Mind the Like-Minded. The Role of Social Identity in Prosocial Crowdfunding
Abstract
Current social challenges have increased the interest in globally spread collective actions, especially those taking place in virtual space. Crowdfunding is one form of online activism that has recently gained importance. Although research conducted so far indicates the significance of social motives among participants of crowdfunding campaigns, knowledge about the psychosocial mechanisms involved in its effectiveness is limited. This article attempts to reinforce the position of crowdfunding as one of the forms of collective action and to expand knowledge about possible psychosocial factors that could shape participation in crowdfunding campaigns. In three pre-registered studies (N = 823), we found that the social identity based on a shared worldview positively correlated with the intention to participate in prosocial crowdfunding. Moreover, the relationship between opinion-based group identity and collective action varied depending on participation type (predicted vs. experienced engagement in a campaign). In other words, when people gather in communities built around shared opinions on a given social issue, they develop a sense of community, which can translate into activities for the benefit of the group such as supporting crowdfunding campaigns. However, in the case of actual behaviour, unlike with the declaration of participation, the strength of the relationship with social identity significantly diminishes. The results are discussed in relation to the theory of collective action.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Agostini M., van Zomeren M. (2021). Toward a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of why people engage in collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of four motivations and structural constraints. Psychological Bulletin, 147(7), 667–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000256
Agrawal A., Catalini C., Goldfarb A. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, social networks, and the timing of investment decisions. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24(2), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12093
Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
Ajzen I., Fishbein M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall.
Akfırat S., Uysal M. S., Bayrak F., Ergiyen T., Üzümçeker E., Yurtbakan T., Özkan Ö. S. (2021). Social identification and collective action participation in the internet age: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 15(4). 10. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2021-4-10
Bagheri A., Chitsazan H., Ebrahimi A. (2019). Crowdfunding motivations: A focus on donors’ perspectives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.002
Bauman Z. (2007). Collateral casualties of consumerism. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540507073507
Baysu G., Phalet K. (2017). Beyond Muslim identity: Opinion-based groups in the Gezi park protest. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(3), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216682353
Becker J. C. (2012). The system-stabilizing role of identity management strategies: Social creativity can undermine collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 647–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029240
Becker J. C., Tausch N. (2015). A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: Psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 43–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1094265
Bennett W. L., Segerberg A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
Berger S., Wyss A. M. (2021). Measuring pro-environmental behavior using the carbon emission task. Journal of environmental psychology, 75, 101613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101613
Besta T., Jurek P., Iwanowska M., Szostakowski D. (2019). Multiple group membership and collective actions of opinion-based internet groups: The case of protests against abortion law restriction in Poland. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.025
Bliuc A., McGarty C., Reynolds K., Muntele D. (2007). Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.334
Bliuc A. M., McGarty C., Thomas E. F., Lala G., Berndsen M., Misajon R. (2015). Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 226–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2507
Borst I., Moser C., Ferguson J. (2018). From friendfunding to crowdfunding: Relevance of relationships, social media, and platform activities to crowdfunding performance. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1396–1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817694599
Cartwright D., Zander A. (1968). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Harper + Row.
Choy K., Schlagwein D. (2016). Crowdsourcing for a better world: On the relation between IT affordances and donor motivations in charitable crowdfunding. Information Technology & People, 29(1), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0215
Cox J., Nguyen T., Thorpe A., Ishizaka A., Chakhar S., Meech L. (2018). Being seen to care: The relationship between self-presentation and contributions to online pro-social crowdfunding campaigns. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.014
Dai H., Zhang D. J. (2019). Prosocial goal pursuit in crowdfunding: Evidence from Kickstarter. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(3), 498–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718821697
Defazio D., Franzoni C., Rossi-Lamastra C. (2021). How pro-social framing affects the success of crowdfunding projects: The role of emphasis and information crowdedness. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(2), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04428-1
Deng L., Ye Q., Xu D., Sun W., Jiang G. (2022). A literature review and integrated framework for the determinants of crowdfunding success. Financial Innovation, 8(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-022-00345-6
Doliński D. (2018). Is psychology still a science of behaviour? Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5964/spb.v13i2.25025
Fanea-Ivanovici M., Baber H. (2021a). Predicting entrepreneurial and crowdfunding intentions‒A study of Romania and South Korea. Amfiteatru Economic, 23(S15), 1003–1014. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2021/S15/1003
Fanea-Ivanovici M., Baber H. (2021b). The role of entrepreneurial intentions, perceived risk and perceived trust in crowdfunding intentions. Engineering Economics, 32(5), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.32.5.29300
Fielding K. S., Hornsey M. J. (2016). A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Insights and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00121
Foster M. D., Hennessey E., Blankenship B. T., Stewart A. (2019). Can “slacktivism” work? Perceived power differences moderate the relationship between social media activism and collective action intentions through positive affect. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 13(4). 6 https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2019-4-6
Gerber E. M., Hui J. (2013). Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for participation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(6), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/2530540
Gleasure R., Feller J. (2018). What kind of cause unites a crowd? Understanding crowdfunding as collective action. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 19(3), 223–236. https://www.jecr.org/sites/default/files/2018vol19no3_paper2.pdf
González-Cacheda B., Cancela Outeda C. (2022). Digital cooperation on Facebook and Twitter and financial impact on political crowdfunding campaigns. First Monday, 27(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v27i8.12658
Górska P., Bilewicz M., Winiewski M. (2017). Invisible to the state. Institutional sexual stigma and collective action of LGB individuals in five East European countries. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(3), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216684646
Greenaway K. H., Louis W. R. (2010). Only human: Hostile human norms can reduce legitimization of intergroup discrimination by perpetrators of historical atrocities. The British Journal of Social sychology, 49(Pt 4), 765–783. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X479202
Greenberg J., Mollick E. (2017). Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 341–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216678847
Jost J. T., Banaji M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
Kelly C., Breinlinger S. (1995). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A study of women’s participation in collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(16), 1430–1445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02625.x
Keshavarzi S., McGarty C., Khajehnoori B. (2021). Testing social identity models of collective action in an Iranian environmental movement. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2523
Klandermans B. (2002). How group identification helps to overcome the dilemma of collective action. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764202045005009
Kraut R. E. (1973). Effects of social labeling on giving to charity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(6), 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90037-1
Krumpal I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
Kuppuswamy V., Bayus B. L. (2017). Does my contribution to your crowdfunding project matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.004
Lance Bennett W., Breunig C., Givens T. (2008). Communication and political mobilization: Digital media and the organization of anti-Iraq war demonstrations in the U.S. Political Communication, 25(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600802197434
Leach C. W., van Zomeren M., Zebel S., Vliek M. L., Pennekamp S. F., Doosje B., Ouwerkerk J. W., Spears R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(1), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
McFarland S., Webb M., Brown D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of “identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028724
McGarty C., Bliuc A.-M., Thomas E. F., Bongiorno R. (2009). Collective action as the material expression of opinion-based group membership. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 839–857. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01627.x
Morozov E. (2009). Iran: Downside to the ‘‘Twitter revolution. Dissent, 56(4), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1353/DSS.0.0092
Oyserman D., Dawson A. (2020). Your fake news, our facts: Identity-based motivation shapes what we believe, share, and accept. In Greifeneder R., Jaffé M., Newman E. J., Schwarz N. (Eds.), The psychology of fake news: Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429295379
Pietraszkiewicz A., Soppe B., Formanowicz M. (2017). Go pro bono: Prosocial language as a success factor in crowdfunding. Social Psychology, 48(5), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000319
Pinto I. R., Carvalho C. L., Dias C., Lopes P., Alves S., de Carvalho C., Marques J. M. (2020). A path toward inclusive social cohesion: The role of European and national identity on contesting vs. Accepting European migration policies in Portugal. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1875. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01875
Priante A., Ehrenhard M. L., van den Broek T., Need A. (2018). Identity and collective action via computer-mediated communication: A review and agenda for future research. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2647–2669. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817744783
Reysen S., Katzarska-Miller I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de Psychologie, 48(5), 858–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749
Rhodes R. E., Dickau L. (2012). Experimental evidence for the intention–behavior relationship in the physical activity domain: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 31(6), 724–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027290
Rodriguez-Ricardo Y., Sicilia M., López M. (2018). What drives crowdfunding participation? The influence of personal and social traits. Spanish Journal of Marketing—ESIC, 22(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-03-2018-004
Salem I. E., Elkhwesky Z., Baber H., Radwan M. (2022). Hotel resuscitation by reward-based crowdfunding: A critical review and moderated mediation model. Tourism Management Perspectives, 43, 100986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2022.100986
Schwarz N., Bless H. (1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In Martin L. L., Tesser A. (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 217–245). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Selvanathan H. P., Techakesari P., Tropp L. R., Barlow F. K. (2018). Whites for racial justice: How contact with black Americans predicts support for collective action among white Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(6), 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690908
Sjåstad H. (2019). Short-sighted greed? Focusing on the future promotes reputation-based generosity. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(2), 199–213. https://journal.sjdm.org/17/17907b/jdm17907b.html
Smith J. R., McSweeney A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.906
Smith L. G. E., McGarty C., Thomas E. F. (2018). After Aylan Kurdi: How tweeting about death, threat, and harm predict increased expressions of solidarity with refugees over time. Psychological Science, 29(4), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741107
Spears R., Postmes T. (2015). Group identity, social influence, and collective action online: Extensions and applications of the SIDE model. In Sundar S. S. (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 23–46). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118426456.ch2
Stolle D., Hooghe M., Micheletti M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245–269. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30039032
Stroebe K. (2013). Motivated inaction: When collective disadvantage does not induce collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(10), 1997–2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12153
Stürmer S., Simon B. (2004). The role of collective identification in social movement participation: A panel study in the context of the German gay movement. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256690
Tajfel H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In Tajfel H. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). Academic Press.
Teorell J., Torcal M., Montero J. R. (2007). Political participation: Mapping the terrain. In van Deth J., Montero J. R., Westholm A. (Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative perspective (17, pp. 334–357). Routledge.
Thomas E. F., Duncan L., McGarty C., Louis W. R., Smith L. G. E. (2022). Mobilise: A higher order integration of collective action research to address global challenges. Advances in Political Psychology, 43(S1), 107–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12811
Thomas E. F., Mavor K. I., McGarty C. (2012). Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-relevant constructs: A test of the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211413619
Thomas E. F., McGarty C. (2009). The role of efficacy and moral outrage norms in creating the potential for international development activism through group‐based interaction. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(Pt 1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X313774
Thomas E. F., Smith L. G. E., McGarty C., Reese G., Kende A., Bliuc A.-M., Curtin N., Spears R. (2019). When and how social movements mobilize action within and across nations to promote solidarity with refugees. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2380
Triandis H. (1980). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 195–259.
Turner J. C., Hogg M. A., Oakes P. J., Reicher S. D., Wetherell M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell.
Turner-Zwinkels F. M., van Zomeren M. (2021). Identity expression through collective action: How identification with a politicized group and its identity contents differently motivated identity-expressive collective action in the U.S. 2016 presidential elections. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(3), 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220933406
Ufkes E. G., Calcagno J., Glasford D. E., Dovidio J. F. (2016). Understanding how common ingroup identity undermines collective action among disadvantaged-group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63(5), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.006
van Zomeren M., Kutlaca M., Turner-Zwinkels F. (2018). Integrating who “we” are with what “we” (will not) stand for: A further extension of the social identity model of collective action. European Review of Social Psychology, 29(1), 122–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1479347
van Zomeren M., Postmes T., Spears R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
Vestergren S., Drury J., Hammar Chiriac E. (2019). How participation in collective action changes relationships, behaviours, and beliefs: An interview study of the role of inter-and intragroup processes. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(1), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v7i1.903
Wang T., Li Y., Kang M., & Zheng H. (2019). Exploring individuals’ behavioral intentions toward donation crowdfunding: evidence from China. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 14(9), 1515–1522. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2018-0451
Webb T. L., Sheeran P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
Wohl M. J. A., Branscombe N. R., Klar Y. (2006). Collective guilt: Emotional reactions when one’s group has done wrong or been wronged. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280600574815
Wood C., Conner M., Miles E., Sandberg T., Taylor N., Godin G., Sheeran P. (2016). The impact of asking intention or self-prediction questions on subsequent behavior: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315592334
Wright S. C. (2009). The next generation of collective action research. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 859–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01628.x
Wright S. C., Lubensky M. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In Demoulin S., Leyens J.-P., Dovidio J. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). Psychology Press.
Zhang H., Chen W. (2019). Backer motivation in crowdfunding new product ideas: Is it about you or is it about me? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12477
Biographies
Anna Monik is a PhD student in the Polish Academy of Sciences. Her research interests focus on social psychology and group dynamics.
Michał Parzuchowski is an Associate Professor in the SWPS Unviersity, Faculty of Psychology in Sopot, specializing in social psychology. His research interests include embodied cognition, social cognition, psycholinguistics, and morality.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: May 3, 2023
Issue published: February 2024
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Social Science Computer Review.
View All Journal MetricsArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 447
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 2 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 1
- Antecedents and Consequences of Relationship Motivation in Reward-Based Crowdfunding
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
