Cited by 434Innovation Diffusion and ForecastingConsumer Market Behavior and PricingTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Social contagion and income heterogeneity in new product diffusion: A meta-analytic test

Van den Bulte, Christophe, Stremersch, Stefan·2004·Marketing Science

Abstract

Standard diffusion models capture social contagion only coarsely and do not allow one to operationalize different contagion mechanisms. Moreover, there is increasing skepticism about the importance of contagion and, as has long been known, S-shaped diffusion curves can also result from heterogeneity in the propensity to adopt. We present hypotheses about conditions under which specific contagion mechanisms and income heterogeneity are more pronounced, and test these hypotheses using a meta-analysis of the q/p ratio in applications of the Bass diffusion model. The ratio is positively associated with the Gini index of income inequality in a country, supporting the heterogeneity-in-thresholds interpretation. The ratio also varies as predicted by the Gamma-Shifted Gompertz diffusion model, but the evidence vanishes after controlling for national culture. As to contagion, the q/p ratio varies with the four Hofstede dimensions of national culture—for three of them in a direction consistent with the social contagion interpretation. Furthermore, products with competing standards have a higher q/p ratio, which is again consistent with the social contagion interpretation. Finally, we find effects of national culture only for products without competing standards, suggesting that technological effects and culturally moderated social contagion effects might not operate independently from each other.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mksc.1040.0054

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van den Bulte, C., & Stremersch, S.
Affiliations
  • The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
  • Emory University (US)
Venue
Marketing Science
Published
2004-11
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
530-544
ISSN
  • 0732-2399 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-548X
OpenAlex
W2152838072
Cited by
434
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 34
FWCI
15.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Marketing Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Pennsylvania
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Innovation Diffusion and Forecasting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
social contagion, new product diffusion, income heterogeneity, Bass diffusion model, Gini coefficient, national culture, technological effect, S-shaped diffusion curve

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review