Online communities are a popular way for organisations to gather information and insights and to better understand users’ views of their existing and potential products and services.

These usually by-invitation-only ‘Voice of the Consumer’ moderated communities also enable users share opinions, connecting with other users, exchange advice and exchange with the brand. Naturally, promoting participation is vitally important to organisations that wish to engage with users if such a community is to thrive and provide valuable feedback.

This begs the question as to why consumers would want to become part of such an online community if invited so to do and what resulting biases might arise?  Similar attitudes can derive from different motivations.  Which might cause users to join and actively participate?

Psychological ‘Social Identity Theory’ can help us here.  Online communities play a social function for their members with like-minded or similarly interested individuals.  It is a silo of sorts.  They provide participants with a degree of enhanced self-worth, because they perceived they are being listened to and have some degree influence over organisation’s decisions – otherwise they wouldn’t have been chosen to join.

So, why join?  It might be to;

• Find out, or learn more about, or in some way assist the organisation, its products or services
• Gain financial or other incentives in return for participation
• Provide a virtual soap box for the individual to express their views
• Support their self-identity as invested in the brand, products and/or services

The online community itself can provide participants with a form of social self-identification by differentiation between members (us) with non-members (them).  This emotional attachment is akin to being in a tribe.  The strength of motivations for the individual can influence the degree of engagement in such communities.

This is also a two-way street as, for example, the organisation can communicate privileged information to the members of the community (us) that only they know and not to others (them).  A real conversation is a vital element of inclusion.

Research suggests that social and self-identity-supporting user motivations are particularly important in driving participation on online communities.  Great.  But there’s a problem.  Membership becomes part of who users are and consequently they become more subjective.  They may identify too closely with the brand, and over criticise competitors to support their self-perceived status in the community.

Also, if participants have significant time and/or resources invested in the brand, they may defend their purchase decision at all costs, especially in the face of objective criticism.  This may be overlain with the tendency to post-rationalise positive aspects of our purchase to justify the user’s choice to themselves and others engaging in the online community.  Also, the participant may express views online in a way they would not if face-to-face or over the telephone.

These biases are not inevitable, nor do they necessary apply in all circumstances or to all participants.  Indeed, they can become inverted. But it is as well be cognisant of the possibility of bias and to attempt to design-out opportunities to express such biases as far as possible – and to recognise them when they do occur.

Good research avoids supporting the pre-judged view but illuminates the scene instead.