Page 158 - Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research

6. SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF MASS COMMUNICATION 147

tance to them necessarily dysfunctional (Zaltman & Wallendorf, 1979). In
the continuous flow of innovations, the number of disadvantageous ones
far exceeds those with truly beneficial possibilities. Both personal and
societal well-being are well served by initial wariness to new practices
promoted by unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims. The designations
venturesome for early adopters and laggards for later adopters are fitting in
the case of innovations that hold promise. However, when people are
mesmerized by alluring appeals into trying innovations of questionable
value, the more suitable designation is gullibility for early adopters and
astuteness for resisters. Rogers (1995) has criticized the prevalent ten-
dency to conceptualize the diffusion process from the perspective of the
promoters. This tends to bias the search for explanations of nonadoptive
behavior in negative attributes of nonadopters.

Social Networks and Flow of Diffusion

The third major factor that affects the diffusion process concerns social net-
work structures. People are enmeshed in networks of relationships that
include occupational colleagues, organizational members, kinships, and
friendships, just to mention a few. They are linked not only directly by per-
sonal relationships. Because acquaintanceships overlap different network
clusters, many people become linked to each other indirectly by intercon-
nected ties. Social structures comprise clustered networks of people with
various ties among them, as well as by persons who provide connections
to other clusters through joint membership or a liaison role. Clusters vary
in their internal structure, ranging from loosely knit ones to those that are
densely interconnected. Networks also differ in the number and pattern of
structural linkages between clusters. They may have many common ties or
function with a high degree of separateness. In addition to their degree of
interconnectedness, people vary in the positions and status they occupy in
particular social networks, which can affect their impact on what spreads
through their network. One is more apt to learn about new ideas and prac-
tices from brief contacts with causal acquaintances than from intensive
contact in the same circle of close associates. This path of influence creates
the seemingly paradoxical effect that innovations are extensively diffused
to cohesive groups through weak social ties (Granovetter, 1983).
Information regarding new ideas and practices is often conveyed
through multilinked relationships (Rogers & Kincaid, 1981). Traditionally,
the communication process has been conceptualized as one of unidirec-
tional persuasion flowing from a source to a recipient. Rogers emphasizes
the mutuality of influence in interpersonal communication. People share
information, give meaning by mutual feedback to the information they
exchange, gain understanding of each other’s views, and influence each