Cited By
View all- Ramos RRita PVong C(2023)Mapping research in marketing: trends, influential papers and agenda for future researchSpanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC10.1108/SJME-10-2022-022128:2(187-206)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2023
Understanding (Ir)rational Herding Online
Pages 79 - 88
Abstract
Investigations of social influence in collective decision-making have become possible due to recent technologies and platforms that record interactions in much larger groups than could be studied before. Herding and its impact on decision-making are critical areas of practical interest and research study. However, despite theoretical work suggesting that it matters whether individuals choose who to imitate based on cues such as experience or whether they herd at random, there is little empirical analysis of this distinction. To demonstrate the distinction between what the literature calls “rational” and “irrational” herding, we use data on tens of thousands of loans from a well-established online peer-to-peer (p2p) lending platform. First, we employ an empirical measure of memory in complex systems to quantify herding in lending. Then, we illustrate a network-based approach to visualize herding. Finally, we model the impact of herding on collective outcomes. Our study reveals that loan performance is not solely determined by whether lenders engage in herding or not. Instead, the interplay between herding and the imitated lenders’ prior success on the platform predicts loan outcomes. In short, herding around expert lenders is associated with loans that do not default. We discuss the implications of this under-explored aspect of herding for platform designers, borrowers, and lenders. Our study advances collective intelligence theories based on a case of high-stakes group decision-making online.
References
[1]
Ajay Agrawal, Christian Catalini, and Avi Goldfarb. 2015. Crowdfunding: Geography, social networks, and the timing of investment decisions. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 24, 2 (2015), 253–274.
[2]
Kenneth J Arrow, Robert Forsythe, Michael Gorham, Robert Hahn, Robin Hanson, John O Ledyard, Saul Levmore, Robert Litan, Paul Milgrom, Forrest D Nelson, 2008. The promise of prediction markets. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
[3]
Thomas B Astebro, Manuel Fernández Sierra, Stefano Lovo, and Nir Vulkan. 2019. Herding in equity crowdfunding. In Paris December 2018 Finance Meeting Eurofidai-AFFI.
[4]
Pavel Atanasov, Phillip Rescober, Eric Stone, Samuel A Swift, Emile Servan-Schreiber, Philip Tetlock, Lyle Ungar, and Barbara Mellers. 2017. Distilling the wisdom of crowds: Prediction markets vs. prediction polls. Management Science 63, 3 (2017), 691–706.
[5]
Abhijit V Banerjee. 1992. A simple model of herd behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107, 3 (1992), 797–817.
[6]
Daniel Barkoczi and Mirta Galesic. 2016. Social learning strategies modify the effect of network structure on group performance. Nature Communications 7, 1 (2016), 1–8.
[7]
Joshua Becker, Abdullah Almaatouq, and Emőke-Ágnes Horvát. 2020. Network structures of collective intelligence: The contingent benefits of group discussion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07202 (2020).
[8]
Joshua Becker, Devon Brackbill, and Damon Centola. 2017. Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 26 (2017), E5070–E5076.
[9]
Joshua Becker, Ethan Porter, and Damon Centola. 2019. The wisdom of partisan crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 22 (2019), 10717–10722. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817195116 arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/content/116/22/10717.full.pdf
[10]
Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer, and Ivo Welch. 1998. Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12, 3 (1998), 151–170.
[11]
Gordon Burtch, Anindya Ghose, and Sunil Wattal. 2013. An empirical examination of the antecedents and consequences of contribution patterns in crowd-funded markets. Information Systems Research 24, 3 (2013), 499–519.
[12]
Hongbin Cai, Yuyu Chen, and Hanming Fang. 2009. Observational learning: Evidence from a randomized natural field experiment. American Economic Review 99, 3 (2009), 864–82.
[13]
Simla Ceyhan, Xiaolin Shi, and Jure Leskovec. 2011. Dynamics of bidding in a P2P lending service: effects of herding and predicting loan success. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web. 547–556.
[14]
CS Richard Chan, Annaleena Parhankangas, Arvin Sahaym, and Pyayt Oo. 2020. Bellwether and the herd? Unpacking the u-shaped relationship between prior funding and subsequent contributions in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing 35, 2 (2020), 105934.
[15]
Massimo G Colombo, Chiara Franzoni, and Cristina Rossi-Lamastra. 2015. Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39, 1 (2015), 75–100.
[16]
Bo Cowgill and Eric Zitzewitz. 2015. Corporate prediction markets: Evidence from google, ford, and firm x. The Review of Economic Studies 82, 4 (2015), 1309–1341.
[17]
Rachel Croson and Jen Yue Shang. 2008. The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions. Experimental Economics 11, 3 (2008), 221–233.
[18]
Zhi Da and Xing Huang. 2020. Harnessing the wisdom of crowds. Management Science 66, 5 (2020), 1847–1867.
[19]
Henry K Dambanemuya and Emőke-Ágnes Horvát. 2019. Harnessing collective intelligence in P2P lending. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science. 57–64.
[20]
Henry K Dambanemuya and Emőke-Ágnes Horvát. 2021. A Multi-Platform Study of Crowd Signals Associated with Successful Online Fundraising. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–19.
[21]
David Easley and Jon Kleinberg. 2010. Networks, crowds, and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected world. Cambridge University Press.
[22]
Simon Farrell. 2011. Social influence benefits the wisdom of individuals in the crowd. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 36 (2011), E625–E625.
[23]
Seth Freedman and Ginger Zhe Jin. 2008. Do social networks solve information problems for peer-to-peer lending? Evidence from Prosper. com. (2008).
[24]
K-I Goh and A-L Barabási. 2008. Burstiness and memory in complex systems. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 81, 4 (2008), 48002.
[25]
Burcu Gürçay, Barbara A. Mellers, and Jonathan Baron. 2015. The Power of Social Influence on Estimation Accuracy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 28, 3 (2015), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1843 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bdm.1843
[26]
Milad Haghani and Majid Sarvi. 2019. Imitative (herd) behaviour in direction decision-making hinders efficiency of crowd evacuation processes. Safety Science 114 (2019), 49–60.
[27]
Nicole Hartnett, Rachel Kennedy, Byron Sharp, Luke Greenacre, 2016. Marketers’ Intuitions about the Sales Effectiveness of Advertisements. Journal of Marketing Behavior 2, 2–3 (2016), 177–194.
[28]
Lu Hong and Scott E Page. 2004. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 46 (2004), 16385–16389.
[29]
Emőke-Ágnes Horvát, Henry Kudzanai Dambanemuya, Jayaram Uparna, and Brian Uzzi. 2023. Hidden Indicators of Collective Intelligence in Crowdfunding. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 3806–3815.
[30]
Emőke-Ágnes Horvát, Jayaram Uparna, and Brian Uzzi. 2015. Network vs market relations: The effect of friends in crowdfunding. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015. 226–233.
[31]
Jin Huang, Vania Sena, Jun Li, and Sena Ozdemir. 2021. Message framing in P2P lending relationships. Journal of Business Research 122 (2021), 761–773.
[32]
David Huffaker. 2010. Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online communities. Human Communication Research 36, 4 (2010), 593–617.
[33]
Rajkamal Iyer, Asim Ijaz Khwaja, Erzo FP Luttmer, and Kelly Shue. 2016. Screening peers softly: Inferring the quality of small borrowers. Management Science 62, 6 (2016), 1554–1577.
[34]
W Jos Jansen, Xiaowen Jin, and Jasper M de Winter. 2016. Forecasting and nowcasting real GDP: Comparing statistical models and subjective forecasts. International Journal of Forecasting 32, 2 (2016), 411–436.
[35]
Jermain Kaminski, Christian Hopp, and Tereza Tykvova. 2019. New technology assessment in entrepreneurial financing–Does crowdfunding predict venture capital investments?Technological Forecasting and Social Change 139 (2019), 287–302.
[36]
Young Ji Kim and Andrea B Hollingshead. 2015. Online social influence: Past, present, and future. Annals of the International Communication Association 39, 1 (2015), 163–192.
[37]
Rembrand Koning and Jacob Model. 2013. Experimental study of crowdfunding cascades: When nothing is better than something. Academy of Management Proceedings 1, 16 (2013).
[38]
Venkat Kuppuswamy and Barry L Bayus. 2017. Does my contribution to your crowdfunding project matter?Journal of Business Venturing 32, 1 (2017), 72–89.
[39]
David Lazer and Allan Friedman. 2007. The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly 52, 4 (2007), 667–694.
[40]
Sumin Lee and Vili Lehdonvirta. 2020. New digital safety net or just more ‘friendfunding’? Institutional analysis of medical crowdfunding in the United States. Information, Communication & Society (2020), 1–25.
[41]
Mingfeng Lin, Nagpurnanand R Prabhala, and Siva Viswanathan. 2013. Judging borrowers by the company they keep: Friendship networks and information asymmetry in online peer-to-peer lending. Management Science 59, 1 (2013), 17–35.
[42]
Momin M Malik and Jürgen Pfeffer. 2016. Identifying platform effects in social media data. In Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.
[43]
Thomas W Malone, Robert Laubacher, and Chrysanthos Dellarocas. 2010. The collective intelligence genome. MIT Sloan Management Review (2010).
[44]
Andreas Mild, Martin Waitz, and Jürgen Wöckl. 2015. How low can you go?—Overcoming the inability of lenders to set proper interest rates on unsecured peer-to-peer lending markets. Journal of Business Research 68, 6 (2015), 1291–1305.
[45]
Lukas Moldon, Markus Strohmaier, and Johannes Wachs. 2021. How gamification affects software developers: Cautionary evidence from a natural experiment on github. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 549–561.
[46]
Ethan Mollick. 2014. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing 29, 1 (2014), 1–16.
[47]
Lev Muchnik, Sinan Aral, and Sean J Taylor. 2013. Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science 341, 6146 (2013), 647–651.
[48]
Joaquin Navajas, Tamara Niella, Gerry Garbulsky, Bahador Bahrami, and Mariano Sigman. 2018. Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. Nature Human Behaviour 2, 2 (01 Feb 2018), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0273-4
[49]
Scott E Page. 2008. The Difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press.
[50]
Matthew J Salganik, Peter Sheridan Dodds, and Duncan J Watts. 2006. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311, 5762 (2006), 854–856.
[51]
Michael Spence. 1978. Job market signaling. In Uncertainty in Economics (1978), 281–306.
[52]
Regan M Stevenson, Michael P Ciuchta, Chaim Letwin, Jenni M Dinger, and Jeffrey B Vancouver. 2019. Out of control or right on the money? Funder self-efficacy and crowd bias in equity crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing 34, 2 (2019), 348–367.
[53]
James Surowiecki. 2005. The wisdom of crowds. Anchor.
[54]
Arnout Van de Rijt, Soong Moon Kang, Michael Restivo, and Akshay Patil. 2014. Field experiments of success-breeds-success dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 19 (2014), 6934–6939.
[55]
Silvio Vismara. 2018. Information cascades among investors in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 42, 3 (2018), 467–497.
[56]
Johannes Wachs and Balázs Vedres. 2021. Does crowdfunding really foster innovation? Evidence from the board game industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 168 (2021), 120747.
[57]
Claudia Wagner, Markus Strohmaier, Alexandra Olteanu, Emre Kıcıman, Noshir Contractor, and Tina Eliassi-Rad. 2021. Measuring algorithmically infused societies. Nature 595, 7866 (2021), 197–204.
[58]
Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz. 2004. Prediction markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18, 2 (2004), 107–126.
[59]
Michael A Zaggl and Joern Block. 2019. Do small funding amounts lead to reverse herding? A field experiment in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 12 (2019), e00139.
[60]
Igor Zakhlebin and Emőke-Ágnes Horvát. 2019. Investor retention in equity crowdfunding. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science. 343–351.
[61]
Juanjuan Zhang and Peng Liu. 2012. Rational herding in microloan markets. Management Science 58, 5 (2012), 892–912.
Index Terms
- Understanding (Ir)rational Herding Online
Recommendations
Herding behavior in online P2P lending: An empirical investigation
We study lender behavior in the peer-to-peer (P2P) lending market, where individuals bid on unsecured microloans requested by other individual borrowers. Online P2P exchanges are growing, but lenders in this market are not professional investors. In ...
The role of expertise in herding behaviors: evidence from a crowdfunding market
AbstractThe peer economy, such as crowdfunding, democratizes access to tasks available only to professionals. Although the peer economy has gained great popularity in practice, how crowds infer information from their peers, especially from experts, is ...
Harnessing Collective Intelligence in P2P Lending
WebSci '19: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web ScienceCrowd financing is a burgeoning phenomenon that promises to improve access to capital by enabling borrowers with limited financial opportunities to receive small contributions from individual lenders towards unsecured loan requests. Faced with ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2023
97 pages
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 05 November 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
CI '23
Sponsor:
Upcoming Conference
CI '25
- Sponsor:
- sigchi
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 77Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)77
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13
Reflects downloads up to 21 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Ramos RRita PVong C(2023)Mapping research in marketing: trends, influential papers and agenda for future researchSpanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC10.1108/SJME-10-2022-022128:2(187-206)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2023
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in