Social information as a stimulant in philanthropic crowdfunding

Social information as a stimulant in philanthropic crowdfunding: A systematic literature review of the effects of social information on donation behavior A previous version of this literature review has been presented at the 44 th ARNOVA Annual Conference in Chicago, November 19 -21, 2015. Peggy Sue Claire van Teunenbroek Center of philanthropic studies, VU University p. s. c. van. teunenbroek@vu. nl

Introduction (1) • Social information (SI) • Donation amount previous donors • New context: philanthropic crowdfunding • Online • Weak & latent ties • No personal contact • Crowdfunding needs a stimulus • <1% • Less attention from donors and scientists September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 2

Introduction (2) • Controversy in the literature • Abstract donation environment • Online, type donors, no personal contact • Unsure if SI works • Assumption: descriptive social norm September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 3

Main objectives 1. Review literature on social information 2. Identify potential factors underlying SI effect 3. Theorize if SI effective in philanthropic crowdfunding context • Under which circumstances is social information an effective method of increasing donations? • Under which conditions is social information expected to be effective? • Why are individuals motivated to follow social information? September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 4

Method • English, Dutch or German • Published and unpublished work • Unpublished: publication bias • 1955 - April 2016 • Only charitable giving (no consumer behavior) • Money only • Field and lab studies • No impact information (does not refer to social norm) • 25 papers September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 5

Controversy • Postive effect • Donation amount donates (e. g. Shang, Croson, & Reed, 2012; Shang & Croson, 2009; Smith et al. , 2014) • Number of donors (e. g. Alpizar, Carlsson, & Johansson-Stenman, 2008 a, 2008 b; Klinowski, 2015; Martin & Randal, 2008) • Realized amount (e. g. Alpizar et al. , 2008 a, 2008 b) • Negative effect (e. g. Croson & Shang, 2008, 2013; Meyer & Yang, 2015) • No effect (e. g. Murphy, Batmunkh, Nilsson, & Ray, 2015; Shang & Croson, 2009) • Complex and subject to multiple contextual and individual influences • Next: Identify potential factors underlying SI effects September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 6

When to follow the crowd: contextual • Needed • Renewing donors (Murphy, Batmunkh, Nilsson, & Ray, 2015; Shang & Croson, 2009) • Trustworthy • Gender (Shang et al. , 2012) • Accurate • Not too high (Croson & Shang, 2013 a; Shang & Croson, 2006) • No effect range (Blake, Rosenbaum, & Duryea, 1955) • Individual amounts (Jones & Mc. Kee, 2004; Sell & Wilson, 1991) • Aggregated (e. g. Alpizar et al. , 2008 a, 2008 b; Martin & Randal, 2008) September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 7

Why follow the crowd: motivation • Need to belong • Donate suggestion amount - conform • Care for reputation • Donate suggestion amount – conform • Outgive (van Teunenbroek, 2016; Bekkers, 2012) September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 8

Under which circumstances is social information an effective method of increasing donations? • Contextual • Needed • Trustrworthy • Accurate • Individual • Need to belong • Concern for reputation • Next: theorize if SI effective in philanthropic crowdfunding context September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 9

Philanthropic crowdfunding • Previous research • Field experiments • Offline campaigns with personal contact (e. g. Croson & Shang (2013)) • Offline campaings without personal contact (e. g. Bekkers (2012)) • Online studies (Bøg et al. , 2012) • Lab studies (Klinowski, 2015) • Philanthropic crowdfunding • Compared to offline: No personal contact • Compared to online: different type of donors • Justgiving: strong ties (Bøg et al. , 2012) • Crowdfunding: latent and weak ties (Borst, Moser, & Ferguson, 2016) • Compared to lab: actual donation, real donors September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 10

Reasons to research SI in crowdfunding context Propositions Context Motivation Difference * Compared to Needed 1. Multiple projects at a time Face-to-face Trustworthy 1. No personal contact 2. Mainly weak and latent ties Face-to-face Justgiving Accurate 1. Easier to fake Face-to-face Need to belong 1. Mainly weak and latent ties Justgiving Care for repuation 1. Donation is public 2. Mainly weak and latent ties Face-to-face Justgiving * The table above builds on generals September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 11

Conclusion September 5, 2021 P. SC. van Teunenbroek - VU University 12

THANK YOU Peggy Sue Claire van Teunenbroek Center for Philanthropic Studies, Social sciences Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam p. s. c. van. teunenbroek@vu. nl Twitter: @pscvt 8