EXAMPLE: DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION / CONTAMINATION (or ANYTHING TRANSMITTABLE)

 

The art and science of how to "diffuse" or propagate an innovation into a population has been the work of many applied social scientists, psychologists, and researchers. After all, various organizations have impetuses to sell certain products, lifestyles, behaviors, and values--for their various interests. If there are efficient and effective ways to diffuse innovations, then most organizations will pursue those efforts. Some of these endeavors include advertising and marketing; they include using people's homophilous social networks to reach other potential like-minded individuals or "reference group".

"Contamination" in a Social Network: All sorts of things move through a social network. The adoption of new things in a network is called "contamination".

What Moves through a Social Network: These things that move through a network--ideas, resources, information, techniques, attitudes, behaviors, infections like STIs (sexually transmitted infections) and diseases like STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), and products--may be considered positive or negative (or neither), depending on the individual ego node and on the social network. Innovations are generally seen as positive, but that again is a subjective approach. It may well be that certain ideas and practices may promote the diffusion of a particular product, so there are "interaction effects" between elements that are diffused in a social network.

Accelerators for Diffusion: Certain individuals are seen as accelerators of innovations. Certain "fat nodes" may have outsized impacts as "leaders" in particular social environments. Those with low thresholds for infectiousness (meaning that they are open to innovations in the system) are likely to be highly responsive to adopting new elements diffusing through the social network. (Sometimes, social competition--like "keeping up with the Joneses"--may be a factor in adoption of particular innovations.)

Saturation in a Social Network: "Percolation" refers to a certain point of saturation when an epidemic suddenly sparks and spreads quickly. Until that percolation point, an epidemic may remain silent and unseen.

Those with higher thresholds may reach the limit of pressure when all the direct nodes one degree out (directly connected) have all converted. This assumes a kind of peer pressure influence.

Not Correlational Predictiveness: The research does not show a clear correlational predictiveness about innovation though, so the researchers have gone to examining the various uniqueness of nodes to understand why some convert, and others do not. There is not a systematic relationship of adoption of innovations. In that light, researchers have started looking more closely at the attributes of individual nodes--such as personality, decision-making, preferences, and other aspects, that may influence whether that node (individual) adopts something new.

The way the various "diffusion of innovation" scenarios manifest will differ based on the element that is studied as well as the particular social network. Further, how the diffusion is measured will affect the data.

0 or 1, No or Yes: In a sense, people can choose the binary "no" or "yes" regarding such innovations that come through their social networks. To choose suggests multiple dependencies: awareness, choice, and volition. Oftentimes, though, elements may move through a social network with such speed or silence that people do not notice the adoption. Or they may not realize they have a choice (or further, they may not actually have a choice). Sometimes, emotions carry the day, so choices are not logical cognitive ones but are affective or emotion-based. Other choices are made passively--through non-action (such as not opting out).

Groupthink at one Extreme: In terms of group decision-making, this diffusion can become insidious, with everyone lining up behind an idea that is first mentioned ("the Abilene Paradox") in a way that may be unthinking and detrimental to choices. To avoid this, some groups assign individuals to provide "minority report" opinions. Others work hard to create an open atmosphere, so that a variety of opinions may be welcomed at any time. Research has found that having even one dissenter to a majority opinion may open the way to a wider range of ideas considered. A dissenting opinion may break the spell of a dominant idea.

The psychological phenomena of "cognitive dissonance" may mean that people will discount conflicting information from what they have committed to mentally. Dr. Daniel Kahneman also talks about the WYSIATI ("what you see is all there is") phenomena, which can lead to poor decision-making when people think they have sufficient information and stop looking further (or stop sampling the environment for more information).

 

 

Diffusion of Innovation

 

 

 

 

 

The above curve assumes that sufficient momentum may be achieved if a certain proportion of a population (critical mass) may buy into a new approach, and at the 20 percent mark "go viral" with people sparking each other to adopt.

 

 

Let's Talk! 1. THE MADNESS OF CROWDS: Have you ever experienced social contagion? What was that experience like with you as an ego / agent / node / vertice? (What was the lived experience like?) How do you choose to be part of a social contagion? Is this all about being in the right place at the right time to "catch" the contagion? How do you choose to delink from a social contagion?   2. COOL-HUNTING: So it sounds like people do spark off of other people who are "cool." They choose to "follow" others through emulation. If you were charged with "cool-hunting" in the city's various hotspots, where would you go? What would you look for? How do you identify a person who is cutting-edge cool in a futuristic way, not a "I'm following the cool person now" sort of way? (How would you identify a potential "fat node" with a lot of potential influence in a social network? Or rather how do you identify an up-and-coming "fat node"?)   3. GOING VIRAL: The "holy grail" of marketing efforts is to spark viral enthusiasm for a product and strong word-of-mouth. From the many gazillion hours of YouTube(TM) videos (dancing wedding party members, a toddler being bitten by his little brother, hoaxes, music videos, and pet tricks), which ones tend to "go viral," and why? What sparks people to certain mass actions? What forms a social "meme" (a cultural transmission)? How did your social network respond to this viral agent?   4. INFECTED BY AN INNOVATION: In thinking of an experience with the diffusion of innovation, how did that innovation spark? How vulnerable were you to the infection? What made you vulnerable? If you were invulnerable to the infection, explain why. If you were invulnerable, explain why.   5. PROFILING A VIRTUAL GROUP: In distributed networks, people may be loosely connected but sparked by shared ideas, values, or ideologies. One example of this involves the Anonymous hacker collective. Theirs is a case of "diffusion of participation" through a distributed low-density network (Underwood & Welser, 2011). Any ideas on how you might analyze this secretive network? What do you think researchers have found about their social network structure? What in their message or ideology makes them so appealing to so many (attracting up to apparently 20,000 attackers in one hacktivism escapade)? (Other research has since come out suggesting that these numbers are inflated and that a controller of a botnet sold or contributed his botnet services to the group for at least one attack.)   References   Underwood, P. & Welser, H.T. (2011). 'The Internet is Here': Emergent coordination and innovation of protest forms in digital culture. In iConference. Seattle, Washington. ACM. 304 - 311.

 

 

toc | return to top | previous page | next page