Diffusion of Innovation

Home
Abstract
Introduction
Diffusion of Innovation Theory
Background
Diffusion research examines how ideas are spread among groups of people.
Theories
Diffusion goes beyond the two-step flow theory, centering on the conditions that
Discussion increase or decrease the likelihood that an innovation, a new idea, product or
practice, will be adopted by members of a given culture. In multi-step diffusion,
Rationale the opinion leader still exerts a large influence on the behavior of individuals,
called adopters, but there are also other intermediaries between the media and
Methods the audience's decision-making. One intermediary is the change agent, someone
who encourages an opinion leader to adopt or reject an innovation (Infante,
Rancer, & Womack, 1997).
Recommendations
Innovations are not adopted by all individuals in a social system at the same time.
References Instead, they tend to adopt in a time sequence, and can be classified into adopter
categories based upon how long it takes for them to begin using the new idea.
Appendices Practically speaking, it's very useful for a change agent to be able to identify which
category certain individuals belong to, since the short-term goal of most change
Survey agents is to facilitate the adoption of an innovation. Adoption of a new idea is
caused by human interaction through interpersonal networks. If the initial adopter
Authors of an innovation discusses it with two members of a given social system, and
these two become adopters who pass the innovation along to two peers, and so
on, the resulting distribution follows a binomial expansion. Expect adopter
distributions to follow a bell-shaped curve over time (Rogers, 1971).
Adopter Categorization
The criterion for adopter categorization is innovativeness. This is defined as the
degree to which an individual is relatively early in adopting a new idea then other
members of a social system. Innovativeness is considered "relative" in that an
individual has either more or less of it than others in a social system (Rogers,
1971).
Fig. 1 - Adopter categorization on the basis of innovativeness

Adopter distributions closely approach normality. The above figure shows the
normal frequency distributions divided into five categories: innovators, early
adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Innovators are the first 2.5
percent of a group to adopt a new idea. The next 13.5 percent to adopt an
innovation are labeled early adopters. The next 34 percent of the adopters are
called the early majority. The 34 percent of the group to the right of the mean are
the late majority, and the last 16 percent are considered laggards (Rogers, 1971).
The above method of classifying adopters is not symmetrical, nor is it necessary

for it to be so. There are three categories to the left of the mean and only two to
the right. While it is possible to break the laggard group into early and late
laggards, research shows this single group to be fairly homogenous. While
innovators and early adopters could be combined, research shows these two
groups as having distinctly different characteristics. The categories are 1)
exhaustive, in that they include all units of study, 2) mutually exclusive, excluding
from any other category a unit of study already appearing in a category, and 3)
derived from one classificatory principle. This method of adopter categorization is
presently the most widely used in diffusion research (Rogers, 1971).
Adopter Categories
Innovators are eager to try new ideas, to the point where their venturesomeness
almost becomes an obsession. Innovators’ interest in new ideas leads them out of
a local circle of peers and into social relationships more cosmopolite than normal.
Usually, innovators have substantial financial resources, and the ability to
understand and apply complex technical knowledge. While others may consider
the innovator to be rash or daring, it is the hazardous risk-taking that is of salient
value to this type of individual. The innovator is also willing to accept the
occasional setback when new ideas prove unsuccessful (Rogers, 1971).
Early adopters tend to be integrated into the local social system more than
innovators. The early adopters are considered to be localites, versus the
cosmopolite innovators. People in the early adopter category seem to have the
greatest degree of opinion leadership in most social systems. They provide
advice and information sought by other adopters about an innovation. Change
agents will seek out early adopters to help speed the diffusion process. The early
adopter is usually respected by his or her peers and has a reputation for
successful and discrete use of new ideas (Rogers, 1971).
Members of the early majority category will adopt new ideas just before the
average member of a social system. They interact frequently with peers, but are
not often found holding leadership positions. As the link between very early
adopters and people late to adopt, early majority adopters play an important part
in the diffusion process. Their innovation-decision time is relatively longer than
innovators and early adopters, since they deliberate some time before completely
adopting a new idea. Seldom leading, early majority adopters willingly follow in
adopting innovations (Rogers, 1971).
The late majority are a skeptical group, adopting new ideas just after the average
member of a social system. Their adoption may be borne out of economic
necessity and in response to increasing social pressure. They are cautious about
innovations, and are reluctant to adopt until most others in their social system do
so first. An innovation must definitely have the weight of system norms behind it
to convince the late majority. While they may be persuaded about the utility of an
innovation, there must be strong pressure from peers to adopt (Rogers, 1971).
Laggards are traditionalists and the last to adopt an innovation. Possessing
almost no opinion leadership, laggards are localite to the point of being isolates
compared to the other adopter categories. They are fixated on the past, and all
decisions must be made in terms of previous generations. Individual laggards
mainly interact with other traditionalists. An innovation finally adopted by a
laggard may already be rendered obsolete by more recent ideas already in use by
innovators. Laggards are likely to be suspicious not only of innovations, but of
innovators and change agents as well (Rogers, 1971).
Uses and Gratification
Uses and gratification is more a concept of research than a self-contained theory.

Even contributors in this field of research find problems with the scope of the
research and call uses and gratification an umbrella concept in which several
theories reside (Infante et al. 1997). Researchers in this field argue that scholars
have tried to do too much and should limit the scope and take a cultural-empirical
approach to how people choose from the abundance of cultural products
available.
Critics claim the theory pays too much attention to the individual and does not look
at the social context and the role the media plays in that social context. Rubin
(1985), as cited in Littlejohn (1996), suggests that audience motive research
based on uses and gratification research has been too compartmentalized within
certain cultures and demographic groups, leading to the assumption this has
thwarted synthesis and integration of research results, which are two key
ingredients in theory building.
The uses and gratification theory is a basic extension of the definition of an

attitude, which is a non-linear cluster of beliefs, evaluations, and perceptions.
These beliefs, evaluations, and perceptions give individuals latitude over how they
employ media in their lives; in other words, how individuals filter, interpret, and
convey to others the information received from a medium. Basically, a person’s
attitude toward a segment of the media is determined by beliefs about and
evaluations of the media. A key to this research is that the consumer, or audience
member, is the focal point instead of the message. The research views the
members of an audience as actively utilizing media contents, rather than being
passively acted upon by the media, according to Katz, Blumer, and Gurevitch
(1971) as cited in Littlejohn (1996). When audience members, not the media, are
the action takers, the variations taken from the messages received are the
intervening variables.
A core assumption of uses and gratification research is the assumption that

individual needs are satisfied by audience members actively seeking out the mass
media (Infante et al., 1997). Rubin (1983), as cited in Littlejohn (1996), designed a
study to explore adult viewers’ motivations, behaviors, attitudes and patterns of
interaction to see if behavioral and attitudinal consequences of the viewer could be
predicted. In 1984, the researcher identified two types of television viewers. The
first type is the habitual viewer who watches television for a diversion, has a high
regard for the medium, and is a frequent user The second type is the non-habitual
viewer who is selective, likes a particular program or type of programs and uses
the medium primarily for information. The non-habitual viewer is more goal
oriented when watching television and does not necessarily feel that television is
important. Rubin (1983) argues that habitual viewers use the medium as a
companion and that non-habitual viewers are more actively involved in the
viewing experience (Littlejohn, 1996).
Expectancy-value theory
Another theory to consider under this umbrella of uses and gratification research is
expectancy-value theory from information-integration theorist Martin Fishbein
(Littlejohn, 1996). The researcher proposes there are two kinds of belief; belief in
something and belief about something. The example used by Fishbein is the
person who believes in marijuana as a recreational drug or the person who
believes that using marijuana will move on to other drugs and serious crimes in
order to continue the habit.
In Fishbein’s theory development, attitudes are different from beliefs in that they
are evaluative and are correlated with beliefs and predispose a person to behave
a certain way toward the attitude object. The two beliefs about marijuana
mentioned above would change dramatically if more serious drugs and crime were
evaluated as bad. Also cited in Littlejohn is Philip Palmgreen, an early uses and
gratification researcher, who claims that gratifications are sought in terms of a
person’s beliefs about what a medium can provide and that person’s evaluation of
the medium’s content (Littlejohn, 1996).
Back to top

Diffusion of Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diffusion of Innovation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diffusion of Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Home

Fig. 1 - Adopter categorization on the basis of innovativeness

The above method of classifying adopters is not symmetrical, nor is it necessary

Uses and Gratification

Uses and gratification is more a concept of research than a self-contained theory.

The uses and gratification theory is a basic extension of the definition of an

A core assumption of uses and gratification research is the assumption that

You might also like