Complex Contagions and the Diffusion of Innovations: Evidence from a Small-N Study
The recent literature on “complex contagions” challenges Granovetter’s classic hypothesis on the strength of weak ties and argues that, when the actors’ choice requires reinforcement from several sources, it is the structure of strong ties that really matters to sustain rapid and wide diffusion. The paper contributes to this debate by reporting on a small-N study that relies on a unique combination of ethnographic data, social network analysis, and computational models. In particular, we investigate two rural populations of Indian and Kenyan potters who have to decide whether to adopt new, objectively more efficient and economically more attractive, technical/stylistic options. Qualitative field data show that religious sub-communities within the Indian and Kenyan populations exhibit markedly different diffusion rates and speed over the last thirty years. To account for these differences, we first analyze empirically observed kinship networks and advice networks, and, then, we recreate the actual aggregate diffusion curves through a series of empirically calibrated agent-based simulations. Combining the two methods, we show that, while single exposure through heterophilious weak ties were sufficient to initiate the diffusion process, large bridges made of strong ties can in fact lead to faster or slower diffusion depending on the type of signals circulating in the network. We conclude that, even in presence of “complex contagions,” dense local ties cannot be regarded as a sufficient condition for faster diffusion.
KeywordsCeramic techniques Innovation diffusion Weak ties Strong ties Kinship networks Complex contagions Agent-based simulations
In India, the support of the Rupayan Sansthan was invaluable. We are grateful to Kuldeep Kothari for resolving all the logistical problems as well as Meet Kaur Gulati, Anil Sharma, Ira Sisodia, and Lakshman Diwakar for their assistance in the field. In Kenya, we are grateful to Jacqueline Kawira for her assistance in the field. Last but not the least, we would also like to thank all the Indian and Kenyan potters for their availability and their unfailing kindness. Mohamed Cherkaoui, Ivan Ermakoff, Cyril Jayet, and Jörg Stolz read earlier versions of the manuscript and provided instructive written remarks. We also thank JAMT referees for their invaluable critical feedback. We are grateful to Peter Hamilton for his careful linguistic revision. Usual disclaimers apply.
The article arises from a common theoretical and methodological effort. Authors were however differently involved in the specific tasks needed to reach the final product. In particular, [Freda Nkirote M'Mbogori] especially contributed to field investigations in Kenya; [Valentine Roux] especially contributed to research design and field investigations in India; [Simone Gabbriellini] especially contributed to qualitative data coding, modeling and simulation, and data analysis; [Gianluca Manzo] especially contributed to research and method design, analysis of the literature, modeling, data analysis, and article writing.
This work was supported by the ANR (The French National Agency for Research) within the framework of the program CULT (Metamorphosis of societies—“Emergence and evolution of cultures and cultural phenomena”), project DIFFCERAM (Dynamics of spreading of ceramic techniques and style: actualist comparative data and agent-based modeling) (no. ANR-12-CULT-0001-01).
- Abramson, C. M., Joslyn, J., Rendle, K. A., Garrett, S. B., & Dohan, D. (2017). The promises of computational ethnography: improving transparency, replicability, and validity for realist approaches to ethnographic analysis. Ethnography, 19(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138117725340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. London: SAGE Publications Limited.Google Scholar
- Boudon, R. (1986). Theories of social change: a critical appraisal. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Clarke, D. L. (1968). Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen & Co ltd..Google Scholar
- Davis, D. D. (1983). Investigating the diffusion of stylistic innovations. In M.B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory (Vol. 6, pp. 53–89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-003106-1.50007-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ermakoff, I. (2017). On the frontiers of rational choice. In C. Benzecry, M. Krause, & I. A. Reed (Eds.), Social theory now (pp. 162–200). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Fink, C., Schmidt, A., Barash, V., Kelly, J., Cameron, C., & Macy, M. (2016). Investigating the observability of complex contagion in empirical social networks. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM16/paper/view/13143. Accessed 18 Dec 2017.
- Ganguli, K. K. (1983). Cultural history of Rajasthan. Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan.Google Scholar
- Hamberg, K., Houseman, M., & White, D. R. (2011). Kinship network analysis. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 533–549). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2011). A brief introduction to analyzing social network data. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 331–339). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hollstein, B. (2011). Qualitative approaches. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 404–416). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Kramer, C. (1997). Pottery in Rajasthan. Ethnoarchaeology of two Indian cities. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
- Miller, D. (1985). Artefacts as categories. A study of ceramic variability in Central India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Mitschele, A. (2014). Identity and opportunity in early modern politics: how job vacancies induced witch persecutions in Scotland, 1563–1736. In G. Manzo (Ed.), Analytical sociology: actions and networks (pp. 151–169). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Palloni, A. (2001). Diffusion in sociological analysis. In J. B. Casterline (Ed.), Diffusion processes and fertility transition: selected perspectives (pp. 66–115). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Railsback, S. F., & Grimm, V. (2011). Agent-based and individual-based modeling: a practical introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Rao, G. A., Rogers, E. M., & Singh, S. N. (1980). Interpersonal relations in the diffusion of an innovation in two Indian villages. Indian Journal of Extension of Education, 16(1–2), 19–24.Google Scholar
- Robins, G. (2011). Exponential random graph models for social networks. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 484–501). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Robins, G. (2015). Doing social network research: network-based research design for social scientists. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Roux, V., Bril, B., & Karasik, A. (2018). Weak ties and expertise: crossing technological boundaries. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9397-8.
- Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
- Saraswati, B. (1979). Pottery-making cultures and Indian civilization. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.Google Scholar
- Smith, J. A., & Burow, J. (2018). Using ego network data to inform agent-based models of diffusion. Sociological Methods & Research, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118769100.
- Snijders, T. A. B. (2011). Network dynamics. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 501–514). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Valente, T. W. (1999). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. New York: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
- Van den Bulte, C., & Lilien, G. L. (2010). Medical innovation revisited: social contagion versus marketing effort. American Journal of Sociology, 106(5), 1409–1435.Google Scholar
- van Duijn, M. A. J., & Huisman, M. (2011). Statistical models for ties and actors. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 459–484). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- White, D. R., & Johansen, U. (2006). Network analysis and ethnographic problems: process models of a Turkish nomad clan. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
- Young, P. (2006). The diffusion of innovations in social networks. In L. E. Blume & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), The economy as a complex evolving system (Vol. III). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar