Abstract
In the computational model developed in this article, we study the dynamics of diffusion of information or innovations, aiming to identify how ideas, technologies or products are spread among individuals within a social network. Results suggest strong dependence of the spread of technologies to the initial conditions of the population, reflected by the initial istribution of the propensity of individuals to accept a new idea or product. When there is aversion to innovation, efforts should be focused on influent individuals that lead others in heir social network to break barriers and adopt new products. Additionally, one should privilege strategies that make people give greater weight, in their decision making, to certain stimuli they receive. In this context, the fact that a product or an idea be in fashion affects the propagation speed. Marketing programs, special discounts and increased number of connections in social networks are relevant strategies.References
ANCONA, D. G.; CALDWELL, D. F. Demography and design: predictors of the product team productivity. Organizational Science, v. 3, n.3, p. 321-341, 1992.
AXELROD, R. Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. University of Michigan, 2005 (Working paper).
AXELROD, R. The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
AXELROD, R. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books, 1984.
BASS, F. M. A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, v. 15, n. 5, p. 215-227, 1969.
BERKELEY, E. C. Giant brains, or machines that think. New York: Wiley, 1949.
BERKOWITZ, S. D. An introduction to structural analysis. Toronto: Butterworths, 1982.
BORGATTI, S. The state of organizational social network research today. Report – Department of Organizational Studies: Boston University, 2003.
BOTT, E. Family and social network: roles, norms, and external relationships in ordinary urban families. London: Tavistock, 1957.
BRASS, D. J. Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, n. 29, p. 518-529, 1984.
BRATLEY, P.; FOX, B.; SCHRAGE, L. A guide to simulation. 2nd edition. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987.
BRONNENBERG, B. J.; ROSSI, P. E.; VILCASSIM, N. J. Structural modeling and policy simulation: a comment. Social Science Research Network – SSRN, 2004.
COHEN, K. J.; CYERT, R. M. Computer models in dynamic economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, v. 75, n. 1, p. 112-127, 1961.
COLEMAN, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, v. 94, n. 5, p. 95-120, 1988.
COLLIER, P. Social capital and poverty. Washington: The World Bank, 1998.
CYERT, R.; MARCH, R. M. A behavioral theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963.
DAVIS, J. P.; EISENHARDT, K. M.; BINGHAM, C. B. Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review, v. 32, n. 2, p. 480-495, 2007.
DUFFY, J. Agent-based modes and human subject experiments. In: TESFATSION, L.; JUDD, K. L. (Eds.). Handbook of Computational Economics, 2, 2006, p. 949-1.011.
EHRENTREICH, N. Agent-based modeling: The Santa Fe Institute artificial stock Market model revisited. Springer, 2007.
FRANSES, P. H. Forecasting in marketing. Econometric Institute, Department of Business Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Econometric Institute Report EI 2004-40. Rotterdam: EUR, 2004.
GOLDBERG, D. E. Genetic algorithms: in search of optimization and machine learning. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1989.
GOLDENBERG, J.; LIBAI, B.; MULLER, E. Talk to the network: a complex system look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Marketing Letters, v. 12, n. 3, p. 211-223, 2001.
GRANOVETTER, M. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, n. 78, p. 1.360-1.380, 1973.
GRANOVETTER, M. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, n. 1, p. 201-233, 1983.
GUSEO, R.; GUIDOLIN, M. Modelling a dynamic market potential: a class of automata networks for diffusion of innovations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, v. 76, n. 6, p. 806-820, 2009.
HUNT, E. Computer simulation: artificial intelligence studies and their relevance to psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, n. 19, p. 135-168, 1968.
JONKER, C. M.; TREUR, J. Agent-based simulation of animal behavior. Applied Intelligence, v. 15, n.1, p. 83-115, 2001.
KAUFFMAN, S. The origins of order. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
KAUFFMAN, S. At home in the Universe: the search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
KUANDYKOV, L.; SOKOLOV, M. Impact of social neighborhood on diffusion of innovation S-curve. Decision Support Systems, v. 48, n. 4, p. 531-535, 2010.
LEVINTHAL, D. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, n. 43, p. 934-950, 1997.
LÉVI-STRAUSS, C. Elementary structures of kinship. Boston: Beacon, 1969.
MACY, M. W.; WILLER, R. From factors to actors: computational sociology and agent based modeling. Annual Review of Sociology, n. 28, p. 143-166, 2002.
MITCHELL, J. C. Social networks in urban situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1969.
MIZRUCHI, M. S. Análise de redes sociais: avanços recentes e controvérsias atuais. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 46, n. 3, p. 72-86, 2006.
MORENO, J. L. Who shall survive? Foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy, and sociodrama. New York: Beacon Press,1934.
NEWELL, A.; SHAW, J. C.; SIMON, H. Chess playing and the problem of complexity. In: FEIGENBAUM, E.; FELDMAN, J. (Eds.). Computers and thoughts. New York: McGraw Hill, 1965, p. 39-70.
NILSSON, N. J. Principles of artificial intelligence. California: Tioga, 1981.
ORCUTT, G. H. Simulation of economic systems. American Economic Review, v. 50, n. 5, p. 893-907, 1960.
PORTES, A; SENSENBRENNER, J. Embeddedness and immigration: notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, v. 98, n. 6, p. 1320-1350, 1993.
REAGANS, R.; ZUCKERMAN, E. W. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organizational Science, v. 12, n. 4, p. 502-517, 2001.
REPPENING, N. A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of innovation implementation. Organizational Science, v. 13, p. 109-127, 2002.
RIVKIN, J. W. Imitation of complex strategies. Management Science, n. 46, p. 824-844, 2000.
ROGERS, E. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press, 1962.
SCHELLING, T. C. Micromotives and macrobehavior, New York: W. W. Norton, 1978.
SEPPES, P.; PAVEL, M.; FALMAGNE, J. C. Representations and models in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, n. 45, p. 517-544, 1994.
SILVA, P. S.; MELO, A. C. V. A simulation-oriented formalization for a psychological theory. In: DWYER, M. B.; LOPES, A. (Eds.): FASE 2007. LNCS 4422. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2007, p. 42-56.
SKINNER, B. F. The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology, n. 12, p. 40-65, 1935.
SCHWARZ, N.; ERNST, A. Agent-based modeling of the diffusion of environmental innovations – an empirical approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, v. 76, n. 4, p. 497-511, 2009.
VAN DEN BULTE, C.; JOSHI, Y. V. New product diffusion with influentials and imitators. Marketing Science, v. 26, n. 3, p. 400-421, 2007.
VON NEUMMAN, J. The computer and the brain. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958.
WEJNERT, R. Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: a conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, v. 28, n. 1, p. 297-326, 2002.
WOOLDRIDGE, M. J.; JENNINGS, N. R. Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, v. 10, n. 2, p. 115-152, 1995.
The content of the articles and reviews published in RBI are of absolute and exclusive responsibility of their authors.
Downloads
