Roger's Diffusion Of Innovation Theory
Diffusion research examines how ideas are spread among groups of people. Diffusion goes beyond the twostep flow theory, cantering on the conditions that increase or decrease the likelihood that members of a given culture will adopt an innovation, a new idea, product or practice. In multi-step diffusion, the opinion leader still exerts a large influence on the behaviour of individuals, called adopters, but there are also other intermediaries between the media and 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). Not all individuals adopt innovations in a social system at the same time. Instead, they tend to adopt in a time sequence, and can be classified into adopter categories based upon how long it takes them to begin using the new idea. Practically speaking, it is 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 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 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 do in a social system (Rogers, 1971). Figure : Adopter categorization based on 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 entrepreneurial eagerness 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
innovators rash or daring, the hazardous risk-taking 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 localities, 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 sceptical 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 localised 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).
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 entrepreneurial eagerness 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
innovators rash or daring, the hazardous risk-taking 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 localities, 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 sceptical 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 localised 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).