PCS Champions GTHM: Behavior Change Territory. The Behavior Change We Want.
1 Diffusion & Interventions Diffusion of innovations Behavior change Behavior change is short term...
-
Upload
helen-dyer -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of 1 Diffusion & Interventions Diffusion of innovations Behavior change Behavior change is short term...
1
Diffusion & Interventions
• Diffusion of innovations
• Behavior change
• Behavior change is short term whereas diffusion looks at the long view of how new behaviors spread
1
2
Diffusion of Innovations
New ideas and practices originate enter communities from some external source. These external sources can be mass media, labor exchanges, cosmopolitan contact, technical shifts and so on. Adoption of the new idea or practice then flows through interpersonal contact networks.
2
3
Diffusion of Innovations
• Rogers wrote consecutive texts on this topic:– 1962 1st Edition– 1971 2nd Edition (with Shoemaker)– 1983 3rd Edition– 1995 4th Edition– 2003 5th Edition
• Synthesized, elaborated, codified, explained diffusion of innovations
3
4
ELEMENTS OF THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS
1) The rate of diffusion is influenced by the perceived characteristics of the innovation such as relative advantage, compatibility, observability, trialability and complexity, radicalness, and cost.
2) Diffusion occurs over time such that the rate of adoption often yields a cumulative adoption S-shaped pattern.
3) Individuals can be classified as early or late adopters.4) Individuals pass through stages during the adoption
process typically classified as (1) knowledge, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementation or trial, and (5) confirmation.
4
5
Characteristics of an Innovation
• Relative advantage• Compatibility• Complexity• Trialability• Observability• Cost• Radicalness
5
6
4 Elements according to Rogers
• Innovation: An idea or practice perceived as new– Perceived attributes: relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability
• Communication channels– Homophily vs. heterophily
• Time: at the individual & macro levels• Social system
6
7
Hypothetical Cumulative and Incidence Adoption Curves for Diffusion
Homogenous Mixing
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
Pe
rce
nt
Ad
op
ters
CumulativeAdopters
NewAdopters
7
88
99
Diffusion ofInnovations
Hierarchy of Effects Steps to Behavior Change(SBC)
Stages of Change
Rogers (1995) McGuire (1989) Piotrow et al. (1997) Prochaska et al.(1992)
1. Awareness 1. Recall 2. Liking 3. ComprehendingMessage4. Knowledge ofBehavior
1. Recalls message2. Understands topic3. Can name source ofsupply
1. Pre-contemplation
2. Persuasion 5. Skill acquisition6. Yielding to it7. Memory storage ofcontent
4. Responds favorably5. Discusses withfriends/family6. Thinks others approve7. Approves him/herself8. Recognizes innovationmeets need
2. Contemplation
3. Decision 8. Information search andretrieval9. Deciding on basis ofretrieval
9. Intends to consult aprovider10. Intends to adopt11. Goes to provider
3. Preparation
4. Implem-entation
10. Behaving accord withdecision
12. Initiates use13. Continues use
4. Action
5. Confirmation 11. Reinforcement ofdesired acts12. Post-behaviorconsolidating
14. Experiences benefits15. Advocates otherspractice16. Support practice in thecommunity
5. Maintenance
Behavior Change Stages in Four Models
10
Diffusion
• Takes time• Is difficult even when something is
seemingly worthwhile• Is guided and influenced by many factors,
some obvious, some not so obvious• Provides a macro – micro perspective on
behavior change
10
11
Diffusion
• Process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system
• Communication is special in that it attempts to reduce uncertainty about the innovation
• Diffusion vs. Dissemination vs. Technology Transfer
11
1212
13
Hypothetical Diffusion When Adopters Persuade Non-adopters at a Rate of One
Percent(Homogenous Mixing)
Time Cum.
Ado.
Non
Ado.
New
Ado.
Cum.
Ado.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
5
9.75
18.55
33.66
55.99
80.63
96.25
99.86
100
100
95
90.25
81.45
66.34
44.01
19.37
3.75
0.14
0
4.75
8.8
15.11
22.33
24.64
15.62
3.61
0.14
0
9.75
18.55
33.66
55.99
80.63
96.25
99.86
100
13
14
Hypothetical Cumulative and Incidence Adoption Curves for Diffusion
Homogenous Mixing
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
Pe
rce
nt
Ad
op
ters
CumulativeAdopters
NewAdopters
14
15
The Diffusion of Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP)
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 6 11 16
Time
Pe
rce
nt
Know ledge
Attitude
Practice
16
Example of Diffusion
16
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1314
15
28
29
30
31
3233
17
The Two-Step Flow Hypothesis of Mass Media
Influence
17
MassMedia
OpinionLeaders
Friends
Family
Coworkers
Others
1818
Mathematical Models Used to Derive Diffusion Rate Parameters
19
History• Early pre-paradigmatic research by
Anthropologists, Economists, & Sociologists interested in cultural change (1903-1940)
• In 1943, Ryan & Gross published a study farmers’ adoption of hybrid seed creating the paradigm
• By 1962 Rogers published “Diffusion of Innovations” which solidified the paradigm
• Coleman, Katz & Menzel’s (1966) study of Medical Innovation solidified the theory on diffusion networks
19
20
Ryan & Gross
• Studied the diffusion of hybrid seed corn, retrospectively 1928-1941
• 2 communities in Iowa, 255 of 257 farmers adopted
• Contrasted economic and social variables
• Established diffusion paradigm
20
21
Number of Diffusion Publications Over Time
05
10152025303540
41 43 46 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 72 75 80
Year
U.S. & EuropeanDeveloping NationsNations
21
22
Diffusion Publications and Research Innovations:Ratio of Innovations to Publications Remained Constant
020406080
100120140160180200
1941-1945 1946-1950 1951-1955 1956-1960 1961-1966
Number of Publications
Number of Research Innovations
22
23
Reasons for Decline
• It was perceived as fallow intellectually (15 of 18 variables used by Ryan & Gross)
• Political climate was against cultural imperialism. It was politically incorrect – associated with technological hegemony
• Environment suffered from the spread of technological innovations (pesticides, herbicides)
• Social scientists not trained in matrix methods to investigate network reasons for diffusion
23
24
Research on Innovation Diffusion in Many Fields
• In Demography and fertility transition studies• In Sociology by re-newed attention on
diffusion networks• In Communication as a tool to evaluate
communication campaigns• In Organizations as a means to understand
and plan change
24
25
Diffusion Networks
• A specific branch and approach to diffusion study
• Some might argue that diffusion is only diffusion when one looks at networks and that other “diffusion” studies are behavior or social change
• Diffusion networks has been historically the branch of networks focused on behavior change
25
2626
Lineage of Diffusion Network ModelsFrom Valente (2006)
Type (1) Social integration
• Social Factors are important - Ryan & Gross 1943
• Social Integration - Coleman Katz & Menzel 1966
• Opinion Leaders - Rogers 1964
• Norms - Becker 1970
• Rogers & Kincaid 1981
Type (2) Bridges & Structure
• Weak Ties - Granovetter 1973
• Burt 1987 1992
• Watts (2002)
27
Lineage (cont.)
Type (3) Critical levels• Schelling 1972• Thresholds - Granovetter 1978• Critical Mass - Marwell, Oliver et al. 1988; Markus 1988• Network Thresholds - Valente 1995/1996Type (4) Dynamics• Marsden & Polodny 1990• Spatial & Temporal Heterogeneity – Strang & Tuma,
1995• Valente 1995 2005
27
28
(1) Social Integration/ Opinion Leaders
• Integration can be measured many ways
• Behavior is a function of being embedded within a/the community
• Usually operationalized as receiving ties
28
29
Coleman Katz & Menzel 1966
• Actually 1957 was first paper
• Data collected 1955-1956
• Interviewed all MDs in 4 Illinois cities: Peoria, Bloomington, Galesburg, & Quincy
• Sampled prescription records first 3 days of each month to measure Time of Tetracycline Adoption
29
30
Diffusion of Tetracycline for Marginal versus Integrated Doctors
30
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Time
Pe
rce
nt
Ad
op
ters
0
1-2
3+
3131
Diffusion Network Simulation w/ 3 Initial Adopter Conditions (Valente & Davis, 1999)
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
Per
cen
t A
do
pte
rs
Opinion Leaders
Random
Marginals
32
Diffusion Network Game
• Distribute red, white & blue chips
• Give:– Red to OLs– Blue to Randoms and – White
• Allow them to give chips to those people who nominated them
32
33
Diffusion Network Game:Opinion Leader Model
0
0.5
1
0 1 2 3
Time
Perc
ent
Leaders
Randoms
Marginals
33
34
Diffusion Network Game
• Distribute Red, White & Blue Chips to different initial starts– Red = awareness– White = attitude– Blue = behavior
• Can only receive a white chip if have red one; only receive a blue one if have red & white
34
35
Diffusion Network Game: KAP-gap Demo
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time
Perc
ent Know ledge
Attitude
Practice
35
36
(2) Structural
• Structural models require data from the entire network
• Can use sociometric data to identify bridges
• Can also use to measure structural equivalence and constraint
36
37
Granovetter, Strength of Weak Ties (1973), AJS
• Seminal article
• Cited thousands of times
• Granovetter was White’s student
• First faculty appointment at JHU
• Left JHU for Stonybrook, now at Stanford
37
38
Granovetter, Strength of Weak Ties (cont.)
Cognitive balance inclines friends of friends to know friends - transitivity. Granovetter shows Figure 1 which is the forbidden triad, i.e., this type of network configuration rarely occurs.
38
A B
C
The Forbidden Triad
A B
C If A & B are linked and A & C are linked then it implies that C & B are linked
39
SWT: Bridges created shorter paths
Bridges - individuals who link otherwise disconnected sub-groups. Individuals who act as bridges have weak ties. So a bridge is composed of weak ties, but not all weak ties are bridges.
39
A BC
I
E
D
H
F
G
J
Weak Tie
K
L
40
(3) Critical Levels
• Tipping points
• Macro vs. micro tipping points, critical mass vs. thresholds
• Most CM/threshold models were not explicitly social network explanations
40
41
(4) Dynamics
• Can model how ideas/behaviors spread through a network
• Simplest model assumes static (fixed) network and the idea spreads on that network
• Start with initial adopters and let the behavior percolate through the network
41
4242
Network Exposure
Exposure=33% Exposure=66% Exposure=100%
= Non User = User
43
Exposure Equation
i
itijNt S
ASE
43
where E is the exposure matrix, S is the social network, A is the adoption matrix, n is the number of respondents, n+ indicates the sum of each row, and t is the time period. The exposure equation is a very general model in which the social network can be direct relations, positional relations, narrowly focused, or broadly focused.
44
Computing Network Weighted Scores Such as Network Exposure
44
1 2 3 4 …………...……….N
1 2 3 4 ………….….N
N x N AdjacencyMatrix (or weightmatrix)
Nx1Vectorof Scores
X =
Nx1 Vector ofNetwork Weighted Scores
Nx1Vectorof Row Totals
–
:
45
Computing Network Weighted Scores Such as Network Exposure
45
1 2 3 4 …………...……….N
1 2 3 4 ………….….N
Nx1Vectorof Scores
X =
Nx1 Vector ofNetwork Weighted Scores
Nx1Vectorof Row Totals
–
:
0 1 0 1 0 ….1 0 1 0 0 ….0 1 0 1 1 ….1 0 0 0 1 ….1 0 0 1 0 …...
10110..
22322..
.51.0.33.51.0..
46
NxT Matrix of Exposure Scores
46
1 2 3 4 …………...……T
1 2 3 4 ………….….N
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.50 ...0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ….0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ….0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 ….0.33 0.33 0.66 1.00 …...
47
4. Personal network exposure
Personal network exposure is the degree an individual is exposed to an innovation through his/her personal network.
Network exposure provides:
1. awareness information
2. influence/persuasion
3. detailed information on how to get the innovation, possible problems, updates, refills, enhancements, novel uses
4. something to talk about
47
48
Network Exposure (cont.)
5. social support needed to face opposition6. reinforcement and a sense of belonging7. relay experiencesExposure computed on direct ties; and on ties of ties by
using the geodesic and weighing the ties by its inverse.Every network has a different maximum geodesic measure
so we need to approximate the influence of any one point on any other point. Luckily the flow matrix has been created which does precisely that.
48
49
Three Studies with Data on Time-of-adoption & Social Networks
Medical Innovation Brazilian Farmers
Korean
Family Planning
Country USA Brazil Korean
# Respondents 125 Doctors 692 Farmers 1,047 Women
# Communities 4 11 25
Innovation Tetracycline Hybrid Corn Seed Family Planning
Time for Diffusion 18 Months 20 Years 11 Years
Year Data Collected 1955 1966 1973
Ave. Time to 50% 6 16 7
Highest Saturation 89 % 98 % 83 %
Lowest Saturation 81 % 29 % 44 %
Citation Coleman et al (1966)
Rogers et al (1970) Rogers & Kincaid (1981) 49
50
Datasets
• Provide static view of network
• 1 based on observational data on adoption (but it is sampled)
• 2 based on recall- though recall is probably pretty good
• They are varied and the network data are pretty good
50
51
Two of these Datasets Have Received the Most Attention
• Medical innovation by Coleman, Katz & Menzel (1966):
Burt, 1987; Marsden & Podolny 1990; Strang and Tuma, 1993; Valente, 1995; 1996; Van den Bulte & Lilien, 2001
• Korean family planning by Rogers & Kincaid (1981):
Dozier, 1977; Montgomery, 1994; Valente, 1995; 1996.
51
5252
Regression on Time to Adoption by Network Exposure & External Contacts
Medical Innovation
N=125
Brazilian Farmers
N=792
Korean Fam. Plan.
N=1,025
Exposure Direct Contacts
0.54 1.31* 1.09
Exposure via SE 0.88 2.85** 1.02
Attitude toward Science
0.61*
Journals 1.16*
Income 1.01*
Visits to City 1.00
# of children 1.10**
Campaign Exposure 1.04*
53
Maximum Likelihood Logistic Regression on Adoption by Time, Ties Sent/Received & Network Exposure.
Medical Innovation
N=947
Brazilian Farmers
N=10,092
Korean Fam. Plan.
N=7,103
Time (as %) 0.21 0.72 0.31
Time – Log 0.68 1.94 0.67
Sent 0.91 0.90 0.96
Received 1.06 1.02 1.06**
Exposure via Direct Contacts
0.64 1.07 1.19
SE Exposure 0.93 2.47* 1.12
53
54
Exposure Adoption?
• Represents a challenge to the diffusion and other behavior change models
• Could be a function of location on the diffusion curve – more likely after critical mass
• Very disappointing from a replication perspective
• What model can explain this?
54
55
Network Threshold
55
PN Threshold=33% PN Threshold=66% PN Threshold=100%
= Non User = User
5656
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29303132
33
34
3536
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Graph of KFP Communication NetworkRogers & Kincaid, 1981
57
Graph of Time of Adoption by Network Threshold for One Korean Family Planning Community
57
2
3
4
6
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
24
25
27
28
29
31
36
44
45
47
48
49
51
52 53 5455 56
575859 60
61
6263
Time
Thr
esho
ld
100%
0%
1963 1973
5858
Cross-Sectional Data
(N=611)
Panel Data
(N=141)
Low
Threshold
High
Threshold
Low
Threshold
High
Threshold
Campaign Exposure
2.36** 1.92 1.71* 1.26
*p<.05; **p<.01
Controls for education, age, income, and number of children
Table: Adjusted Odds Ratios for the Likelihood of Low and High-threshold Adoption.
59
Network Structure
• Network structure is partly defined by centrality.
• Central members, popular students for example, both influence and are influenced by group norms
• Central members can also contribute disproportionately to peer influence at micro level
59
60
Agent Based Models
• Advent of computing has enabled scientists to generate hypothetical scenarios and model how people interact
• Fundamental issue is:– Do assumptions match reality– Are the processes reasonable
61
First Contact Diffusion (Rumor)/Random Seeds
61
0.2
.4.6
.81
Perc
ent
0 5 10 15 20time
Real RandomCentralized Clustered
62
Rate of Diffusion
Network Structure
Real Rnd Cent Clustered
Seeds Leaders 0.16 0.42 0.41 0.27
Random 0.18 0.43 0.41 0.27
Between 0.20 0.45 0.47 0.27
Marginals 0.20 0.44 0.45 0.27
63
Simulated Network Structural Properties
Size Density Centralization
Clustering Recip. %
Real 150 1.46% 3.28 15.4 43.0
Random 150 1.46% 3.25 1.85 1.05
Centralized 150 1.46% 7.67 1.63 1.01
Clustered 150 1.46% 2.81 15.5 10.3