Editing Diffusion of innovations (section)

=== Opinion leaders ===

Not all individuals exert an equal amount of influence over others. In this sense [[Opinion leadership|opinion leaders]] are influential in spreading either positive or negative information about an innovation. Rogers relies on the ideas of Katz & Lazarsfeld and the [[two-step flow]] theory in developing his ideas on the influence of opinion leaders.<ref name="KatzLazarsfeld1970">{{cite book|first1=Elihu|last1=Katz|first2=Paul|last2=Lazarsfeld|title=Personal Influence, the Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications|url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=rElW8D0D8gYC}} |year=1970 |publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=978-1-4128-3070-6}}</ref>

Opinion leaders have the most influence during the evaluation stage of the innovation-decision process and on late adopters.{{sfn|Rogers|1962|p=219}} In addition opinion leaders typically have greater exposure to the mass media, more cosmopolitan, greater contact with change agents, more social experience and exposure, higher socioeconomic status, and are more innovative than others.

Research was done in the early 1950s at the University of Chicago attempting to assess the cost-effectiveness of broadcast advertising on the diffusion of new products and services.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00871.x | title=Linking Innovation to Design: Consumer Responses to Visual Product Newness | journal=Journal of Product Innovation Management | date=2011 | volume=28 | issue=s1 | pages=208–220 | first=Scott K. | last=Radford}}</ref> The findings were that opinion leadership tended to be organized into a hierarchy within a society, with each level in the hierarchy having most influence over other members in the same level, and on those in the next level below it. The lowest levels were generally larger in numbers and tended to coincide with various demographic attributes that might be targeted by mass advertising. However, it found that direct word of mouth and example were far more influential than broadcast messages, which were only effective if they reinforced the direct influences. This led to the conclusion that advertising was best targeted, if possible, on those next in line to adopt, and not on those not yet reached by the chain of influence.

Research on [[Actor–network theory|actor-network theory (ANT)]] also identifies a significant overlap between the ANT concepts and the diffusion of innovation which examine the characteristics of innovation and its context among various interested parties within a social system to assemble a network or system which implements innovation.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=rpx_BAAAQBAJ&dq=carroll+A+Bureaucratic+View+of+Public+Service+Innovation&pg=PA115 Carroll, N. (2014). Actor-Network Theory: A Bureaucratic View of Public Service Innovation, Chapter 7, Technological Advancements and the Impact of Actor-Network Theory, pp. 115-144, Publisher IGI Global, Hershey, PA]</ref>

Other research relating the concept to [[public choice theory]] finds that the hierarchy of influence for innovations need not, and likely does not, coincide with hierarchies of official, political, or economic status.<ref>[http://www.vwl.tuwien.ac.at/hanappi/lehre/EvoEco/Wittpol.pdf Economic policy making in evolutionary perspective] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110920032258/http://www.vwl.tuwien.ac.at/hanappi/Lehre/EvoEco/Wittpol.pdf |date=2011-09-20 }}, by Ulrich Witt, Max-Planck-Institute for Research into Economic Systems.</ref> Elites are often not innovators, and innovations may have to be introduced by outsiders and propagated up a hierarchy to the top decision makers.