DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS THEORY

the adoption of new ideas, media, etc.

(or: Multi-step flow theory)

History and Orientation

Diffusion research goes one step further than two-step flow theory. The original
diffusion research was done as early as 1903 by the French sociologist Gabriel
Tarde who plotted the original S-shaped diffusion curve. Tardes' 1903 S-shaped
curve is of current importance because "most innovations have an S-shaped rate of
adoption" (Rogers, 1995).
Core Assumptions and Statements
Core: Diffusion research centers on the conditions which increase or decrease the
likelihood that a new idea, product, or practice will be adopted by members of a
given culture. Diffusion of innovation theory predicts that media as well as
interpersonal contacts provide information and influence opinion and judgment.
Studying how innovation occurs, E.M. Rogers (1995) argued that it consists of four
stages: invention, diffusion (or communication) through the social system, time and
consequences. The information flows through networks. The nature of networks and
the roles opinion leaders play in them determine the likelihood that the innovation will
be adopted. Innovation diffusion research has attempted to explain the variables that
influence how and why users adopt a new information medium, such as the Internet.
Opinion leaders exert influence on audience behavior via their personal contact, but
additional intermediaries called change agents and gatekeepers are also included in
the process of diffusion. Five adopter categories are: (1) innovators, (2) early
adopters, (3) early majority, (4) late majority, and (5) laggards. These categories
follow a standard deviation-curve, very little innovators adopt the innovation in the
beginning (2,5%), early adopters making up for 13,5% a short time later, the early
majority 34%, the late majority 34% and after some time finally the laggards make up
for 16%.
Statements: Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over a period of time among the members of a social
system. An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived to be new by
an individual or other unit of adoption. Communication is a process in which
participants create and share information with one another to reach a mutual
understanding (Rogers, 1995).
Conceptual Model

Diffusion of innovation model.

Source: Rogers (1995)
Favorite Methods
Some of the methods are network analysis, surveys, field experiments and ECCO
analysis. ECCO, Episodic Communication Channels in Organization, analysis is a
form of a data collection log-sheet. This method is specially designed to analyze and
map communication networks and measure rates of flow, distortion of messages,
and redundancy. The ECCO is used to monitor the progress of a specific piece of
information through the organization.
Scope and Application
Diffusion research has focused on five elements: (1) the characteristics of an
innovation which may influence its adoption; (2) the decision-making process that
occurs when individuals consider adopting a new idea, product or practice; (3) the
characteristics of individuals that make them likely to adopt an innovation; (4) the
consequences for individuals and society of adopting an innovation; and (5)
communication channels used in the adoption process.
Example
To be added.
References
Key publications
Rogers, E.M. (1976). New Product Adoption and Diffusion. Journal of Consumer
Research, 2 (March), 290 -301.
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th edition). The Free Press. New
York.
Pijpers, R.E., Montfort, van, K. & Heemstra, F.J. (2002). Acceptatie van ICT: Theorie
en een veldonderzoek onder topmanagers. Bedrijfskunde, 74,4.

See also: Two Step Flow Theory

See also Communication and Information Technology

Diffusion of Innovations Communications Theory

This theory comes from the communications discipline. Everett Rogers describes the
process that members of a society go through as they decide to embrace new ideas
and innovations. The innovator is generally ahead of his/her time and will not
influence others to participate in a new "far-out" invention or innovation. Many times,
the innovator is mocked for being involved in something that will "never take off."
People who choose to use an innovation at the earliest stages are those referred to
as early adopters. They enjoy being ahead of the game, but don't necessarily
influence people in the main stream. Once the innovation has taken hold, the early
majority embraces it and he/she act as a change agent. I believe we are at this point
in education. Many of our teachers are a part of this early majority. We still have
many others who are skeptical about the value of technology in education. They may
have the desire to wait and see if this technology is really of any benefit to students
before they decide to try to use the innovation in the classroom. Of course, we will
have a group of educators who will remain unconvinced that using technology in
education has any value for students. Dr. Rogers calls them "laggards."
I believe that what Dr. Rogers says concerning what it takes for someone to try an
innovation is helpful to educators who are going to be training teachers to use
technology in the classroom. Applying his ideas to education - teachers must decide
there is some educational advantage to using technology. The way the technology
can be used must be compatible with a person's teaching style. Many of our
teachers feel that computing is too complex for them to understand so they need to
begin with a type of technology they can comprehend and use immediately. I believe
that the World Wide Web is one of the easiest places for teachers to begin. They
need to be able to try out a technology without someone leaning over their shoulder
criticizing them for their lack of skills. They need to have time to experiment, explore,
and be "hands-on" with the technology. Also, they need to observe technology being
used successfully in educational settings. Observing students who are actively
engaged in learning through the tools of technology can be a great influence on
teachers who are reluctant to take the time to learn the technology because they
question its value in education.
Diffusion of Innovations Communications Theory

HONORS: COMMUNICATION CAPSTONE

SPRING 2001 THEORY WORKBOOK
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXT
Click Here to Go Back to Interpersonal Context Page
Communication Competence

KNOWLEDGE- SKILLS- MOTIVATION

Explanation of Theory:
Communication competence is the ability to choose a communication behavior
that is both appropriate and effective for a given situation. Interpersonal
competency allows one to achieve their communication goals without causing
the other party to lose face. The model most often used to describe competence
is the component model (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984) which includes three
components: 1) knowledge, 2) skill, and 3) motivation. Knowledge simply means
knowing what behavior is best suited for a given situation. Skill is having the
ability to apply that behavior in the given context. Motivation is having the
desire to communicate in a competent manner.
Theorist: Spitzberg & Cupach
Date: 1984
Primary Article:
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication
competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Individual Interpretations:
The component model's three parts requires that a communicator be able to 1)
recognize what communication practice is appropriate (knowledge), 2) have the
ability to perform that practice (skill), and 3) want to communicate in an effective
and appropriate manner (motivation).
Critique:
The component model of competence is not a theory about communication, but
rather a model that sets the framework for what makes someone a competent
communicator. The component model has been used as the basis for many other
models of competence because of its breadth. The model can be easily applied
to the criteria of effectiveness and appropriateness that make up a competent
communicator.
Ideas and Implications:

Specifically there is a new focus on this idea of competence that is concerned

with how the dyad creates competency rather than the focus on the individual
competency. In this model a dyad's communication can be competent in that
within the relationship it is both effective and appropriate, but to those outside of
the group, it might seem incompetent.
Example:
In order to be a competent communicator, one must be able to recognize which
skills are necessary in a particular situation, have those skills, and be properly
motivated to use those skills.
Relavant Research:
Beach, W. A., & Metzger, T. R. (1997). Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human
Communication Research, 23, 562-89.
Cooper, L. O. (1997). Listening competency in the workplace: A model for
training. Business Communication Quarterly, 60, 75-85.
Duran, R. L., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995). Toward the development and
validation of a measure of cognitive communication
competence. Communication Quarterly, 43, 259-86.

Location in Eight (8) Primary Communication Theory Textbooks:

Anderson, R., & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of communication: A practical
introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. N/A
Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory:
The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. N/A
Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill. N/A
Griffin, E. (1997). A first look at communication theory (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill. N/A
Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (1997). Building communication
theory (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. N/A
Littlejohn, S. W. (1999). Theories of human communication (6th ed). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth. N/A
West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2000). Introducing communication theory: Analysis
and application. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.N/A
Wood, J. T. (1997). Communication theories in action: An introduction.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. N/A