MARISSA KINGYALE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

Networks and the Diffusion of Pro-Social Innovations

Classic S-Shaped Diffusion Curve

Rogers. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations

Time

Perce

nt A

dop

ted

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

Structure: Why do Networks Matter?

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

Potty Project

Diffusion Analysis and Policy Evaluation with Rodrigo Canales

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)

Why Networks Matter

Quicksand pottyproject.in

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

Study Design

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

Thanks!