marissa king yale school of management networks and the diffusion of pro-social innovations
Post on 14-Dec-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Refrigerator
Cellular PhoneAir conditioner
Home PC
Sources: PC, refrigerator, & cell phone: Lilien 1999; Air conditioner Sulltan 1990;
Framework for Thinking About Endogenous Diffusion
Structure Underlying network
Product Simple Contagion Complex Contagion- Roger’s Five Factors
Mechanisms Learning Possession
Context Physical and Social Environment
Same Framework Different Products and Contexts
Antislavery organizations King, Marissa and Heather Haveman. 2008. “Antislavery in America: The Press, the Post, and the
Pulpit, 1790-1840.” Administrative Science Quarterly 53:492-528
Cooperatives in the early 1900s Schneiberg, Marc, Marissa King and Thomas Smith. 2008. “Social Movements and Organizational
Forms: Agrarian Protest and Cooperative Alternatives to Corporate Hierarchies in Three American Industries.” American Sociological Review 73:635-667.
Autism King, Marissa and Peter Bearman. 2011. “Socioeconomic Status and the Increased Prevalence of
Autism in California. American Sociological Review. 76:320-346. Liu, Kayuet, Marissa King, and Peter Bearman. 2010. “Social Influence and the Increased
Prevalence of Autism Diagnosis.” American Journal of Sociology. 115: 1387-1434.
Antidepressants, stimulants, & antipsychotics King, Marissa, Joseph Ross, Connor Essick, and Peter Bearman. Forthcoming.“Physician Conflicts of
Interest and Psychotropic Prescribing.” BMJ King, Marissa and Peter Beaman. Conflict of Interest Policies and the Diffusion of Stimulant,
Antidepressant, and Antipsychotic Medications.
*Sanitation facilities, fuel efficient cook stoves, and solar lanterns in India *
Roadmap
Overview of framework Structure Product Mechanisms Context
2 Cases Potty Project-Sanitation facilities in Bhubansewar SEWA Hariyali Project-200,000 Fuel efficient cook
stoves and solar lanterns BreakoutConclusion and experimental design
Social network analysis:
• Both a theory and a method• Is motivated by a structural intuition based on
ties linking actors• Social world as patterns or regularities among
interacting units• Focuses on how patterns shape behaviors
• Is grounded in systematic empirical data• Draws heavily on graphic imagery• Relies on the use of mathematical and/or
computational models.
Structure
StructureProductMechanismsContext
Bearman, Moody, and Stovel 2001
Structure: Why do Networks Matter?
StructureProductMechanismsContext
Structural meaning (population level)• Strong ties produce triadic closure• Weak ties connect often connect distinct network
clusters• Small worlds
Relational meaning (dyadic)• Weak ties are acquaintances who you interact with
less frequently• Weak ties connect otherwise socially distant actors
• Betweeness centrality • Strong ties are close friends, family, etc. who you
likely have an affective bond with and trust• Degree centrality
Structure: Strong and Weak Ties
StructureProductMechanismsContext
Different types of ties have very different implications in diffusion processes
Centrality example: Colorado Springs
Node size proportional to betweenness
centrality Graph is 27% centralized
StructureProductMechanismsContext
Rothenberg et al 1995
Centrality example: Add Health
Node size proportional to betweenness centrality
Graph is 45% centralized
Bearman, Moody, and Stovel 2001
Random seeding vs. Influentials
Influentials- Some individuals have a disproportionate number of ties
Social networks tend to be scale-free and have long right tail
Targeting influentials best way to encourage diffusion
Random Seeding Identifying influentials is next to
impossible so better off saving the money/resources you would allocate to them and randomly seed
Single exposure/endorsement from one individual not as powerful as multiple exposures from several individualsSlide from Paul Adams “The Real Life Social Network”
SIMPLE CONTAGION• Standard epidemiological models• Examples include spread of easily transmittable information or
disease that spread through simple contact• Mass marketing and broadcast diffusion• Weak ties
COMPLEX CONTAGION• Behaviors are costly, risky, or controversial, the willingness to
participate may require independent affirmation or reinforcement from multiple sources
• Successful transmission depends on contact with multiple carriers/advocates
• Social influence and peer effects
But Product Characteristics (What’s Diffusing) Also Matters….
StructureProductMechanismsContext
Complex Contagion Requires Social Influence/Peer Effects Centola and Macy
2007
Product Characteristics: Roger’s Five Factors
Factor Definition
Relative AdvantageHow improved an innovation is over the previous generation.
CompatibilityThe level of compatibility that an innovation has to be assimilated into an individual’s life.
ComplexityIf the innovation is perceived as complicated or difficult to use, an individual is unlikely to adopt it.
Trialability
How easily an innovation may be experimented. If a user is able to test an innovation, the individual will be more likely to adopt it.
Observability
The extent that an innovation is visible to others. An innovation that is more visible will drive communication among the individual’s peers and personal networks and will in turn create more positive or negative reactions.
StructureProductMechanismsContext Rogers 1995
Mechanisms
Selection that produces correlated choices must be ruled out
Social learning Learning by using Reduced uncertainty since peer’s consumption
Possession Keeping up with the Jones Joint consumption
StructureProductMechanismsContext
Context
If you introduce the same innovation on similar networks in different contexts do you see different patterns of diffusion?
• King and Bearman (2011) and King and Bearman (2013) both found spatial differences in patterns of diffusion• Socioeconomic status• Regulatory environments
But very few studies examine the diffusion of the same product in different markets
Framework for Thinking About Diffusion
Structure Underlying network
Product Simple Contagion Complex Contagion- Roger’s Five Factors
Mechanisms Learning Possession
Context Physical and Social Environment
Case Studies
SEWA Cook Stoves & Lanterns
with Rodrigo Canales & Tony Sheldon
Potty ProjectPIs: Sharon Barnhardt, Judy Chevalier, & Mushfiq Mobarak.
With Rodrigo Canales
SEWA: Organization Overview
• Mission: organizing women workers for full employment and self-reliance
• Registered as a trade union since 1972• Membership of 1,356,000 women across 7 states in India
SEWA is a cooperative of low-income, self-employed women
20
Slide from Yale GSE SEWA Micro Team
SEWA Hariyali Project
Problems: Women and young children spend up to five hours a day in
smoky kitchens Lung and eye health problems are common
Women spend hours collecting fuel (wood) for the stoves,. Use of firewood contributes to deforestation.
Goal: Sell 200,000 cook stoves over three years to clients in 4
states clients in 4 states (Gujarat, Rajasthan, UP and Bihar) Bundled with solar lantern
Cook stoves reduce wood requirements and cooktime by ~50%
Obstacles to Adoption
• The targeted Hariyali demographic is highly price sensitive• Rs. 310 per month for 12 months
• Significant behavior change required to switch from free to paid product
• Health concerns are not sufficiently motivating factor
Existing Network
By virtue of SEWA membership already have shared common identity
Members of each trade elect own representatives to
Considerable geographic variation in sizeRajasthan Bihar UP Gujarat
Bikaner 5,035 Bareli 402 60.8% Rural
Dungarpur 3,300
Lucknow 24,100
39.2% Urban
Jaipur 550
Ajmer 100
Jodhpur 183
9, 168 12,0000 24, 502 519,309
Current Sales & Reporting Method
Salesperson visit village and does demonstration, members raise of hands to signal interest (V, M, O)
Anand Bodeli Surendranagar Mahesana
V M O S % V M O S % V M O S % V M O S %
12 425 47 4 11.05 10 237 9 0 3.79 3 128 1 0 0.78 7 140 10 0 7.14
15 455 53 22 11.64 8 228 0 0 0 7 169 9 5 5.32 8 182 11 0 6.04
13 293 54 24 18.4 11 353 3 0 0.84 9 197 3 3 1.52 6 141 7 0 4.96
20 440 22 13 5 6 154 2 0 1.29 5 149 5 2 3.35 4 71 17 0 23.94
12 250 25 14 10 18 561 1 0 0.17 4 91 2 2 2.19 7 127 8 3 6.29
13 250 13 11 5.2 9 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 173 17 0 9.82
14 260 20 11 7.69 3 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 204 23 22 11.27
17 440 43 36 9.77 18 515 1 0 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 20 415 16 16 3.85
Network Potential
SEWA already has existing network and information about network members
Relatively variability in village size
Variability in connectedness between villages
Product characteristics make cook stoves and lanterns good candidates for diffusion Visibility and trialability
Problem
45% of households use either public or communal toilets in the slums of Bhubaneswar and Cuttack
53% of these toilets are either “dirty” or “very dirty’ & one was completely non-functional
Households dissatisfied with the cleanliness were the most likely to practice open defecation 30% of households reported doing soBarnhardt, Chevalier & Mobarak
Potty Project
Gates Foundation commissioned Quicksand Design Studio to conduct in-depth research into the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs surrounding sanitation in low-income urban India in 10 slums in 5 cities in India.
Photos: Quicksand reprinted in Wall Street Journal
Potty Project
Based on their research they designed new sanitation facility prototype
Design: Quicksand reprinted in Wall Street Journal
Potty Project
Barnhardt, Chevalier & Mobarak are utilizing Quicksand’s insights in a field experiment
Paid Manager
Cooperative Management
Improved Facilities Basic
New Facilities Basic
Improved Facilities Enhanced
New Facilities Enhanced
• Basic facilities include adequate gender-separate toilets and washbasins, sufficient lighting and ventilation & enough water for all services
• Improved facilities will include bathing, child toilets, menstruation waste
• Experiment will also include discount coupons and varying pricing structure (monthly passes vs. pay-per-use)
Network Context
Lots of social cleavages
Existing networks critical for both initiating use and creating community ownership to encourage sustainability
Old facilities have existing network of users, new facilities do not
Network data from household survey
SEWA
Context: How much does the importance of social influence vary by area and population ?
Product: Give loaner cook stoves to seed network
Structure and Mechanisms(?)Sales Pitch from Alter
No Sales Pitch from Alter
Random Seed
Influentials
No Network Seeding
Sales pitch from outsider
Potty Project
Context: How much does the importance of social influence vary by area, toilet design, and composition of population ?
Product: Use vouchers for facility (much like drug companies)
Structure and Mechanisms(?)Sales Pitch from Alter
No Sales Pitch from Alter
Random Seed
Influentials
No Network Seeding
Sales pitch from outsider
Hariyali & Potty Project
Additional research opportunities:
Product abandonment
How do networks change after introduction of new technology?
Both projects will include extensive fieldwork and project evaluations
top related