Theory Manuscript: Diffusion of Innovations

Meredith B. Mason
University of Cincinnati
HPE 7040
Dr. Brittany L. Rosen

Historical Development

RUNNING HEAD: Diffusion of Innovations 2

Everett M. Rogers formally developed the Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) theory in 1962
(Edberg, 2007). This theory was disseminated to the public through the book titled Diffusion of
Innovations (Rogers, Singhal & Quinlan, 2009). Though Rogers is known as the main scholar of
the DOI theory, the idea of diffusion of new ideas into society, the S curve representing how
people adopt new ideas over time and the importance of change agents or opinion leaders in the
diffusion of these new ideas, can be traced back to 1902 to French judge and sociologist, Gabriel
Tarde (Dearing, 2009).
Dearing (2009) professes that the surge of the concept and constructs of the diffusion of
innovations began with Ryan & Gross (1943)s study of how the innovation of hybrid corn seeds
was adopted by two farming communities in Iowa. This study explained how over a decade, the
use of the hybrid seed was diffused into these Iowa communities and adopted by farmers (Ryan
& Gross, 1943). Ryan and Gross (1943) explained the role of influencers, or opinion leaders,
which in this case were salesman promoting the use of the hybrid corn seed. The study explained
that this seed was so important as it yielded more corn, which economically benefited these Iowa
farm communities (Ryan & Gross 1950). According to Dearing (2009), Ryan & Gross (1943)
led the way for fields other than agriculture, such as sociology, education, medical sociology,
journalism, communication and public health, to use and research the diffusion of innovations.
Though various fields use DOI theory to guide research and practice, the literature reviewed did
not state any major revisions to Everett M. Rogers constructs to the DOI theory.
Main Scholars and Proponents

The main scholar for DOI theory was Everett M. Rogers (Edberg, 2007). Rogers was a
rural sociologist who was intrigued with how innovations spread through communities. Rogers
was also interested in how diffusing new innovations through social systems was not based on
the type of innovation, the opinion leaders or the culture of that system (Dearing, 2009; Rogers et

RUNNING HEAD: Diffusion of Innovations 3

al., 2009). Rogers found that the diffusion process across cultures and locations could be
generalized (Rogers et al., in 2009). His book, Diffusion of Innovations, had a global impact as
at this time, newly-independent countries were attempting to diffuse health and agriculture
innovations into their fresh societies (Rogers et al., 2009). Diffusion of Innovations has had
multiple editions and continues to guide a plethora of fields, including public health and health
promotion, in research and practice (Rogers et al., 2009).
Another scholar and proponent for DOI theory is James W. Dearing. Through a
comprehensive literature search of the Diffusion of Innovations theory, Dearings contributions
to the research could not be ignored. In Dearings Applying Diffusion of Innovation Theory to
Intervention Development, he discussed the importance of this theory in terms of dissemination
science, or how evidence-based programs and practice gets communicated to people and
organizations in order to make large-scale behavior changes (Dearing, 2009).
In this article, Dearing (2009) discussed how interventions (specifically in social work)
could be disseminated into organizations, in order to be implemented. The organizations are the
ones adopting the intervention and then providing the services to clients. In this work, Dearing
(2009) also explained common mistakes while disseminating information to organizations and
the public, such as assuming authority as influence in addition to providing solutions for the
mistakes. This intensive article also connected to other DOI related works Dearing has authored
focusing on health programming and implementation, agenda setting, communication and social
marketing.
Research Examples of Theory

The works of Rogers and Dearing have set the stage for a multitude of other authors to
use Diffusion of Innovations theory in order to research or implement programs in various fields.

RUNNING HEAD: Diffusion of Innovations 4

There were hundreds of studies to choose from, but I have selected two that represent different
fields that have used DOI theory to explain their respective innovations diffusing into society.
Rogers 9/11 Study

Rogers and Seidel (2002) studied how first news about the horrendous 9/11/2001 terrorist
attacks across the United States diffused to New Mexico residents. This was a communication
study that found the top three means by which New Mexico residents heard about the 9/11
attacks were through television (32.26%), radio (26.77%) and interpersonal (25.99%) means
(Rogers & Seidel, 2002). This study emphasized the importance of interpersonal network
diffusion, or how people told other people, even complete strangers, about the attacks (Rogers &
Seidel, 2002). Two of the respondents actually told fifty people about the attacks each (Rogers &
Seidel, 2002). This study differed from other communication DOI studies because it measured
the personal effects of diffusing this terrible event to others as well as actions people pursued
after diffusing the information, such as praying or going to a memorial (Rogers & Seidel, 2002).
The Rogers & Seidel (2002) study represents how pertinent information is diffused through
different sources to reach individuals.
Diffusion of Effective Behavioral Intervention (DEBI)

Another study that uses DOI is the DEBI project, whose purpose was to diffuse
interventions to reduce HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to state and local
health departments and community-based organizations (CBOs) (Collins, Harshbarger, Sawyer
& Hamdallah, 2006). This project was promoted by the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and there were four interventions diffused (Collins et al., 2006). The
researchers used social marketing strategies, such as web-broadcasts, websites, presentations at
public health conferences as well as using HIV/AIDS prevention networks such as the National

RUNNING HEAD: Diffusion of Innovations 5

Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD) to diffuse the interventions to their
target populations (Collins et al., 2006).
The DEBI training and interventions were thoroughly evaluated by the CDCs Program
Evaluation and Monitoring System (Collins et al., 2006). The researchers believed it was
necessary to change some interventions to be more culturally sensitive towards the target
populations. The researchers goal is to further diffuse these various HIV/AIDS and STI
interventions to more health departments and community-based organizations around the nation
(Collins et al., 2006). In my opinion, this group of interventions and the way they were
disseminated to the intended audiences were very organized and follow the diffusion of
innovations theory closely. They also addressed cultural components and how being aware of
cultural differences influences various interventions and their effectiveness. Diffusion of
Innovations is a social theory, and though the authors state that they targeted CBOs through well
known HIV/AIDS and STI prevention networks, I wonder if that impressed the actual people
receiving the intervention. Goodson (2009) encourages health educators to think critically when
applying the use of theory in interventions. Therefore, I question how DEBI interventions
attracted individual members of the CBOs to actually participate. Did they contact opinion
leaders? Are the researchers taking individual-factors and behaviors into consideration? Are there
barriers, peer behaviors, beliefs and perceived severity of certain behaviors that may lead to
exposure to HIV/AIDS? I would suggest that individual level theories, such as the Health Belief
Model, could be combined with the DOI theory when dealing with HIV/AIDS program
implementation.
Theory Application

Through reviewing the literature on the DOI theory, it is obvious that the roles of opinion
leaders are significant in terms of intervention effectiveness. I was particularly fascinated with

RUNNING HEAD: Diffusion of Innovations 6

an intervention completed by Barker (2004), where she used voodoo leaders in a Haitian
community to encourage community members to participate in an HIV/AIDS and STI prevention
intervention. This example and others convince me that though the other constructs of DOI
theory are very important, opinion leaders essentially are responsible for having their
communities engage in an intervention or not (Barker, 2004; Dearing, 2009).
I am fascinated with the use of methamphetamine and its correlation to the spread of
HIV/AIDS, especially in the community of men who have sex with other men (MSM). There
are multiple interventions directed towards this health issue and community. However, I am
most interested in a harm reduction technique of cleaning needles used to inject
methamphetamine. Opinion leaders in the MSM community in Cincinnati could be leaders of
organizations such as Stop AIDS Cincinnati or fellow members of self-help groups like
Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous. If I established a DOI-based intervention within this
community, I would have to explore what organizations MSM methamphetamine users affiliate
with, if any, and determine key opinion leaders. Without the support of key leaders within the
community, any prevention effort, like exchanging clean needles for use, are not likely going to
be adopted by the community. I believe that the knowledge (including awareness, procedural and
principles) of the innovation of using clean needles to inject methamphetamine is understood
throughout the MSM- methamphetamine using community (Edberg, 2007). However, diffusion
of innovations occurs within a social context, and it is imperative to identify and communicate
with the opinion leaders of the community in order to diffuse any harm reduction intervention
program successfully (Edberg, 2007; Barker, 2004).
References

RUNNING HEAD: Diffusion of Innovations 7

Barker, K. (2004). Diffusion of Innovations: A world tour. Journal of Health
Communication, 9, 131-137.

Collins, C., Harshbarger, C., Sawyer, R., & Hamdallah, M. (2006). The Diffusion of
Effective Behavioral Interventions Project: Development, implementation and
lessons learned. AIDS Education and Prevention, 18 (Supplement A), 5-20.

Dearing, J.W. (2009). Applying Diffusion of Innovation theory to intervention

development. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 503-518.

Edberg, M. (2007). Essentials of health behavior: Social and behavioral theory in

public health. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Goodson, P. (2010). Theory in health promotion research and practice: Thinking

outside the box. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Rogers, E.M., & Seidel, N. (2002). Diffusion of news of the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. Prometheus, 20(3): 209-219.

Rogers, E.M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M.M. (2009). Diffusion of Innovations. In D.
Stacks & M. Salwen (Eds.) in An integrated approach to
communication theory and research (1-24). New York: Routledge.

RUNNING HEAD: Diffusion of Innovations 8

Ryan,R.,&Gross,N.(1943).ThediffusionofhybridseedcornintwoIowa
communities.RuralSociology,8,1524.