Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 1109–1154 | Cite as

Complex Contagions and the Diffusion of Innovations: Evidence from a Small-N Study

  • Gianluca ManzoEmail author
  • Simone Gabbriellini
  • Valentine Roux
  • Freda Nkirote M’Mbogori


The recent literature on “complex contagions” challenges Granovetter’s classic hypothesis on the strength of weak ties and argues that, when the actors’ choice requires reinforcement from several sources, it is the structure of strong ties that really matters to sustain rapid and wide diffusion. The paper contributes to this debate by reporting on a small-N study that relies on a unique combination of ethnographic data, social network analysis, and computational models. In particular, we investigate two rural populations of Indian and Kenyan potters who have to decide whether to adopt new, objectively more efficient and economically more attractive, technical/stylistic options. Qualitative field data show that religious sub-communities within the Indian and Kenyan populations exhibit markedly different diffusion rates and speed over the last thirty years. To account for these differences, we first analyze empirically observed kinship networks and advice networks, and, then, we recreate the actual aggregate diffusion curves through a series of empirically calibrated agent-based simulations. Combining the two methods, we show that, while single exposure through heterophilious weak ties were sufficient to initiate the diffusion process, large bridges made of strong ties can in fact lead to faster or slower diffusion depending on the type of signals circulating in the network. We conclude that, even in presence of “complex contagions,” dense local ties cannot be regarded as a sufficient condition for faster diffusion.


Ceramic techniques Innovation diffusion Weak ties Strong ties Kinship networks Complex contagions Agent-based simulations 



In India, the support of the Rupayan Sansthan was invaluable. We are grateful to Kuldeep Kothari for resolving all the logistical problems as well as Meet Kaur Gulati, Anil Sharma, Ira Sisodia, and Lakshman Diwakar for their assistance in the field. In Kenya, we are grateful to Jacqueline Kawira for her assistance in the field. Last but not the least, we would also like to thank all the Indian and Kenyan potters for their availability and their unfailing kindness. Mohamed Cherkaoui, Ivan Ermakoff, Cyril Jayet, and Jörg Stolz read earlier versions of the manuscript and provided instructive written remarks. We also thank JAMT referees for their invaluable critical feedback. We are grateful to Peter Hamilton for his careful linguistic revision. Usual disclaimers apply.

Authors’ Contributions

The article arises from a common theoretical and methodological effort. Authors were however differently involved in the specific tasks needed to reach the final product. In particular, [Freda Nkirote M'Mbogori] especially contributed to field investigations in Kenya; [Valentine Roux] especially contributed to research design and field investigations in India; [Simone Gabbriellini] especially contributed to qualitative data coding, modeling and simulation, and data analysis; [Gianluca Manzo] especially contributed to research and method design, analysis of the literature, modeling, data analysis, and article writing.

Funding Information

This work was supported by the ANR (The French National Agency for Research) within the framework of the program CULT (Metamorphosis of societies—“Emergence and evolution of cultures and cultural phenomena”), project DIFFCERAM (Dynamics of spreading of ceramic techniques and style: actualist comparative data and agent-based modeling) (no. ANR-12-CULT-0001-01).


  1. Abramson, C. M., Joslyn, J., Rendle, K. A., Garrett, S. B., & Dohan, D. (2017). The promises of computational ethnography: improving transparency, replicability, and validity for realist approaches to ethnographic analysis. Ethnography, 19(2), 254–284. Scholar
  2. Aral, S., & Van Alstyne, M. (2011). The diversity-bandwidth trade-off. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 90–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldassarri, D. (2015). Cooperative networks: altruism, group solidarity, reciprocity, and sanctioning in Ugandan farmer organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 121(2), 355–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee, A., Chandrasekhar, A. G., Duflo, E., & Jackson, M. O. (2013). The diffusion of micro-finance. Science, 341(6144), 1236498. Scholar
  5. Barabási, A.L. & Bonabeau, E. (2003) Scale-Free Networks. Scientific American, 288, 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bittles, A. H., & Hussain, R. (2000). An analysis of consanguineous marriage in the Muslim population of India at regional and state levels. Annals of Human Biology, 27(2), 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Böhm, T., & Hillmann, H. (2015). A closed elite? Bristol’s Society of Merchant Venturers and the abolition of slave trading. Political Power & Social Theory, 29, 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. London: SAGE Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  9. Boudon, R. (1986). Theories of social change: a critical appraisal. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boudon, R. (2003). Beyond rational choice theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boudon, R. (2014). What is context? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 66(Suppl), 17–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruch, E., & Atwell, J. (2015). Agent-based models in empirical social research. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(2), 186–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Centola, D. (2010). The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329(5996), 1194–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Centola, D. (2011). An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science, 334(6060), 1269–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Centola, D. (2015). The social origins of networks and diffusion. American Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1295–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Centola, D. (2018). How behavior spreads: the science of complex contagion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Centola, D., & Macy, M. W. (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 702–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarke, D. L. (1968). Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen & Co ltd..Google Scholar
  19. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1957). The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry, 20(4), 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis, D. D. (1983). Investigating the diffusion of stylistic innovations. In M.B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory (Vol. 6, pp. 53–89). Academic Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deffuant, G., Huet, S., & Amblard, F. (2005). An individual-based model of innovation diffusion mixing social value and individual benefit. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1041–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delre, S. A., Jager, W., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Janssen, M. A. (2010). Will it spread or not? The effects of social influences and network topology on innovation diffusion. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(2), 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DiMaggio, P., & Garip, F. (2012). Network effects and social inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Erikson, E. (2017). Social networks and macrosocial change. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ermakoff, I. (2017). On the frontiers of rational choice. In C. Benzecry, M. Krause, & I. A. Reed (Eds.), Social theory now (pp. 162–200). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fink, C., Schmidt, A., Barash, V., Kelly, J., Cameron, C., & Macy, M. (2016). Investigating the observability of complex contagion in empirical social networks. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Accessed 18 Dec 2017.
  27. Ganguli, K. K. (1983). Cultural history of Rajasthan. Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan.Google Scholar
  28. Gosselain, O. P. (1992). Bonfire of the enquiries. Pottery firing temperatures in archaeology: what for? Journal of Archaeological Science, 19(3), 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gosselain, O. P. (2016). To hell with ethnoarchaeology. Archaeological Dialogues, 23(2), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hägerstrand, T. (1971). A Monte Carlo approach to diffusion. European Journal of Sociology, 6(1), 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamberg, K., & Gargiulo, F. (2014). Virtual fieldwork: modeling observer bias in kinship and marriage networks. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 17(3), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hamberg, K., Houseman, M., & White, D. R. (2011). Kinship network analysis. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 533–549). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2011). A brief introduction to analyzing social network data. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 331–339). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Hollstein, B. (2011). Qualitative approaches. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 404–416). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Kalter, F., & Kroneberg, C. (2014). Between mechanism talk and mechanism cult: new emphases in explanatory sociology and empirical research. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 66(Suppl 1), 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keuschnigg, M., Lovsjö, N., & Hedström, P. (2017). Analytical sociology and computational social science. Journal of Computational Social Science. Scholar
  38. Kramer, C. (1997). Pottery in Rajasthan. Ethnoarchaeology of two Indian cities. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  39. Krings, G., Calabrese, F., Ratti, C., & Blondel, V. (2009). Urban gravity: a model for inter-city telecommunication flows. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, Scholar
  40. Lambiotte, R., Blondel, V. D., de Kerchove, C., Huens, E., Prieur, C., et al. (2008). Geographical dispersal of mobile communication networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 387(21), 5317–5325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lazega, E., & Pattison, P. E. (1999). Multiplexity, generalized exchange and cooperation in organizations: a case study. Social Networks, 21(1), 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Léon-Medina, F. J. (2017). Analytical sociology and agent-based modeling: is generative sufficiency sufficient? Sociological Theory, 35(3), 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Livingstone, S. A. (2001). Bonfire II: the return of pottery firing temperatures. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28(9), 991–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Manzo, G. (2014a). The potential and limitations of agent-based simulation: an introduction. Revue Française de Sociologie, 55(4), 653–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Manzo, G. (2014b). Data, generative models, and mechanisms: more on the principles of analytical sociology. In G. Manzo (Ed.), Analytical sociology: actions and networks (pp. 4–52). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller, D. (1985). Artefacts as categories. A study of ceramic variability in Central India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Mitschele, A. (2014). Identity and opportunity in early modern politics: how job vacancies induced witch persecutions in Scotland, 1563–1736. In G. Manzo (Ed.), Analytical sociology: actions and networks (pp. 151–169). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Opp, K.-D. (1999). Contending conceptions of the theory of rational action. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11(2), 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400-1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1259–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Palloni, A. (2001). Diffusion in sociological analysis. In J. B. Casterline (Ed.), Diffusion processes and fertility transition: selected perspectives (pp. 66–115). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  51. Railsback, S. F., & Grimm, V. (2011). Agent-based and individual-based modeling: a practical introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rao, G. A., Rogers, E. M., & Singh, S. N. (1980). Interpersonal relations in the diffusion of an innovation in two Indian villages. Indian Journal of Extension of Education, 16(1–2), 19–24.Google Scholar
  53. Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Robins, G. (2011). Exponential random graph models for social networks. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 484–501). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Robins, G. (2015). Doing social network research: network-based research design for social scientists. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  57. Rossman, G., Chiu, M. M., & Mol, J. M. (2008). Modeling diffusion of multiple innovations via multilevel diffusion curves: payola in pop music radio. Sociological Methodology, 38(1), 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roth, C., Gargiulo, F., Bringé, A., & Hamberg, K. (2013). Random alliance networks. Social Networks, 35(3), 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roux, V. (2012). Spreading of innovative technical traits and cumulative technical evolution: continuity or discontinuity? Journal of Archeological Method and Theory, 20(2), 312–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roux, V. (2015). Standardization of ceramic assemblages: transmission mechanisms and diffusion of morpho-functional traits across social boundaries. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 40, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roux, V. (2017). Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A response to Gosselain’s article. Archaeological Dialogues, 24(2), 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roux, V., Bril, B., & Karasik, A. (2018). Weak ties and expertise: crossing technological boundaries. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25(4).
  63. Rowe, W. L. (1960). The marriage network and structural change in a north Indian community. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 16(3), 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
  65. Saraswati, B. (1979). Pottery-making cultures and Indian civilization. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.Google Scholar
  66. Smith, J. A., & Burow, J. (2018). Using ego network data to inform agent-based models of diffusion. Sociological Methods & Research, 1–46.
  67. Snijders, T. A. B. (2011). Network dynamics. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 501–514). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Stovel, K., & Shaw, L. (2012). Brokerage. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: from hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tubaro, P., & Casilli, A. A. (2010). “An ethnographic seduction”: how qualitative research and agent-based models can benefit each other. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 106(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Valente, T. W. (1999). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. New York: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  72. Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van den Bulte, C., & Lilien, G. L. (2010). Medical innovation revisited: social contagion versus marketing effort. American Journal of Sociology, 106(5), 1409–1435.Google Scholar
  74. van Duijn, M. A. J., & Huisman, M. (2011). Statistical models for ties and actors. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 459–484). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Watts, D. J. (1999). Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Watts, D. J. (2004). The new science of networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Watts, D. J., & Doods, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Watts, C., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Simulating innovations. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: a conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. White, D. R., & Houseman, M. (2003). The navigability of strong ties: small worlds, tie strength, and network topology. Complexity, 8(1), 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. White, D. R., & Johansen, U. (2006). Network analysis and ethnographic problems: process models of a Turkish nomad clan. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  83. Young, P. (2006). The diffusion of innovations in social networks. In L. E. Blume & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), The economy as a complex evolving system (Vol. III). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Young, P. (2009). Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous population: contagion, social influence, and social learning. American Economic Review, 99(5), 1899–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Young, P. (2011). The dynamics of social innovation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(4), 21285–21291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GEMASS (UMR 8598), CNRS & University of Paris-SorbonneParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly
  3. 3.CNRS, UMR 7055ParisFrance
  4. 4.British Institute in Eastern AfricaNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations