Ling Kong

ling@stanford.edu

SymSys205 commentary

Diffusion of Innovations

In the “Diffusion of Innovations” by Everett Rogers, two types of social systems were named. The first type is a homophilous social system, where people interact with other people similar to them. The second type of social system is heterophilous, where people interact more with people who are different from them. Both types of social systems exist in our society and every day lives; however, which is more effective in the diffusion of innovations?

Looking at our lives, it is evident that our friendships mostly are established in a homophilous system. Since humans are social beings, we make friends and “hang out” with people who are similar to us, behaving in acceptable ways and having agreeable mentalities. In an academic setting, however, the social system is mostly heterophilous, with students interacting with others that hold different views. Each of these two different systems is better suited for a different type of innovation to diffuse.

In a homophilous system, the diffusion of new ideas, concepts, theories, and political ideologies can be very difficult. With people similar to each other, there is strength in numbers in the support of traditional beliefs, causing incredible difficulty in the persuading of changes in ideas, beliefs, mentalities, and concepts. In a heterphilous environment, the diffusion of innovative ideas and concepts is achieved relatively easier. Since the basis of interaction is with people of different mentalities, people are used to accepting new information, processing it, and allowing it to influence or change previously held beliefs. Hence, a change agent, in wanting to diffuse innovations of ideas and though, should target people in their heterophilous instead of homophilous social groups.

Homophilous social systems seems to favor the diffusion of innovation in products and technology. This is because the adoption of new innovations in products and technology are based on personal preferences, which can be persuaded to people by others who are similar to them in their preference. Hence, if we persuade one person in a homophilous social system adopts a new technology, then his friends will surely be able to understand and relate to why the innovation appeals to him. With each progressive adoption of the new technology, it becomes easier and easier for the technology to diffuse. In heterophilous systems, however, diffusion of technology and products does not become easier with each successive adoption. The difference in people creates a negative association towards the new innovation. Without a common basis of comparison and understanding, people will form the judgment that the new product adopted by this entirely different person will not suit their own need.

Finally, there’s innovation in lifestyle and behavior, encompassing both ideas and products to change the way of life. In this type of innovation, no system really wins in being better suited for diffusion. The difficulty in the diffusion of innovations in lifestyle was illustrated by Rogers in the excerpt about convincing Peruvian housewives to boil water for sanitation purposes. In homophilous systems, it will be incredibly difficulty to persuade the initial person to adopt the new lifestyle. However, with each successful adoption, a new example is formed, allowing each following persuasive attempts to be easier. On the other hand, in heterophilous systems, it may be easy to distribute the new ideas associated with lifestyle change to people. The problem, however, lies in people’s acceptance of the new lifestyle. In heterophilous systems, since people are different from each other, each successful conversion does not bring the whole system closer to adoption. Thus, in the end, no system wins as the better suited system.

Of course, social systems in society today do not merely fall into one of the two systems discussed above. It is usually a mix of the two systems interacting and working together. In communities (even online communities), homophilous groups interact with different homophilous groups in heterophilous environments. When people get together in heterophilous settings, information is spread via interactions, and innovations and ideas are taken back to homophilous groups to be propagated. This collaboration of the two systems is what brings about the wide diffusion of innovation across different cultures, communities, and groups.