Limitations in relation to diffusion of innovation
Much of the reason for the lack of success in the Diffusion of Innovation theory is due to a few limitations:
- Social norms and standards of acceptance into society greatly outweigh the idea of taking on a new innovation, even at the sake of the health, well-being, and greater levels of education for the community. (Rogers, 1962)
- Much of the evidence for this theory, including the adopter categories, did not originate in public health and it was not developed to explicitly apply to adoption of new behaviors or health innovations (Boston University, 2013).
- The convince or expense of a new behavior (Rogers, 1962)
- How fast the new behavior can be obtained or observed, if the individual doesn't see a tangible outcome or a benefit from the new behavior they are more likely to relapse.(Rogers, 1962)
- If the individual has had past experience with the old behavior but has not seen consequences from it then they are more likely not wanting to innovate.(Rogers, 1962)
- Did not originate from Public Health (Hayden, 2014).
- No participatory approach (Hayden, 2014).
- Does not take into account an individual’s resources or social system (Hayden, 2014).
Examples of limitations in relation to Hiv/ aids
Diffusion of Innovation has been used to successfully in stopping the spread of HIV/ AIDS in: Thailand, Uganda, Senegal, and to some extent in Cambodia. But in most developing countries it has been a struggle. While using Diffusion of Innovation theory a compelling rationale explains this. According to Diffusion of Innovation theory, the pace of diffusion relates directly to the five attributes. If we focus on those attributes it becomes clear why “preventative innovation” has been slow to diffuse in these countries. (Bertrand, 2004)
Relative advantage: In the case of HIV/ AIDS we are asking sexually active people to adopt safer sex practices for a period of time. Which requires a reduction of pleasure. A behavior change is more likely to take place if the innovation confers satisfaction, or convenience, and safer sex doesn't display either of these. (Bertrand, 2004)
Compatibility: The practice of safer sex often challenges the existing value structures. For example for a women who demands condom use this can be taken from the male’s point of view as dominance in sexual decision-making. Also remaining faithful or limiting one’s sexual partners is contrary to “past experience” in societies that condone multiple sexual partners for male, or as well as females in some as well. (Bertrand, 2004)
Complexity: Although the idea of ABC’s (Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom) is not difficult to understand and use, they are difficult to stick to for a period of time. Young sexually active adults must remain faithful for an extended period of time from 30-50 years to avoid HIV infection. In other eyes buying condoms can be expensive and inconvenient at the time. (Bertrand, 2004)
Trialability: With trialability there aren't a lot of limitations due to a person being capable of experimenting with the ABC model. Young people can attempt to stay abstain or remain monogamous, or try to use a condom. (Bertrand, 2004)
Observability: The ABC does not display a readily observable outcome which can be challenging for people to stick to the goal. There are no tangible rewards besides the fact of not getting HIV. (Bertrand, 2004)
Relative advantage: In the case of HIV/ AIDS we are asking sexually active people to adopt safer sex practices for a period of time. Which requires a reduction of pleasure. A behavior change is more likely to take place if the innovation confers satisfaction, or convenience, and safer sex doesn't display either of these. (Bertrand, 2004)
Compatibility: The practice of safer sex often challenges the existing value structures. For example for a women who demands condom use this can be taken from the male’s point of view as dominance in sexual decision-making. Also remaining faithful or limiting one’s sexual partners is contrary to “past experience” in societies that condone multiple sexual partners for male, or as well as females in some as well. (Bertrand, 2004)
Complexity: Although the idea of ABC’s (Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom) is not difficult to understand and use, they are difficult to stick to for a period of time. Young sexually active adults must remain faithful for an extended period of time from 30-50 years to avoid HIV infection. In other eyes buying condoms can be expensive and inconvenient at the time. (Bertrand, 2004)
Trialability: With trialability there aren't a lot of limitations due to a person being capable of experimenting with the ABC model. Young people can attempt to stay abstain or remain monogamous, or try to use a condom. (Bertrand, 2004)
Observability: The ABC does not display a readily observable outcome which can be challenging for people to stick to the goal. There are no tangible rewards besides the fact of not getting HIV. (Bertrand, 2004)