Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 611–636 | Cite as

The Impact of Dynamic Feedback and Personal Budgets on Arousal and Funding Behaviour in Participatory Budgeting

  • Claudia Niemeyer
  • Timm Teubner
  • Margeret Hall
  • Christof Weinhardt
Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

Public institutions as well as corporations seek to engage their constituents and employees in participatory processes to enhance engagement in decision-making. This paper proposes a group decision method of fusing crowdfunding and participatory budget allocation. In this approach, a central institution lets their members decide over budget allocation by endowing members with individual budgets. Participants are free to allocate their budgets to projects. A project is realized if its respective cost threshold is surpassed. We evaluate different design parameters of such mechanisms for group decisions and, based on this, the allocation of institutional budgets within a controlled laboratory experiment. The first design parameter is feedback on funding status, which can either be static (a one-shot decision, simultaneous funding) or dynamic (sequential decisions, repeated funding with continuous feedback). The second variable refers to the fraction of budget that may be kept privately by individuals and is not forfeit if not assigned to projects. Building on threshold public goods literature, we investigate how these parameters affect participants’ investment behaviour, their excitement, and overall welfare. We find that mechanisms including feedback net higher welfare gains as well as higher levels of arousal. Higher personal budget shares drive excitement but lead to lower welfare gains.

Keywords

Participatory budgeting Threshold public goods Laboratory experiment Arousal 

References

  1. Adam MTP, Krämer J, Weinhardt C (2012) Excitement up! Price down! Measuring emotions in Dutch auctions. Int J Electron Commer 13(2):7–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adam MTP, Krämer J, Müller MB (2015) Auction fever! How time pressure and social competition affect bidders’ arousal and bids in retail auctions. J Retail 91(3):468–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni J (1988) Why free ride? J Publ Econ 37(3):291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16(1):74–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barros SAR, Sampaio RC (2016) Do citizens trust electronic participatory budgeting? Public expression in online forums as an evaluation method in Belo Horizonte. Policy Internet 8(3):292–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekkers V, Edwards A, Moody R, Beunders H (2011) Caught by surprise? Micro-mobilization, new media and the management of strategic surprises. Publ Manag Rev 13(7):1003–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belleflamme P, Lambert T, Schwienbacher A (2014) Crowdfunding: tapping the right crowd. J Bus Ventur 29(5):585–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bigham J, Bernstein M, Adar E (2014) Human–Computer interaction and collective intelligence. In: Malone TW, Bernstein MS (eds) Handbook of collective intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 57–84Google Scholar
  9. Bode L (2012) Facebooking it to the polls: a study in online social networking and political behavior. J Inf Technol Polit 9(4):352–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boulianne S (2009) Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Polit Commun 26(2):193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne BM (2008) Structural equation modeling with EQS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Psychology Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Cabannes Y (2004) Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environ Urban 16(1):27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan M, Wu X, Hao Y, Xi R, Jin T (2012) Microblogging, online expression, and political efficacy among young Chinese citizens: the moderating role of information and entertainment needs in the use of Weibo. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 15(7):345–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod Methods Bus Res 295(2):295–336Google Scholar
  15. Citizinvestor (2017) Invest in the public projects you care about most. http://citizinvestor.com/. Accessed 27 April 2017
  16. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corazzini L, Cotton C, Valbonesi P (2015) Donor coordination in project funding: evidence from a threshold public goods experiment. J Publ Econ 128(1):16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Croson RTA, Marks MB (2000) Step returns in threshold public goods: a meta- and experimental analysis. Exp Econ 2(3):239–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cumming D, Leboeuf G, Schwienbacher A (2015) Crowdfunding models: keep-it-all versus all-or-nothing. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  20. Davies R (2015) Three provocations for civic crowdfunding. Inf Commun Soc 18(3):342–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dhar R, Wertenbroch K (2000) Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res 37(1):60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dommer SL, Swaminathan V (2013) Explaining the endowment effect through ownership: the role of identity, gender, and self-threat. J Consum Res 39(5):1034–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eisner SP (2005) Managing generation Y. SAM Adv Manag J 70(9):4–15Google Scholar
  24. Escher T (2013) Does the use of the internet further democratic participation? A comparison of citizens’ interactions with political representatives in the UK and Germany. University of Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Farzan R, DiMicco JM, Millen DR, Brownholtz B, Geyer W, Dugan C (2008) Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise. In: CHI’08 Proceedings, pp 563–572Google Scholar
  26. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39(2):175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feldmann N, Gimpel H, Kohler M, Weinhardt C (2013) Using crowd funding for idea assessment inside organizations: lessons learned from a market engineering perspective. In: CGC 2013 Proceedings, pp 525–530Google Scholar
  28. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fischbacher U, Schudy S, Teyssier S (2014) Heterogeneous reactions to heterogeneity in returns from public goods. Soc Choice Welf 43(1):195–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franklin AL, Ho AT, Ebdon C (2009) Participatory budgeting in Midwestern states: democratic connection or citizen disconnection? Public Budg Financ 29(3):52–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frey BS, Stutzer A (2010) Happiness and economics: how the economy and institutions affect human well-being. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Geisser S (1974) A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 61(1):101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62(1):451–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gil De Zúñiga H, Puig-I-Abril E, Rojas H (2009) Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: an assessment of how the internet is changing the political environment. New Media Soc 11(4):553–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gosling SD, Mason W (2015) Internet research in psychology. Annu Rev Psychol 66(1):877–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greiner B (2015) Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE. J Econ Sci Assoc 1(1):114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA (2012) An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Mark Sci 40(3):414–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hair JF, Matthews LM, Ringle CM (2016) Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I—method. Eur Bus Rev 28(1):63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2017) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  40. Hall M, Caton S (2016) Online engagement and well-being at higher education institutes: a German case study. In: IFIP 2016 Proceedings, pp 542–547Google Scholar
  41. Hall M, Caton S (2017) Am I who I say I am? Unobtrusive self-representation and personality recognition on Facebook. PLoS ONE 12(9):e0184417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hampton KN, Goulet LS, Rainie L, Purcell K (2011) Social networking sites and our lives. Pew Research Center, Washington, pp 1–43Google Scholar
  43. Hariharan A, Adam MTP, Dorner V, Lux E, Müller MB, Pfeiffer J, Weinhardt C (2017) Brownie: a platform for conducting NeuroIS experiments. J Assoc Inf Syst 18(4):264–296Google Scholar
  44. Harris J (1986) A statue for America: the first 100 years of the statue of liberty. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Harris A, Wyn J, Younes S (2010) Beyond apathetic or activist youth: ‘Ordinary’ young people and contemporary forms of participation. Young Nord J Youth Res 18(1):9–32Google Scholar
  46. Hawlitschek F, Jansen LE, Lux E, Teubner T, Weinhardt C (2016) Colors and trust: the influence of user interface design on trust and reciprocity. In: HICSS 2016 Proceedings, pp 590–599Google Scholar
  47. He B (2011) Civic engagement through participatory budgeting in China: three different logics at work. Publ Adm Dev 31(2):122–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hentschel J, Lanjouw P (1996) The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am Econ Rev 92(5):1644–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ioby (2015) Trick out my trip. www.ioby.org/reports/trick-out-my-trip. Accessed 27 April 2017
  51. Isaac RM, Walker JM, Thomas SH (1984) Divergent evidence on free riding: an experimental examination of possible explanations. Publ Choice 43:113–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Isaac RM, Schmidtz D, Walker JM (1989) The assurance problem in a laboratory market. Publ Choice 62(3):217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klein M (2012) Enabling large-scale deliberation using attention-mediation metrics. Comput Support Coop Work 21(4–5):449–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kölle F (2015) Heterogeneity and cooperation: the role of capability and valuation on public goods provision. J Econ Behav Organ 109:120–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ku G, Malhotra D, Murnighan JK (2005) Towards a competitive arousal model of decision-making: a study of auction fever in live and internet auctions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 96(2):89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kuppuswamy V, Bayus BL (2017) Does my contribution to your crowdfunding project matter? J Bus Ventur 32(1):72–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ledyard JO (1995) Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In: Kagel J, Roth A (eds) The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 111–181Google Scholar
  58. Li Z, Duan JA (2014) Dynamic strategies for successful online crowdfunding. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  59. Lin C-H, Chuang S-C, Kao DT, Kung C-Y (2006) The role of emotions in the endowment effect. J Econ Psychol 27(4):589–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lindner A, Hall M, Niemeyer C, Caton S (2015) BeWell: a sentiment aggregator for proactive community management. In: CHI’15 Proceedings, pp 1055–1060Google Scholar
  61. Lisson C, Hall M (2016) Do we choose what we desire?—Persuading citizens to make consistent and sustainable mobility decisions. In: Interdisciplinary Informatics Faculty Proceedings, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  62. Liu D, Li X, Santhanam R (2013) Digital games and beyond: what happens when players compete? MIS Q 37(1):111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Malhotra D (2010) The desire to win: the effects of competitive arousal on motivation and behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 111(2):139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Malkin J, Wildavsky A (1991) Why the traditional distinction between public and private goods should be abandoned. J Theor Polit 3(4):355–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mannarini T, Fedi A, Trippetti S (2010) Public involvement: how to encourage citizen participation. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 20(4):262–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Margetts H, John P, Escher T, Reissfelder S (2011) Social information and political participation on the internet: an experiment. Eur Polit Sci Rev 3(3):321–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Marks M, Croson R (1998) Alternative rebate rules in the provision of a threshold public good: an experimental investigation. J Publ Econ 67(2):195–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Marks M, Lehr D, Brastow R (2006) Cooperation versus free riding in a threshold public goods classroom experiment. J Econ Educ 37(2):156–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Marom D, Robb A, Sade O (2016) Gender dynamics in crowdfunding (Kickstarter): deals, and taste-based discrimination. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  70. Mateos A, Jiménez-Martín A, Ríos-Insua S (2015) A group decision-making methodology with incomplete individual beliefs applied to e-democracy. Group Decis Negot 24(4):633–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miglietta A, Parisi E (2017) Civic crowdfunding: sharing economy financial opportunity to smart cities. In: Riva Sanseverino E, Riva Sanseverino R, Vaccaro V (eds) Smart cities atlas. Springer, Berlin, pp 159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Miglietta A, Parisi E, Pessione M, Servato F (2013) Crowdfunding and local governments: a financial opportunity for a new liaison with citizens. In: Excellence in Services Proceedings, pp 485–495Google Scholar
  73. Mitkidis P, McGraw JJ, Roepstorff A, Wallot S (2015) Building trust: heart rate synchrony and arousal during joint action increased by public goods game. Physiol Behav 149(1):101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mollick E (2014) The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study. J Bus Ventur 29(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mukkamala RR, Vatrapu R, Hussain A (2013) Towards a formal model of social data. IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  76. Muller M, Geyer W, Soule T, Daniels S, Cheng L-T (2013) Crowdfunding inside the enterprise: employee-initiatives for innovation and collaboration. In: CHI’13 Proceedings, pp 503–512Google Scholar
  77. Nash J (1951) Non-cooperative games. Ann Math 54(2):286–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Niemeyer C (2017) Participatory budgeting—an experimental approach to online allocation mechanisms. KIT Scientific Press, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  79. Niemeyer C, Wagenknecht T, Teubner T, Weinhardt C (2016) Participatory crowdfunding: an approach towards engaging employees and citizens in institutional budgeting decisions. In: HICSS 2016 Proceedings, pp 2800–2808Google Scholar
  80. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) The assessment of reliability. In: Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH, Berge JMF (eds) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 248–292Google Scholar
  81. OECD (2010) The economic and social role of internet intermediaries. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  82. Osborne SP, Radnor Z, Nasi G (2013) A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. Am Rev Publ Adm 43(2):135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Prpić J, Shukla PP, Kietzmann JH, McCarthy IP (2015) How to work a crowd: developing crowd capital through crowdsourcing. Bus Horiz 58(1):77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Richter NF, Cepeda G, Roldán JL, Ringle CM (2016) European management research using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur Manag J 34(6):589–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M (2015) SmartPLS 3. http://www.smartpls.com. Accessed 4 Jan 2017
  86. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM (2010) Treating unobserved heterogeneity in PLS path modeling: a comparison of FIMIX-PLS with different data analysis strategies. J Appl Stat 37(8):1299–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sarstedt M, Henseler J, Ringle CM (2011) Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: alternative methods and empirical results. Meas Res Methods Int Mark 22:195–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Shah A (2007) Participatory budgeting. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sintomer Y, Herzberg C, Röcke A (2012) Transnational models of citizen participation: the case of participatory budgeting. Sociologias 14(30):70–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Skoric MM, Poor N (2013) Youth engagement in Singapore: the interplay of social and traditional media. J Broadcast Electron Media 57(2):187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Skoric MM, Zhu Q, Goh D, Pang N (2015) Social media and citizen engagement: a meta-analytic review. New Media Soc 18(9):1–23Google Scholar
  92. Škraba A, Kljajić M, Borštnar MK (2007) The role of information feedback in the management group decision-making process applying system dynamics models. Group Decis Negot 16(1):77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Smith VL (1980) Experiments with a decentralized mechanism for public good decisions. Am Econ Rev 70(4):584–599Google Scholar
  94. Stemler AR (2013) The JOBS act and crowdfunding: harnessing the power-and money-of the masses. Bus Horiz 56(3):271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Stiver A, Barroca L, Minocha S, Richards M, Roberts D (2015) Civic crowdfunding research: challenges, opportunities, and future agenda. New Media Soc 17(2):249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc 36(2):111–147Google Scholar
  97. Stutzer A, Frey BS (2012) Recent developments in the economics of happiness: a selective overview. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  98. Teubner T, Adam MTP, Riordan R (2015) The impact of computerized agents on immediate emotions, overall arousal and bidding behavior in electronic auctions. J Assoc Inf Syst 16(10):838–879Google Scholar
  99. UN-HABITAT (2004) 72 frequently asked questions about participatory budgeting. Urban Governance Toolkit SeriesGoogle Scholar
  100. Van Wingerden R, Ryan J (2011) Fighting for funds: an exploratory study into the field of crowdfunding. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  101. Vitak J (2012) The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. J Broadcast Electron Media 56(4):451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wash R, Solomon J (2014) Coordinating donors on crowdfunding websites. In: CSCW’14 Proceedings, pp 38–48Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Niemeyer
    • 1
  • Timm Teubner
    • 2
  • Margeret Hall
    • 3
  • Christof Weinhardt
    • 1
  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Technical University of BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.University of Nebraska at OmahaOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations