Peer Effects in the Diffusion of Solar Photovoltaic Panels

Social interaction (peer) effects are recognized as a potentially important factor in the diffusion of new products. In the case of environmentally friendly goods or technologies, both marketers and policy makers are interested in the presence of causal peer effects as social spillovers can be used to expedite adoption. We provide a methodology for the simple, straightforward identification of peer effects with sufficiently rich data, avoiding the biases that occur with traditional fixed effects estimation when using the past installed base of consumers in the reference group. We study the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels in California and find that at the average number of owner-occupied homes in a zip code, an additional installation increases the probability of an adoption in the zip code by 0.78 percentage points. Our results provide valuable guidance to marketers designing strategies to increase referrals and reduce customer acquisition costs. They also provide insights into the diffusion process of environmentally friendly technologies.

[1]  Bernard Fortin,et al.  Identification of Peer Effects through Social Networks , 2007, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[2]  Harikesh S. Nair,et al.  Modeling social interactions: Identification, empirical methods and policy implications , 2008 .

[3]  S. Kalish,et al.  A MARKET ENTRY TIMING MODEL FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES * , 2004 .

[4]  D. Waldman,et al.  The diffusion of innovations in hospitals. Some econometric considerations. , 1985, Journal of health economics.

[5]  E. Oster,et al.  DETERMINANTS OF TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION: PEER EFFECTS IN MENSTRUAL CUP TAKE-UP , 2012 .

[6]  Tjalling C. Koopmans,et al.  Statistical Inference in Dynamic Economic Models , 1951 .

[7]  Puneet Manchanda,et al.  The Effects of Service Quality and Word of Mouth on Customer Acquisition, Retention and Usage , 2007 .

[8]  Charlotte H. Mason,et al.  Technical Note---Nonlinear Least Squares Estimation of New Product Diffusion Models , 1986 .

[9]  Trond Petersen,et al.  Time-Aggregation Bias in Continuous-Time Hazard-Rate Models , 1991 .

[10]  Catherine E. Tucker.  Identifying Formal and Informal Influence in Technology Adoption with Network Externalities , 2008 .

[11]  Mohammad Arzaghi,et al.  Networking off Madison Avenue , 2008 .

[12]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Learning by Doing and Learning from Others: Human Capital and Technical Change in Agriculture , 1995, Journal of Political Economy.

[13]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[14]  F. Windmeijer.  Moment conditions for fixed effects count data models with endogenous regressors , 2000 .

[15]  Margaret R. Taylor.  Beyond technology-push and demand-pull: Lessons from California's solar policy , 2008 .

[16]  Harikesh S. Nair,et al.  Asymmetric Social Interactions in Physician Prescription Behavior: The Role of Opinion Leaders , 2008 .

[17]  Scott K. Shriver.  Network Effects in Alternative Fuel Adoption: Empirical Analysis of the Market for Ethanol , 2010 .

[18]  Giacomo De Giorgi,et al.  Identification of Social Interactions through Partially Overlapping Peer Groups , 2010 .

[19]  Matthew J. Kotchen,et al.  Community-based incentives for environmental protection: the case of green electricity , 2013 .

[20]  Steven Stern,et al.  Are lemons really hot potatoes , 2009 .

[21]  Michel Wedel,et al.  A Monte Carlo study of time aggregation in continuous-time and discrete-time parametric hazard models , 1998 .

[22]  E. Glaeser,et al.  Crime and Social Interactions , 1995 .

[23]  P. Romer.  Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[24]  Gary L. Lilien,et al.  A market entry timing model for new techniques , 1986 .

[25]  Christopher Lettl,et al.  Distinctive Roles of Lead Users and Opinion Leaders in the Social Networks of Schoolchildren , 2009 .

[26]  Bruce G. S. Hardie,et al.  Marketing-Mix Variables and the Diffusion of Successive Generations of a Technological Innovation , 2001 .

[27]  J. Wooldridge.  Multiplicative Panel Data Models Without the Strict Exogeneity Assumption , 1997, Econometric Theory.

[28]  S. Wei,et al.  Service Offshoring and Productivity: Evidence from the United States , 2006 .

[29]  Piero Cipollone,et al.  Social Interactions in High School: Lessons from an Earthquake , 2006 .

[30]  P. Howitt,et al.  Endogenous Growth Theory , 1999 .

[31]  Pradeep Chintagunta,et al.  The Effect of Signal Quality and Contiguous Word of Mouth on Customer Acquisition for a Video-on-Demand Service , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[32]  Gary L. Lilien,et al.  A decision-support system for evaluating sales prospects and launch strategies for new products , 1986 .

[33]  G. Barbose,et al.  An analysis of residential PV system price differences between the United States and Germany , 2013, 2013 IEEE 39th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC).

[34]  Andreas Ammermueller,et al.  Peer Effects in European Primary Schools: Evidence from Pirls , 2006, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[35]  Timothy H. Hannan,et al.  Market Concentration and the Diffusion of New Technology in the Banking Industry , 1984 .

[36]  Vijay Mahajan,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Estimation for an Innovation Diffusion Model of New Product Acceptance , 1982 .

[37]  Peter J. Klenow,et al.  Evidence on Learning and Network Externalities in the Diffusion of Home Computers* , 2002, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[38]  Suzi Kerr,et al.  Policy-Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the U.S. Lead Phasedown , 2001 .

[39]  J. Arndt.  Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product , 1967 .

[40]  Vijay Mahajan,et al.  New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A Review and Directions for Research: , 1990 .

[41]  E. Duflo,et al.  The Role of Information and Social Interactions in Retirement Plan Decisions: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment , 2002 .

[42]  Jonn Axsen,et al.  Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles , 2009 .

[43]  Ingrid Mignon,et al.  Who invests in renewable electricity production? Empirical evidence and suggestions for further research , 2013 .

[44]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Visual Influence and Social Groups , 2012 .

[45]  Imran Rasul,et al.  Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique , 2002 .

[46]  R. Lucas.  On the Mechanics of Economic Development , 1988 .

[47]  J. Mulligan,et al.  The Review of Economics and Statistics , 1998 .

[48]  N. Christakis,et al.  The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network Over 32 Years , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[49]  C. Manski.  Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem , 1993 .

[50]  Philipp Schmidt-Dengler,et al.  The Timing of New Technology Adoption: The Case of MRI , 2006 .

[51]  S. Wei,et al.  Service Offshoring and Productivity: Evidence from the US , 2009 .

[52]  R. Paap,et al.  Generalized Reduced Rank Tests Using the Singular Value Decomposition , 2003 .

[53]  Marc Nerlove,et al.  Further evidence on the estimation of dynamic economic relations from a time series of cross-sections , 1971 .

[54]  Jason M. Fletcher,et al.  Is Obesity Contagious? Social Networks vs. Environmental Factors in the Obesity Epidemic , 2008, Journal of health economics.

[55]  F. Bass.  A new product growth model for consumer durables , 1976 .

[56]  B. Hamilton,et al.  Technology Diffusion and Market Structure: Evidence from Infertility Treatment Markets , 2005 .

[57]  Kaivan Munshi,et al.  Social norms and the fertility transition , 2006 .

[58]  Yogesh V. Joshi,et al.  New Product Diffusion with Influentials and Imitators , 2007 .

[59]  G. Gowrisankaran,et al.  Network Externalities and Technology Adoption: Lessons from Electronic Payments , 2002 .

[60]  Vladas Griskevicius,et al.  INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES Going Green to Be Seen : Status , Reputation , and Conspicuous Conservation , 2010 .

[61]  Bruce I. Sacerdote.  Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates , 2001 .

[62]  A. Soetevent.  Empirics of the Identification of Social Interactions: An Evaluation of the Approaches and Their Results , 2006 .

[63]  Stephen Nickell,et al.  Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects , 1981 .

[64]  Sridhar Narayanan,et al.  Estimating Causal Installed-Base Effects: A Bias-Correction Approach , 2011 .

[65]  Matthew E. Kahn,et al.  Green Market Geography: The Spatial Clustering of Hybrid Vehicles and LEED Registered Buildings , 2009 .

[66]  Donald R. Lehmann,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Applications of Diffusion Models , 1990 .

[67]  Jason M. Fletcher,et al.  Detecting implausible social network effects in acne, height, and headaches: longitudinal analysis , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[68]  Z. Griliches.  HYBRID CORN: AN EXPLORATION IN THE ECONOMIC OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE , 1957 .

[69]  Timothy G. Conley,et al.  Learning About a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana , 2010 .

[70]  Ying Xie,et al.  The Role of Targeted Communication and Contagion in Product Adoption , 2008, Mark. Sci..

[71]  Sangyoung Song,et al.  Neighborhood effects and trial on the internet: Evidence from online grocery retailing , 2007 .

[72]  M. Kremer,et al.  Peer Effects and Alcohol Use Among College Students , 2003 .

[73]  Matthew E. Kahn,et al.  Do liberal home owners consume less electricity? A test of the voluntary restraint hypothesis , 2013 .

[74]  Alan T. Sorensen,et al.  Social learning and health plan choice. , 2006, The Rand journal of economics.

[75]  Bryan S. Graham,et al.  Identifying Social Interactions Through Conditional Variance Restrictions , 2008 .

[76]  J. Heckman,et al.  A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data , 1984 .

[77]  F. Bass,et al.  A diffusion theory model of adoption and substitution for successive generations of high-technology products , 1987 .

[78]  Johannes Rode,et al.  From Green Users to Green Voters , 2013 .

[79]  T. Koopmans.  Statistical inference in dynamic economic models , 1951 .

[80]  J. Trogdon,et al.  Journal of Health Economics Peer Effects in Adolescent Overweight , 2022 .

[81]  Kevin Lang,et al.  Does School Integration Generate Peer Effects? Evidence from Boston's Metco Program , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[82]  William F. Gale,et al.  Harnessing social networks for promoting adoption of energy technologies in the domestic sector , 2013 .

[83]  Kaivan Munshi.  Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution , 2004 .

[84]  David R. Bell,et al.  Spatiotemporal Analysis of Imitation Behavior across New Buyers at an Online Grocery Retailer , 2010 .

[85]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Multivariate Visual Diffusion for Social Groups , 2011 .

[86]  Thomas W. Valente,et al.  Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion , 2011, Mark. Sci..

[87]  Martin V. Melosi,et al.  Cities and the Environment , 2012 .

[88]  V. Mahajan,et al.  Diffusion of New Products: Empirical Generalizations and Managerial Uses , 1995 .

[89]  Matthew E. Kahn,et al.  California Center for Population Research On-Line Working Paper SeriesUnderstanding the Solar Home Price Premium: Electricity Generation and “Green ” Social Status , 2010 .

[90]  M. Nerlove,et al.  Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects , 1988 .

[91]  E. Oster,et al.  Determinants of Technology Adoption: Private Value and Peer Effects in Menstrual Cup Take-Up , 2009 .

[92]  Giorgio Topa,et al.  Social interactions, local spillovers and unemployment , 2001 .