Crowd Reactions to Entrepreneurial Failure in Rewards-Based Crowdfunding: A Psychological Contract Theory Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rewards-based crowdfunding (RBC) has recently gained popularity as an alternative means of finance to help entrepreneurs bring novel projects to life. We theorize that crowdfunding backers perceive an implicit psychological contract with campaign creators. When promised rewards fail to materialize post fundraising, backers may perceive entrepreneurs’ failure to deliver rewards as a violation of their psychological contract with him or her. Drawing on psychological contract theory and using Eisenhardt’s comparative case methodology, we generate insights about crowd reactions to creators’ failure to deliver rewards to backers. Our research generates the novel insight that in the event of delivery failure, backers who perceive a transactional psychological contract with creators are more likely to display negative emotional reactions, while backers who perceive a relational psychological contract are more likely to display positive emotional reactions. Furthermore, we identify three progressive stages of backers’ interaction with creators in failed RBC campaigns, ‘committing’, ‘crisis handling’, and ‘coping-up’ and highlight the crowds’ emotional valence associated with each stage. Our analyses of the campaign comments reveal insights of interest to RBC players and hold implications for the future development of crowdfunding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".