TWO STEP AND MULTI-STEP FLOW OF COMMUNICATION
7.0. Objective of the lesson :
The objective of this lesson is to assist you in
- Understanding the two-step-flow of Communication
- Understanding the multi-step-flow of Communication
structure of the lesson :
- Introduction
- Development fo the two-step flow of communication theory
- The Opinion Leaders
- Applications of the Theory
- Criticism of two Step Flow Theory
- Multistep flow of Communication / Innovation of Diffusion theory
- The Innovation Adoption Curve
- Summary
- Technical Terms
- Model Questions
- Refernce Books
Man has forever fought against the forces of entropy, working very diligently at creating order and mean- ing, dissecting and perusing until order is achieved. For civilization this has been important. It has lent the world many fascinating theories about our surroundings and the effect human beings can have. As order driven beings, we seek to stretch and apply knowledge gained in all aspects of life to situations and experiences very different from the origin of the knowledge. It is through the stretching and manipulating of old thought that new insights are made, and new psychological mountains are tackled. It is through this stretching and manipulating of one socio-political based theory that the field of Advertising has defined some of its capabilities and constraints in the area of mass communication. This theory involves the two- step flow of communication.
This lesson will address insights to the history and development, the criticisms and praises, recent studies, and current applications of the two-step flow of communication theory.
As with most theories now applied to Advertising, the Two-step flow of communication was first identified in a field somewhat removed from communications-sociology. In 1948, Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet published The People’s Choice, a paper analyzing the votersi decision-making pro- cesses during a 1940 presidental election campaign. The study revealed evidence suggesting that the flow of mass communication is less direct than previously supposed. Although the ability of mass media to reach a large audience, and in this case persuade individuals in one direction or another, had been a topic of much research since the 1920’s, it was not until the people’s Choice was published that society really began to understand the dynamics of the media-audience relationship. The study suggested that commu- nication from the mass.
Communication is less direct than previously supposed. Although the ability of mass media to reach a large audience, and in this case persuade individuals in one direction or another, had been a topic of much research since that 1920’s, it was not until the People’s Choice was published that society really began to understand the dynamics of the media-audience relationship. The study suggested that communication from the mass media first reaches “opinion leaders” who filter the information they gather to their associ- ates, with whom they are influential. Previous theories assumed that media directly reached the target of
the information. For the theorists, the opinion leader theory proved an interesting discovery considering the relationship between media and its target was not the focus of the research, but instead a small aspect of the study.
Lazarsfeld et al suggested that “ideas often flow from radio and print to the opinion leaders and from them to the less active sections of the population.” People tend to be much more affected in their decision making process by face to face encounters with influential peers than by the mass media. As Weiss described in his 1969 chapter on functional theory, “Media content can be a determining influence………………………………………………………………………………….. What
is rejected is any conception that construes media experiences as alone sufficient for a wide variety of effects.” The other piece in the communication process is the opinion leader with which the media informa- tion is discussed.
The studies by Lazarsfeld and his associates sparked interest in the exact qualities and characteristics that define the opinion leader. Is an opinion leader influential in all cases, on all topics? Or is the influence of an opinion leader constrained to certain topics? How does an opinion leader come to be influential?
Who are they? How have they come to be defined?
A study by Robert Merton revealed that opinion leadership is not a general characteristic of a person, but rather limited to specific issues. Individuals who act as opinion leaders on one issue, may not be consid- ered influentials in regard to other issues. A later study directed by Lazarsfeld and Katz further investigated the characteristics of opinion leaders. This study confirmed the earlier assertions that personal influence seems more important in decision making than media. Again, influential individuals seem constrained in their opinion leading to particular topics, non-overlapping among the individuals. The opinion leaders seem evenly distributed amon the social, economical, and educational levels within their community, but very similar in these areas to those with whom they had influence.
Katz and Lazarsfeld did not identify any particular traits amongst opinion leaders that stand out. The traits that characterize each of the opinion leaders in their niche dide have things in common, though. For one thing, the opinion leaders were identified as having the strongest interest in their particular niche. They hold positions within their community affording them special competence in their particular niches. They are generally gregarious, sociable individuals. Finally, they had/have contact with relevant information supplied from outside their immediate circle. Interestingly enough, Katz and Lazarsfeld observed that the opinion leaders receive a disproportionate amount of their external information from media appropriate to their niche.
Studies by Glock and Nicosia determined that opinion leaders act “as a source of social pressure toward a particular choice and as a source of social support to reinforce that choice once it has been made.” Charles Glock explained that opinion leaders often develop leadership positions in their social circles.
They achieve these positions based on their knowledge of situations outside their circles (1952).
What is an opinion leader?
Perhaps the most famous research on opinion leadership was that done by Elihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld showcased in their book Personal influence. Katz and Lazarsfeld define opinion leaders as individuals who receive information from the media and pass it long to their peers. They are individuals who are knowl- edgeable about various topics and whose advice is taken seriously by others. Opinion leaders can be found in all types of groups: occupational, social, community, and others. They often tend to be very socially active and highly interconnected within the community. Moreover, “effective opinion attainment, but not so high as to be in a different social class”. This way, the leaders are still a part of their audience’s reference group.
During the 1980’s. theories added a new dimension to the list of opinion leader characteristics. Maslach brought forth the idea of public individuation. Public individuation is a state in which “people feel differenti- ated, to some degree, from other people and choose to act differently from them. This is important to being an opinion leader, because such people must be willing to set themselves apart from their audience. Additionally, it issuggested that certain personal characteristics like high confidence, high self-esteem, the ability to withstand criticism, and a strong need to be unique.
It is important to remember, however, that social power, educational attainment, and public individuation are not absolute requirements for opinion leadership. Despite the existence of opinion leaders, it is not always easy to distinguish them from the other members of groups. This is because opinion leadership is not a trait, but rather a role taken by some individuals under certain circumstances. In other words. anyone can be an opinion leader at any given time. Such leadership changes from time to time and from issue to issue.
Opinion leaders also play important roles in movements of social change. Opinion leaders can bring legitimacy to a social movement. Known as “legtimizers,” these social opinion leaders are judges, politi- cians, business executives, clergy members, sports figures and entertainers. Such people help “legitimize” a cause in the eyes of the public by marching in demonstrations, appearing at rallies, donating money, speaking in favor of the cause, and so forth.
Who are opinion leaders and how can they be found?
As mentioned above, anyone can be an opinion leader, depending on the moment in time and the issue at hand. Opinion leaders can be as small-scale as family members or as grand as celebrities. Some well- known examples of social opinion leaders who have helped bring legitimacy to various causes are: celebrities such as Robert Redfor, Alan Alda, Jane Fonda, Joanne Woodward, Barbara Streisand, the late John Denver, and Michael Jackson, politicians like Vice President Albert Gore, Senator Ted Kennedy, and clergy members Jerry Falwell and Jesse Jackson. These people have donated time, money, and support to such contemporary causes as the environmental, women’s liberation, gay-rights, pro-choice, pro-life, and other movements.
Unfortunately, unlike celebrities or influential industry executives, everyday opinion leaders, such as those among consumers, can be very difficult to locate. Some of these leaders may only influence a few people rather than an entire market segment. Because of this, careful exploratory research must be conducted to identify representative opinion leaders. Two different techniques have been used to identify common opinion leaders: the self-designation method and sociometry.
The self-designation method is the most commonly used technique in opinion leader identification. This method entails asking consumers whether they consider themselves to be opinion leaders. Regrettably, this system can be very problematic, as the results are not necessarily accurate. In their study of male fashion opinion leaders, Darden and Reynolds found that some people who are truly influential may downplay their influence or may deny they even have this quality. Meanwhile, others will inflate their own importance and influence. Another problem with this is that for a person to be deemed a “bona fide” opinion leader, his or her advice must actually be heard and heeded by opinion seekers. One solution for this is to select certain group members, known as key informats, who in turn are asked to identify the opinion leaders, the foundation for success is finding those who have accurate knowledge of the group.
Sociometry, the second method, involves tracing the communication patterns among group members. Here, the communication interactions of group members can be systematically “mapped out”. Those who tend to be sources of information can be identified by interviewing people and asking them who they seek out when they need information. In addition, sociometric methods can be used to track referral paths.
Although the theory of indirect flow of information from media to the target was quickly adopted, the original study performed by Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet was not. It had a few faults. The panel method by which they attempted to better understand the influences reaching a voter was unfaulted. It very effectively allowed the researchers to notice changes in a voter’s feelings almost immediately. The resulting unit of change was an objective measurement that could easily be recorded and compared. The faults lie in the manner with which the researchers addressed the flow of influences.
Since the research was not designed to specfically test the flow of influence, the experiment was decidedly lacking in explanations. The first problem concerning the findings of the study were that the data had to be collected in a random sample, but subjects in a random sample can only speak for themselves. For these reasons, each person could only say whether or not they considered his/herself an advice giver. Lazarsfeld and his associates in the 1940 election study were unable to determine the specific flow of influence. They determined there were a number of opinion leaders spread throughout the socio-economic groups; however, these leaders were not directly linked to particular groups within the socio-economic levels.
Even within studies specifically designed to determine who opinion leaders are and how they are different from the average populace, there have been problems born from experimental desing. “The criticisms of the concept of opinion leaders has focused mainly on its methodological deficiencies (Weimann, 1991).” As Weimann suggested in his 1989 study of pervious research, much of the design problems involved determining the opinion leaders while studying the flow of information. There seemed to be too many factors to control. Despite the difficulties in qualifying the influentials, the theory of a group of individuals that filter the flow of media information has lived on.
The theory can be effectively adopted to advertising. No longer does the advertising industry doubt the existence or qualities of influentials, as they are most commonly referred to today. Instead, the discussion revolves around effectively targeting messages to reach these influentials. For fifty years, the research organization Roper has considered the group of “influentials” important enough to track. Regularly, reports and studies are performed in an attempt to unlock the secret to reaching these influentials. Who are they? What has the term “influential” come to describe?
The influentials today seem to be isolated in the upper class. They are the trend-setters. It is this group that is first to adopt new technology, and remains on the leading edge of trends. This is the group that advertising attempts to reach. Daily articles are published on maximizing the market by reaching these influentials. The idea remains that the most efficient media is word-of-mouth, and it is by reaching the influentials with other forms of media that this word-of-mouth is generated. It seems the opinion leaders of yesterday have been overlooked for the smaller subset of influentials.
Opinion leaders spread their influence through messages covering all types of topics. Levels of expertise determine the messages sent, Basically, opinion leaders can be of two types: those who are monomorphic and those who are polymorphic. Monomorphic leaders tend to be influential on one topic while polymor- phic leaders are influential on a variety of topics. It was once thought that “generalized opinion leaders,” or people sought for all types of information existed. Today, though, it is believed that very few people are capable of being experts in multiple fields. Even truly polymorphic leaders tend to focus their expertise on one broad domain, such as fashion or electronics. According to Rogers and Shoemaker, as systems become more modern, monomorphism is incrementally more predominant. They believe that “as the technological base of a system becomes more complex, a division of labor and specialization of roles result, which in turn lead to different sets of opinion leaders for different issues”.
As mentioned above, opinion leaders impart their influence on a variety of topics. Some of the most common topics of expertise among these leaders involve everyday decisions. Four such areas of influ- ence are marketing. fashion, public affairs/political life, and movie-going. Katz and Lazarsfeld chose these areas for their study of women in Decatur, IIllinois. At various stages of the research, the women were asked to identify people they saw as influential as well as rate themselves on being influential. The study produced some interesting results. It was found that women consult other women on marketing matters, fashion leaders are more prevalent among younger women then society matrons, women look to men for advice in public matters, and that young and single women were considered opinion leaders on movies.
Support to the theory
Although the empirical methods behind the two-step flow of communication were not perfect. The theory did provide a very believable explanation for information flow. The opinion leaders do not replace media, but rather guide discussions of media. Brosius explains the benefits of the opinion leader theory well in his 1996 study of agenda setting, “The opinion leaders should not be regarded as replacing the role of inter- personal networks but, in fact, as reemphasizing the role of the group and interpersonal contacts.”
Lazarsfeld and his associates detailed five characteristics of personal contact that give their theory more validity.
Non-purposiveness/casualness One must have a reason for tuning into a political speech on television, but political conversations can just “pop-up”. In this situation, the people are less likely to have their defenses up in preparation, they are more likely open to the conversation.
Flexibility to counter resistance In a conversation, there is always opportunity to counter any resistance. This is not so in media, a one sided form of communication.
Trust Personal contact carries more trust than media. As people interact, they are better able through observation of body language and vocal cues to judge the honesty of the person in the discussion Newspaper and radio do not offer these cues.
Persuasion without conviction The formal media is forced to persuade or change opinions. In personal communication, sometimes friendly insistence can cause action without affecting any comprehension of the issues.
Menzel introduced another strong point in favor of the two-step flow of information theory. First, there are an abundance of information channels “choked” with all types of journals, conferences, and commercial messages. These are distracting and confusing to their target. With the barrage of information humans are flooded with daily, it is not hard to understand why someone might turn to a peer for help evaluating all of it.
Recent Studies Based on the Two-step Flow of Communication theory
The true test of a theory lies in its timelessness, its ability to spark interest and provoke thought years after its introduction. The two step flow of communication theory has been able to remain relevant throughout the years. This should not be difficult to believe considering it has fueled at least the past few pages this year, forty years after its debut. There have been several recent studies that have addressed issues arising from Lazarsfeld’s, Katz’s, and Merton’s studies from the 1940s. In two such studies Gabriel Weimann (1994) and Hans-Bernd Brosius (1996) addressed the setting of agendas as a two step flow of communication.
In Weimann’s paper addressing the re-emergence of the opinion leader theory into modern day (1991), he addresses several problems that have been overcome sparking the new interest in the old theory. As is further discussed in the section on theory criticisms, the two-step flow of communication theory is difficult to witness in the field. Many researchers have attempted to design credible models for testing the theory, but with only minor success (Weimann, 1991). Brosius and Weimann set out to explain agenda setting using the basis of the two-step flow of communication theory determined by Lazarsfeld, Katz, and the many other researchers. To avoid the difficulties in studying tha actual flow of communication, Weimann and Brosius separated the opinion leaders from their two-step flow of communication theory. Participants were studied against a scale of determine the “Strength of Personality”.
The Brosius-Weimann study attempts to describe the individuals whose personal communication has impact on agenda setting. The individuals are the archetypal opinion leaders, who still control the flow of information. Weimann and Brosius define agenda setting as a two-step flow, wherein certain individuals (influentials) “collect, diffuse, filter, and promote the flow of information” from media to the community. The difference between these influentials and the opinion leaders, as Weimann stresses, is that these influentials are usually elitists, not spread throughout the community as the old theory suggested (Weimann, 1991). Are these influentials a new breed? Or is there really a difference between influentials and opinion leaders? This, as yet, has not been addressed. Weimann and Brosius suggest the influentials are a subsection of the opinion leaders.
Two-Step Flow: general conclusions
Consequently Lazarsfeld and his colleagues developed the notion of a ‘two-step’ flow of media messages, a process in which opinion leaders played a vitally important role.
This was later developed by Katz and Lazarsfeld and presented in their book Personal Influence (1955). A number of significant conclusions follow from their research:
- Our responses to media messages will be mediated through our social relationships, the effects of media messages being sharply limited by interpersonal relationships and group membership (this is confirmed also by Hovland who identifies our adherence to group norms as a major factor; see also the more general sections on Social Influence)
- it is misleading to think of receivers as members of a ‘mass audience’ since that implies that they are all equal in their reception of media messages, whereas in fact some play a more active role
than others
- receiving a message does not imply responding to it; nor does non-reception imply non-response (since we may still receive the message via interpersonal communication)
- there are some people amongst the media audience who act as opinion leaders – typically such people use the mass media more than the average, mix more than the average across social classes and see themselves and are seen by others as having an influence on others
Reasons suggested for the greater effectiveness of personal influence over media influence include the following:
- The content and development of a conversation are less predictable than mass media Consequently, the receiver cannot be as selective in advance as (s) he is able to be when choosing which media messages to attend to.
- In a face-to-face conversation, the critical distance between the partners is less than in mass
- By direct questioning of the partner in the conversation, the assumptions underlying the conversa tion can be rapidly and accurately established, which is not so with mass
- In face-to-face interaction the communicator can rapidly adjust to the receiver’s (S) he has direct feedback as to the success of the communication, can correct misunderstandings and counter challenges.
The model is often presented graphically as shown on the right. In fact, that is somewhat misleading as it suggests that mass media messages flow first to opinion leaders and from them to the rest.
Obviously, that’s not the case, since you and I can both receive messages directly. The point is that the messages we receive are then modified through the pattern of our social contacts.
Katz and Lazarsfeld are perhaps also somewhat misleading when they suggest that individuals with certain characteristics are opinion leaders. It may be the case that many opinion leaders will have the characteristics they mention, but we also know that some opinion leaders in some subject areas will not have those general characteristics. However, I should mention that Katz and Lazarsfeld certainly did not take the view that opinion leaders were necessarily those formally recognized as such (e.g. celebrities, politicians etc.) Thus, their studies showed that top-down influence was relatively slight, influence tended to be horizontal across a particular socio-economic class, except that in the ‘higher’ social classes there was a tendency for people to find opinion leaders in the next class up. No opinion leader was an opinion leader in all aspects of life. For example, the car mechanic in your local pub may not use the media much at all because he’s always working late. Nevertheless, he knows a lot about cars and so what the rest of those in the pub ‘know’ from the media about different makes of car will be influenced by his views.
Similarly, your Politics lecturer may not use the media anything like as much as you do, but her reading and viewing is targeted on political issues. Together with her broad knowledge of political theory and history, that is likely to make her an opinion leader as far as your Politics class is concerned. Allowing for those differences from one class to another and from one subject area to another, we probably can recognize in opinion leaders the characteristics which Katz and Lazarsfeld suggested, in particular that opinion leaders will be more active users of the mass media than others.
Katz and Lazarsfeld may also be misleading in suggesting that people are either active opinion leaders or passive followers of opinion leaders. Apart from the evidence that people can be opinion leaders on some matters and not or others, there is also the objection that some people may be neither leaders nor follow- ers, but quite simply detached from much media output.
Much depends also on the accessibility of countervailing opinions. In the 1940s the general public would have had access to far fewer sources of information than they have today and may, broadly speaking,
have had less time to access those sources. Under such circumstances it is likely that an opinion leader in the community may be especially influential. This was recognized by the Nazi party in its gradual rise to power during the 1920s and 1930s. Nazi agitation and propaganda became increasingly successful at forcing themselves onto the front pages of newspapers, thus becoming an everyday topic of conversation. They were particularly keen to capitalize on that attention, directing it in the right direction through influenc- ing the leading members of the various small associations which were spread throughout German com- munities.
Where local leaders, enjoying respectability and influence, were won over, further converts often rapidly followed In the relatively homogeneous villages in Schleswig-Holstein, where feelings about the ‘Weimar system’ were running high on account of the agrarian crisis, the push from one or two farmer’s leaders could result in a local landslide to the NSDAP [the Nazi Party].
The two-step flow theory gave way to the multi-step flow theory of mass communication or diffusion of innovation theory.
Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. Diffusion is a special type of communication concerned with the spread of messages that are perceived as new ideas.
An innovation, simply put, is “an idea perceived as new by the individual.” An innovation is an idea, prac- tice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. The characteristics of an innovation, as perceived by the members of a social system, determine its rate of adoption. The four main elements in the diffusion of new ideas are:
- The innovation
- Communication channels
- Time
- The social system (context)
- The innovation : Why do certain innovation spread more quickly than others? The innovation, to spread and be adopted should show:
The characteristics which determine an innovation’s rate of adoption are:
- Relative advantage
- Compatibility
- Complexity
- Trial ability
- Observability to those people within the social
- Communication : Communication is the process by which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding. A communication channel is the means by which messages get from one individual to Mass media channels are more effective in creating knowledge of innovations, whereas interpersonal channels are more effective in forming and changing attitudes toward a new idea, and thus in influencing the decision to adopt or reject a new idea. Most individuals evaluate an innovation, not on the basis of scientific research by experts, but through the subjective evaluations of near-peers who have adopted the innovation.
- Time : The time dimension is involved in diffusion in three First, time is involved in the innovation- decision process. The innovation-decision process is the mental process through which an individual (or other decision-making unit) passes from first knowledge of an innovation to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision. An individual seeks information at various stages in the innovation-decision process in order to decrease uncertainly about an innovation’s expected consequences.
5-Step Process :
- Knowledge – person becomes aware of an innovation and has some idea of how it functions
- Persuassion – person forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation
- Decision – person engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation
- Implementation – person puts an innovation into use
- Confirmation – person evaluates the results of an innovation-decision already made – The second way in which time is involved in diffusion is in the innovativeness of an individual or other unit of adoption. Innovativeness is the degree to which an individual or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of a social system.
There are five adopter categories, or classification of the members of a social system on the basis on their innovativeness:
- Innovators – 5%
- Early adopters – 5%
- Early majority – 34%
- Late majority – 34%
- Laggards – 16%3.3
The third way in which time is involved in diffusion is in rate of adoption. The rate of adoption is the relative speed with which an innovation is adopted by members of a social system. The rate of adoption is usually measured as the number of members of the system that adopt the innovation in a given time period. As shown previously, an innovation’s rate of adoption is influenced by the five perceived attributes of an innovation. (Time/Infected Population).
- The social system : The fourth main element in the diffusion of new ideas is the social A social system is defined as a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem-solving to accomplish a common goal. The members or units of a social system may be individuals, informal groups, organiza- tions, and/or subsytems. The social system constitutes a boundary within which an innovation diffuse. How the system’s social structure affects diffusion has been studied. A second area of research involved how norms affect diffusion. Norms are the established behavior patterns for the members of a social system. A third area of research has had to do with opinion leadership, the degree to which an individual is able to influence informally other individual who attempts to influence clients’ innovation-decisions in a direction that is deemed desirable by a change agency. A final crucial concept in understanding the nature of the diffusion process is the critical mass, which occurs at the point at which enough individuals have adopted an innovation that the innovation’s further rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining. The concept of the critical mass implies that outreach activities should be concentrated on getting the use of the innovation to the point of critical mass. These efforts should be focused on the early adopters, the 13.5 percent of the individuals in the system to adopt an innovation after the innovators have introduced the new idea into the system. Early adopters are often opinion leaders, and serve as role-models for many other members of the social system. Early adopters are instrumental in getting an innovation to the point of critical mass, and hence, in the successful diffusion of an innovation.
The innovation : Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. The degree of relative advantage may be measured in economic terms, but social prestige, convenience, and satisfaction are also important factors. It does not matter so much if an innova- tion has a great deal of objective advantage. What does matter is whether an individual perceives the innovation as advantageous. The greater the perceived relative advantage of an innovation, the more repid its rate of adoption will be. Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistant with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. An idea that is incompatible with the values and norms of a social system will not be adopted as rapidly as an innovation that is compatible. The adoption of an incompatible innovation often requires the prior adoption of a new value system, which is a relatively slow process.
Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. some innovations are readily understood by most members of a social system; others are more complicated and will be adopted more slowly. New ideas that are simpler to understand are adopted more rapidly than innovations that require the adopter to develop new skills and understandings.
Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. New ideas that can be tried on the installment plan will generally be adopted more quickly than innovations that are
not divisible. An innovation that is trialable represents less uncertainty to the individual who is considering it for adoption, who can learn by doing.
Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The easier it is for individuals to see the results of an innovation, the more likely they are to adopt it. Such visibility stimulates discussion of a new idea, as friends and neighbors of an adopter often request innovation-evaluation inform on about it.
Time : Innovators are the first 2.5 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation. Venturepresomeness is almost an obsession with innovators. This interest in new ideas leads them out of a local circle of peer networks and into more cosmopolite social relationships. Communication patterns and friendships among a clique of innovators are common, even though the geographical distance be- tween the innovators may be considerable. Being an innovator has several prerequisites. Control of substantial financial resources is helpful to absorb the possible loss from an unprofitable innovation. The ability to understand and apply complex technical knowledge is also needed. The innovator must be able to cope with a high degree of uncertainty about an innovation at the time of adoption. While an innovator may not be respected by the other members of a social system, the innovator plays an important role in the diffusion process: That of launching the new idea in the system by importing the innovation from outside of the system’s boundaries.
Thus, the innovator plays a gate keeping role in the flow of new ideas into a system>Early adopters are the next 13.5 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation. Early adopters are a more inte- grated part of the local system than are innovators. Whereas innovators are cosmopolites, early adopters are localities. This adopter category, more than any other, has the greatest degree of opinion leadership in most systems. Potential adopters look to early adopters for advice and information about the innovation.
This adopter category is generally sought by change agents as a local missionary for speeding process. Because early adopters are not too far ahead of the average individual in innovativeness, they serve as a role-model for many other members of a social system.
The early adopter is respected by his or her peers, and is the embodiment of successful, discrete use of new ideas. The early adopter knows that to continue to earn this esteem of colleagues and to maintain a central position in the communication networks of the system, he or she must make judicious innovation- decisions. The early adopter decreases uncertainly about a new idea by adopting it, and then conveying a subjective evaluation of the innovation to near-peers through interpersonal networks.>Early majority is the next 34 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation.
The early majority adopt new ideas just before the average member of a system. The early majority interact frequently with their peers, but seldom hold positions of opinion leadership in a system. The early majority’s unique position between the very early and the relatively late to adopt makes tham an important link in the diffusion process. They provide interconnectedness in the system’s interpersonal networks. The early majority are one of the two most numerous adopter categories, making up one-third of the members of a system. The early majority may deliberate for some time before completely adopting a new idea. “Be not the first by which the new is tried, nor the last to lay the old aside,” first the thinking of the early major- ity. They follow with deliberate willingness in adopting innovations, but seldom lead.
Late majority is the next 34 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation. The late majority adopt new ideas just after the average member of a system. Like the early majority, the late majority make up one-third of the members of a system. Adoption may be the result of increasing network pressures from peers. Innovations are approached with a skeptical and cautious air, and the late majority do not adopt until most others in their system have done so. The weight of system norms must definitely favor an innovation before the late majority are convinced. The pressure of peers is necessary to motivate adop- tion. Their relatively scarce resources mean that most of the uncertainty about a new idea must be re- moved befor the late majority feel that it is safe to adopt.
Laggards are the last 16 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation. They possess almost no opinion leadership. Laggards are the most localite in their outlook of all adopter categories; many are near isolates in the social networks of their system. The point of reference for the laggard is the past. Decisions are often made in terms of what has been done previously. Laggards tend to be suspicious of innovations and change agents. Resistance to innovations on the part of laggards may be entirely rational from the laggard’s viewpoint, as their resources are limited and they must be certain that a new idea will not fail before they can adopt.
Why has the tipping point become such a popular idea? Carefully researched analysis has shown that it is an undeniable phenomenon that once understood provides simple and valuable prescriptions for efforts in encouraging diffusion. There seem to be many innovations that are valuable for the masses, yet to date have resisted diffusion. For example, we still use the QWERTY keyboard despite the development of another keyboard that allows much faster typing for the average user. Also, there are many social ideals that a large number of people are very interested in spreading. In particular situations, such as our own relatively heterophilous nation, the research suggest that there is a reasonable chance that, given con- certed effort, support for these valuable products and ideas may be pushed to the tipping point. And as our communication network become denser through technological advance, the diffusion process is happen- ing faster and faster. So it seems that understanding and utilizing diffusion networks can aid strategy aimed at quickly inducing system-wide change.
The innovation adoption curve of Rogers is a model that classifies adopters of innovations into various categories. It is based on the idea that certain individuals are inevitably more open for adaptation than others. It is also called: Multi-Step Flow Theory or Diffusion of Innovations Theory.
The research focus of Diffusion has Five elements:
- Characteristics of an innovation which may influence its
- Decision-making process that occurs when individuals consider to adopt a new idea, product or practice;
- Characteristics of individuals that make them likely to adopt an innovation;
- Consequences for individuals and society of adopting an innovation; and
- Communication channels used in the adoption
Innovation Adoption Curve categories
- Brave people, pulling the change. Innovators are very important communication mecha- nisms.
- Early Respectable people, opinion leaders, try out new ideas, but in a careful way.
- Early Thoughtful people, careful but accept change more quickly than average people do.
- Late Majority, Skeptic people, will use new ideas or products only when the majority is using
- Traditional people, love to stick to the “old ways”, are critical about new ideas and will only accept it if the new idea has become mainstream or even tradition.
The two-step flow model was propounded by Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz. Unlike the hypodermic needle model which considers mass media effects to be direct, the two-step flow model stresses human agency.
According to Lazarsfeld and Katz, mass media information is channeled to the “masses” through opinion leadership. The people with most access to media, and having a more literate understanding of media content, explain and diffuse the content to others.
Two-step flow modle laid the foundation for diffusion of innovations.
Opinion leadership is a concept that arose out of the theory of two-step flow of communication pro- pounded by Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz. This theory is one of several models that try to explain the diffusion of innovations, ideas, or commercial products.
The opinion leader is the agent who is an active media user and who interprets the meaning of media messages or content for lower-end media users.
Typically the opinion leader is held in high esteem by those that accept their opinions. Opinion leadership tends to be subject specific, that is, a person that is an opinion leader in one field may be a follower in another field. An example of an opinion leader in the field of computer technology, might be a
neighbourhood computer service technician. The technician has access to far more information on this topic than the average consumer and has the requistic background to understand the information.
A first theory of innovation diffusion was formalized by Everett Rogers in a 1962 book called Diffusion of Innovations. Rogers stated that adopters of any new innovation or idea could be categorized as innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%) and laggards (16%), based on a bell curve. Each adopter’s willingness and ability to adopt an innovation would depend on their awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption.
Opinion Leader : Individuals who are knowledgeable about various topics and whose advice is taken seriously by others. Opinion leaders can be found in all types of groups: occupational, social, community, and others.
- Disucss the two-step flow of
- Who are opinion leaders? What are their characteristics?
- Discuss the diffusion of innovation theory of
