, 
and researchers found that egos were likely not. The women who participated in this study 
were opinion leaders sought by change agents (Farm Bureau leadership coordinators) from a 
change agency (Farm Bureau). Yet, most women in this study did not perceive themselves as 
opinion leaders and failed to identify with the opinion leadership characteristics discussed by 
Rogers (2003).  

Crisis leadership, more specifically how women perceived COVID-19 as an opportunity for food 
waste innovation, change, and reputation enhancement (McKnight & Chervany, 2001), was 
found to be a major influence on food waste behavior. However, women in this study did not 
perceive COVID-19 as an opportunity for innovation, change, and reputation enhancement 
regarding food waste. There is a need for change agents and agencies (Seitz et al., 2022) to 
prioritize crisis leadership professional development among women leading in agriculture to 
assist with mitigating food waste during catastrophic events, like COVID-19.  

The majority of women involved in this study identified as white, indicating a lack of diversity in 
the southern states’ Women’s Leadership Committees. More inclusiveness would also include 
access to women of other ethnicities on these types of boards and across other industries. A 
large majority of women were part of the baby boomer generation. This finding may also 
indicate a pipeline issue with recruiting and retaining younger women in these types of 
positions. Women were more likely to have a network that consists majorly of alters they 
engage with frequently (every day) and seek advice from those they view as opinion leaders, 
meaning the Farm Bureau needs to encourage new relationships and create more networking 
opportunities for these women. The typical alter was a family member or friend that the ego 
has known for more than five years and talks with them at least every few days. This person can 
be described as an opinion leader, and there is mutual trust between the alter and the ego.  

A clear need exists for farm organizations to develop food waste leadership competencies so 
that women involved in the committees can positively influence their network peers. The ego 
networks were immensely dense and consisted majorly of strong ties, meaning women’s access 



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

57 

to new information and other social networks was minimal (Perry et al., 2018). Practitioners 
should promote new collaborations to expand women’s networks, leading to more knowledge 
and other social networks with various perspectives. Leadership change agents from states 
Farm Bureaus should consider prioritizing communication, community building, and 
development of opinion leaders to improve leadership competencies (Rogers, 2003; Strong et 
al., 2022) to achieve food security. Women leaders’ communication channels need further 
study. 

Acknowledgements 
 
This research was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture’s National 
Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project TEX09890. The research team wishes to 
acknowledge leadership coordinators and Women’s Leadership Committee members of Farm 
Bureau’s across the United States for making this research possible and allowing us to explore 
women leading in agriculture. 

K. Palmer – ideas, investigation, data collection, formal analysis, writing-original draft, 
visualization; R. Strong – methodology, validation, formal analysis, writing-review and editing, 
supervision; M. Patterson – methodology, software, formal analysis, writing-review and editing, 
C. Elbert – writing-review and editing. 

 
References 

 
Ahn, J., Briers, G., Baker, M., Price, E., Sohoulande Djebou, D. C., Strong, R., Piña, M., Kibriya, S. 

(2022). Food security and agricultural challenges in West-African rural communities: a 
machine learning analysis. International Journal of Food Properties, 25(1), 827–844. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2022.2066124  

American Farm Bureau Federation. (n.d.). Farm Bureau. https://www.fb.org/  

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Sage 
Publications. 

Brockner, J., & James, E. H. (2008). Toward an understanding of when executives see crisis as 
opportunity. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 94–115. 
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021886307313824   

Cantaragiu, R. (2019). The impact of gender on food waste at the consumer level. Journal in 
Economics, Business, Management, Finance, and Accounting, 29(4), 41–57. 
https://doi.org/10.2478/sues-2019-0017    

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 
297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555  



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

58 

Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Prentice-Hall. 

Gardner, R. A. (2017). Hannah and her sisters: Theorizing gender and leadership through the 
lens of feminist phenomenology. Leadership, 14(3), 291–306. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715017729940      

Jagau, H. L., & Vyrastekova, J. (2017). Behavioral approach to food waste: An 
experiment. British Food Journal, 119(4), 882–894. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-
2016-0213   

James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. (2006). Diversity crisis: How firms manage discrimination 
lawsuits. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1103–1118. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478091  

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science 
research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43–53. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043   

McKnight, H. D., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. 
Springer. 

Offerman, L. R., Thomas, K. R., Lanzo, L. A., & Smith, L. N. (2020). Achieving leadership and 
success: A 28-year follow-up of college women leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(4), 
101345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101345     

Palmer, K., & Strong, R. (2022). Evaluating impacts from natural weather-related disasters on 
farmers mental health worldwide. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 3(1), 43–
56. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.175  

Pereira, M., & Oliveira, A. M. (2020). Poverty and food insecurity may increase as the threat of 
COVID-19 spreads. Public Health Nutrition, 23(17), 3236–3240. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020003493    

Perry, B. L., Pescosolido, B. A., & Borgatti, S. P. (2018). Egocentric network analysis: 
Foundations, methods, and models. Cambridge University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316443255   

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). The Free Press. 

Satyavathi, C. T., Bharadwaj, C., & Brahmanand, P. S. (2010). Role of farm women in agriculture: 
Lessons learned. Gender, Technology and Development, 14(3), 441–449. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/097185241001400308   

 



Palmer et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.307   
 

59 

Seitz, P., Strong, R., Hague, S., & Murphrey, T. P. (2022). Evaluating agricultural extension 
agent’s sustainable cotton land production competencies: Subject matter discrepancies 
restricting farmers’ information adoption. Land, 11(11), 2075. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11112075   

Slorach, P. C., Jeswani, H. K., Cuéllar-Franca, R., & Azapagic, A. (2019). Environmental and 
economic implications of recovering resources from food waste in a circular economy. 
Science of The Total Environment, 693, 133516. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.322   

Stoller, J. K. (2020). Reflections on leadership in the time of COVID-19. BMJ Leader, 4(2), 77–79. 
https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Fleader-2020-000244   

Strong, R., Wynn, J. T. II, Lindner, J. R., & Palmer, K. (2022). Evaluating Brazilian agriculturalists’ 
IoT smart agriculture adoption barriers: Understanding stakeholder salience prior to 
launching an innovation. Sensors, 22(18), 6833. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22186833  

United Nations. (2015). The 17 goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals     

Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications. Oxford 
University Press. 

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. 
Cambridge University Press. 

Wooten, L. P., & James, E. H. (2004). When firms fail to learn: Perpetuation of discrimination in 
the workplace. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(1), 23–33. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492603259059      

Wu, Y. L., Shao, B., Newman, A., & Schwarz, G. (2021). Crisis leadership: A review and future 
research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(6), 101518. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101518   

 
 
 
© 2023 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


	307-Final-1
	307-Final-2
	307-Final-3

