The spread of technological innovations: effects of psychology, culture and policy interventions.
cognitive dissonance
conformity
diffusion of technological innovations
dynamics of attitudes and beliefs
social norms
Journal
Royal Society open science
ISSN: 2054-5703
Titre abrégé: R Soc Open Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101647528
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
22
11
2021
accepted:
01
06
2022
entrez:
27
6
2022
pubmed:
28
6
2022
medline:
28
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Technological innovations drive the evolution of human societies. The success of innovations depends not only on their actual benefits but also on how potential adopters perceive them and how their beliefs are affected by their social and cultural environment. To deepen our understanding of socio-psychological processes affecting the new technology spread, we model the joint dynamics of three interlinked processes: individual learning and mastering the new technology, changes in individual attitudes towards it, and changes in individual adoption decisions. We assume that the new technology can potentially lead to a higher benefit but achieving it requires learning. We posit that individual decision-making process as well as their attitudes are affected by cognitive dissonance and conformity with peers and an external authority. Individuals vary in different psychological characteristics and in their attitudes. We investigate both transient dynamics and long-term equilibria observed in our model. We show that early adopters are usually individuals who are characterized by low cognitive dissonance and low conformity with peers but are sensitive to the effort of an external authority promoting the innovation. We examine the effectiveness of five different intervention strategies aiming to promote the diffusion of a new technology: training individuals, providing subsidies for early adopters, increasing the visibility of peer actions, simplifying the exchange of opinions between people, and increasing the effort of an external authority. We also discuss the effects of culture on the spread of innovations. Finally, we demonstrate that neglecting the cognitive forces and the dynamic nature of individual attitudes can lead to wrong conclusions about adoption of innovations. Our results can be useful in developing more efficient policies aiming to promote the spread of new technologies in different societies, cultures and countries.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35754991
doi: 10.1098/rsos.211833
pii: rsos211833
pmc: PMC9214287
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6035739']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
211833Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Références
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2011 Sep;6(4):460-7
pubmed: 20621961
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Apr 30;99(9):5766-71
pubmed: 16578874
Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 14;6:29704
pubmed: 27412692
Bull Math Biophys. 1949 Dec;11(4):255-71
pubmed: 15394463
Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Jul;2(7):458-468
pubmed: 31097815
Science. 1990 Feb 23;247(4945):920-4
pubmed: 17776451
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1957 Mar 15;43(3):293-5
pubmed: 16590018
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013 Mar;8(3):277-84
pubmed: 22198968
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2016 Sep;136:106-118
pubmed: 32288179
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Apr;88(4):703-20
pubmed: 15796669
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 17;16(2):e0245692
pubmed: 33596234
Inf Syst Front. 2020 Jul 25;:1-23
pubmed: 32837263
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Apr 2;116(14):6720-6725
pubmed: 30833399
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2008 Sep;78(3 Pt 2):036104
pubmed: 18851102
Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Apr;18(4):172-4
pubmed: 24582437
R Soc Open Sci. 2022 Jun 22;9(6):211833
pubmed: 35754991
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2021 Apr 12;376(1822):20200133
pubmed: 33612005
Science. 2011 May 27;332(6033):1100-4
pubmed: 21617077
Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Nov;11(11):482-8
pubmed: 17980645
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jun 6;114(23):6068-6073
pubmed: 28533363
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Oct 8;110(41):16384-9
pubmed: 24062433
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Dec 27;108 Suppl 4:21285-91
pubmed: 22198762
J Appl Psychol. 2006 Nov;91(6):1225-44
pubmed: 17100480
PLoS Biol. 2005 Jun;3(6):e194
pubmed: 15941355
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jun 3;111(22):7990-5
pubmed: 24843116
Science. 2016 Oct 21;354(6310):321-326
pubmed: 27846564
Chaos. 2020 Aug;30(8):083107
pubmed: 32872837
Sci Am. 1962 Oct;207:93-102
pubmed: 13892642
Bull Math Biophys. 1965 Jun;27(2):175-85
pubmed: 5832696
Science. 2021 May 21;372(6544):
pubmed: 34016754
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Nov 23;107(47):20196-201
pubmed: 21076030
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Jan 27;11(2):1341-58
pubmed: 24473110
Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 10;10(1):2251
pubmed: 32041963
Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(3):323-44
pubmed: 25104107
Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:591-621
pubmed: 14744228
Bull Math Biophys. 1965 Sep;27(3):310-3
pubmed: 5866999
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Mar 19;371(1690):
pubmed: 26926282
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Dec 30;111(52):18414-21
pubmed: 25416592
Psychol Sci. 2004 Aug;15(8):527-33
pubmed: 15270997
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jul 22;111 Suppl 3:10881-8
pubmed: 25024191