Content uploaded by Thomas H Allison
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas H Allison on Mar 01, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Crowdfunding in a
Prosocial Microlending
Environment:
Examining the Role
of Intrinsic Versus
Extrinsic Cues
Thomas H. Allison
Blakley C. Davis
Jeremy C. Short
Justin W. Webb
Microloans garnered from crowdfunding provide an important source of financial capital
for nascent entrepreneurs. Drawing on cognitive evaluation theory, we assess how linguistic
cues known to affect underlying motivation can frame entrepreneurial narratives either as a
business opportunity or as an opportunity to help others. We examine how this framing
affects fundraising outcomes in the context of prosocial lending and conduct our analysis
on a sample of microloans made to over 36,000 entrepreneurs in 51 countries via an online
crowdfunding platform. We find that lenders respond positively to narratives highlighting the
venture as an opportunity to help others, and less positively when the narrative is framed as
a business opportunity.
Introduction
Financial capital represents a necessary ingredient for entrepreneurial survival and
growth (Florin, Lubatkin, & Schulze, 2003). In order to support their start-up and growth
needs, impoverished entrepreneurs have traditionally accessed additional capital through
personal savings or informal financial outlets, such as family members, individuals in their
social networks, or moneylenders (Buckley, 1997). However, each of these sources is
generally characterized by limitations. Personal savings, for example, may be difficult for
entrepreneurs in emerging economies to accumulate due to kinship obligations, extreme
Please send correspondence to: Thomas H. Allison, tel.: (509) 335-5319; e-mail: thomas.allison@wsu.edu,
to Blakley C. Davis at blakley.davis@okstate.edu, to Jeremy C. Short at Jeremy.Short@ou.edu, and to Justin
W. Webb at justin.w.webb@okstate.edu.
P
T
E
&
1042-2587
© 2014 Baylor University
53January, 2015
DOI: 10.1111/etap.12108
poverty, or a general lack of access to formal banking services (Khavul, Bruton, & Wood,
2009; Khavul, Chavez, & Bruton, 2013). Although moneylenders may provide sufficient
levels of financial capital to support start-up and growth needs, these loans are often
accompanied by interest rates that exceed 100% (Khavul, 2010).
Microlending has recently emerged as an attractive complement to these traditional
means of accessing capital. The microlending process involves the issuance of relatively
small, uncollateralized loans to individuals for the purpose of alleviating poverty through
entrepreneurial growth (Anthony, 2005; Battilana & Dorado, 2010). Microlending
intermediaries link impoverished entrepreneurs with a broad set of prospective lenders,
enabling many entrepreneurs access to relatively small amounts of financial capital, at low
interest rates, to support entrepreneurial activity (e.g., Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Obloj, 2008;
Galak, Small, & Stephen, 2011). Congruent with this mission, microlending institutions
have provided over $25 billion in loans, largely to the world’s most impoverished entre-
preneurs, since the industry’s initial conception in 1975 (Diekman, 2007). Although
initially dominated by brick-and-mortar institutions, the microlending industry has since
become populated by an array of Internet-based crowdfunding intermediaries, greatly
increasing the number of potential lenders. On many of these platforms, lenders do
not receive interest payments from their loans, nor do they receive protection against
borrower default. Given this unique contextual distinction, scholars have suggested that
microfinance is a field of “prosocial lending” (Galak et al.) in which lenders—ordinary
people—evaluate prospective borrowers on both traditional lending criteria and prosocial,
charitable criteria.
Central to crowdfunding microloan solicitation is the entrepreneurial narrative, which
describes the entrepreneurs as individuals, their ventures, what the loan will be used for,
and other personal details (e.g., Martens, Jennings, & Jennings, 2007). In examining
the effect of entrepreneurial narratives on prosocial lending, some recent works have
proposed that narratives enable lenders to form opinions about prospective borrowers
and thus affect their decisions (e.g., Allison, McKenny, & Short, 2013; Herzenstein,
Sonenshein, & Dholakia, 2011). While these studies and others have advanced our
understanding of the role played by entrepreneurial narratives in microlending, we
know relatively little about whether, or how, the content of these narratives influence the
attractiveness of microloans to investors.
To address this gap, we draw upon cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985,
1991) to assess how microlenders respond to both intrinsic and extrinsic cues embedded
within entrepreneurial narratives. Cognitive evaluation theory asserts that extrinsic
rewards diminish intrinsic motivation by thwarting the satisfaction an individual receives
for actions they would otherwise engage in (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Deci & Ryan,
2000, 2012). While prior research on resource acquisition generally suggests that extrinsic
cues are associated with a positive investor response (e.g., Martens et al., 2007), cognitive
evaluation theory suggests that, in prosocial contexts, investors are motivated by the
action of providing capital itself. To test our theory, we employ a sample of over 36,000
entrepreneurs who sought funding through the crowdfunding-based, microlending inter-
mediary Kiva.org.
This research makes three contributions to theory and entrepreneurship research.
First, we introduce cognitive evaluation theory and its extension known as self-
determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000) as an overarching
theoretical framework for explaining why people choose to engage in crowdfunding.
Research on crowdfunding and crowdfunded microfinance has so far focused on indi-
viduals’ biases as influencing their crowdfunding decisions, but we know less about the
fundamental motivations driving crowdfunding decisions. This research moves beyond
54 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
bias and similarity effects (cf. Galak et al., 2011) to propose that investors in crowdfunded
prosocial microfinance are intrinsically motivated, and this underlying motivation is
altered through intrinsic and extrinsic cues that frame the funding appeal. Second, we
apply theory to explain how the language contained within microlending entrepreneurial
narratives conveys intrinsic and extrinsic cues to lenders. In doing so, we provide a means
by which scholars can assess how the presence of cues in microlending entrepreneurial
narratives may stimulate intrinsic motivation. Finally, we compare the relative effects
of intrinsic and extrinsic cues and their effect on lender preferences for some
crowdfunding opportunities over others. We offer a potential contribution to cognitive
evaluation theory by proposing that self-selection into an activity will tend to make
intrinsic cues more salient in determining preferences compared to manipulations of
extrinsic cues (e.g., Deci, 1972).
Microlending Through Crowdfunding
Financial capital is generally viewed as a vital resource supporting entrepreneurial
activities (Florin et al., 2003). However, the attainment of necessary financial capital from
external sources or through personal savings is particularly difficult for impoverished
entrepreneurs in both developing and developed countries. Increasingly, impoverished
entrepreneurs can instead seek out external capital through a process known as micro-
lending (e.g., Bruton, 2010). Microlending refers to the issuance of relatively small,
uncollateralized loans to individuals for the purpose of spurring entrepreneurial growth
(Anthony, 2005; Battilana & Dorado, 2010). While the concept of microlending is a
relatively old idea (e.g., Spooner, 1846), the origin of today’s microlending industry is
generally traced back to 1975, when Professor Mohamed Yunus founded Grameen Bank
in Bangladesh (Battilana & Dorado).
Given the social and practical importance of microlending in the fight to reduce global
poverty through entrepreneurship, scholarly examination of microlending has recently
begun to flourish (e.g., Bruton, 2010). For example, scholars have recently examined
microlending at the industry level in terms of how the overall industry’s institutional
logic has shifted from a development-based logic to a relatively more market-based logic
(Khavul et al., 2013). Similarly, others have examined the rise of commercial lenders in
the microfinance domain, and how the organizational form of those lenders has attempted
to accommodate the development and market-based logics of the industry (Battilana &
Dorado, 2010). In addition, scholars have also examined the end user (i.e., the entrepre-
neur) in terms of how entrepreneurs’ demands for microloans respond to fluctuations in
lender interest rates (Karlan & Zinman, 2008); the role of group identity, sanctions, and
reciprocity in facilitating group cooperation within microcredit groups (Anthony, 2005);
and how network ties influence the ability of entrepreneurs to access such groups (Khavul
et al., 2009). However, few studies have sought to examine factors that may cause loans
to be more or less attractive to lenders within the microlending context, particularly in
terms of lenders that provide capital through crowdfunding-based microlending platforms
(e.g., Galak et al., 2011).
Although initially dominated by formal lending institutions such as Grameen Bank,
Internet-based microlending intermediaries that utilize crowdfunding platforms have
become increasingly popular sources of funding (Needleman, 2010). Unlike formal brick-
and-mortar lending institutions, crowdfunding-based microlending intermediaries operate
as pass-through agents, allowing lenders in developed countries to invest in entrepreneurs
worldwide (e.g., Allison et al., 2013). There are a growing number of crowdfunding
55January, 2015
platforms that provide microloans to impoverished entrepreneurs, including interme-
diaries such as Kiva Microfunds, Microplace, World Vision Micro, and Prosper.
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Factors Influencing Prosocial Lending
In a study of microlender decision making on crowdfunding platforms, Galak
et al. (2011) suggested that the lending decision is a hybrid decision form. Crowdfunded
microlending as most widely practiced incorporates aspects of both traditional investment
decision making and psychological factors that influence charitable-giving decisions (e.g.,
Galak et al.; Small, Loewenstein, & Slovic, 2007). Given this unique contextual distinc-
tion, they suggested that crowdfunded microfinance might be understood to be “proso-
cial lending” (Galak et al.). This suggests that lenders weigh both the extrinsic factors
germane to traditional investments (potential future rewards, whether for themselves or
others), as well as the intrinsic factors germane to prosocial and charitable decisions (the
desire to help others, whether altruistically or to feel good about oneself).
Cognitive Evaluation Theory and Self-Determination Theory
In general, the motivation provided by external rewards can increase the likelihood of
desired behaviors (e.g., Skinner, 1953); however, this may not always be the case (Deci
et al., 1999). For example, investors in traditional contexts may be motivated to provide
capital by the prospect of receiving future financial gains (i.e., extrinsic rewards), while
charitable donors may be motivated to invest due to psychological gains (i.e., intrinsic
rewards) that are garnered from the process of investing itself (e.g., Andreoni, 1989,
1990). Consequently, investors may be best viewed as being extrinsically motivated, while
donors are likely to be intrinsically motivated. When participants are extrinsically moti-
vated, they are not driven by the activity itself, but by the extrinsic consequences associ-
ated with performing the activity (e.g., cash payment, verbal feedback). Alternatively,
when participants are intrinsically motivated, they choose to engage in a given activity
because they perceive it to be interesting and are able to gain some level of simultaneous
satisfaction from the activity itself (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Cognitive evaluation theory asserts that (1) an individual’s level of intrinsic motiva-
tion is determined by basic psychological needs for autonomy and competence, and (2)
the effects of a given reward on an individual’s motivation depends on how the recipient
interprets the reward in relation to his or her own need for autonomy and competence
(Deci, 1971; Gagne & Deci, 2005). As such, the overall effect of a given reward (i.e.,
in terms of intrinsic motivation) is contingent upon how it affects an individual’s per-
ceived competence and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985). Rewards that provide for
autonomy and/or serve as indicators of competence tend to increase intrinsic motivation;
rewards that do not provide an indication of competence or are perceived to be controllers
of behavior tend to reduce intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). Stated differently,
individuals are likely to experience sustained or enhanced levels of intrinsic motivation
when both the need for autonomy and the need for competence are satisfied; however,
intrinsic motivation is likely to be undermined if either need is not satisfied, or if rewards
are perceived to be controlling.
Controlling rewards create an environment in which participants are no longer moti-
vated to perform a given task at some level of self-directed effort or performance. Instead,
participants are motivated to perform the task at some externally defined level of effort or
56 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
performance. For example, providing a number of participants with open-ended instruc-
tions, such as “go run one lap around the track,” would be relatively noncontrolling. While
the task itself is clearly defined (i.e., run a single lap), the level of effort expended on the
task, or the amount of time taken to complete the task, are left up to the participant.
Furthermore, because no extrinsic reward is provided either for completing the task, or
failing to do so, the participants rely on internally derived motivation (i.e., intrinsic).
Alternatively, if the instructions provided to the participants were modified to state “go run
one lap around the track in two minutes or less and win five dollars,” the situation becomes
more controlling. The introduction of a time limit requires the participants to meet or
exceed some level of performance (i.e., completing the lap in 2 minutes or less) in order
to obtain some level of extrinsic reward (i.e., five dollars). Similarly, in the context of
crowdfunding, a more controlling situation is one in which potential future extrinsic
rewards are revealed via extrinsic cues in the framing of the entrepreneurial narrative.
While cognitive evaluation is a theory framed in terms of rewards that may undermine
intrinsic motivation, its extension, known as self-determination theory, is framed in terms
of factors that may facilitate intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Importantly, this
language illustrates the underlying assumption of both theories that intrinsic motivation is
activated, as opposed to being caused, when conditions are conducive toward its expres-
sion (Ryan & Deci). Self-determination theory extends cognitive evaluation theory by
providing a third basic need: relatedness (an addition to the original two postulated
by cognitive evaluation theory: competence and autonomy). Relatedness refers to the need
of individuals to connect with other people (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Similar to the
other two basic needs of competence and autonomy, relatedness is viewed as a need
that—when unmet—will lead to reduced levels of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan,
2000). For example, if a person engages in prosocial behavior on his or her own accord,
relatedness is likely to be supported because the action is attributed to connection or
caring; however, if the activity were controlled, relatedness is likely to be undermined and
intrinsic motivation reduced.
Microlending and Prosocial Investment Cues
Microfinance began as a means to alleviate poverty through entrepreneurship
(Khavul, 2010). This overarching purpose has remained relatively constant throughout the
history of microlending, and past research suggests that the goal of poverty alleviation
plays a prominent role in the decision-making process of individual microlenders (Allison
et al., 2013; Galak et al., 2011). As such, the extent to which microlenders are motivated
to fund microloans may be influenced by the extent to which they perceive their engage-
ment in the activity of microlending to actually help needy entrepreneurs and/or reduce
poverty. From a cognitive evaluation theory lens, this suggests that funders may seek out
both competence affirmation and self-determination alignment with regard to their ability
to effectively contribute to the overarching purpose of—and be intrinsically motivated to
participate in—microlending. For example, a lender’s perceived competence, in terms
of his or her ability to perform the task of microlending well and contribute to poverty
reduction, may be supported by actions such as a microloan being funded (to the
extent that it ensures the entrepreneur receives needed funds) or an entrepreneur even-
tually repaying his or her loan (as it may reflect venture success). Similarly, because
microlenders’ self-directed choice to engage in microlending is based on helping needy
entrepreneurs (e.g., Allison et al.; Galak et al.), simply engaging in the prosocial activity
of microlending (i.e., helping needy entrepreneurs for no financial gain) should support
lenders’ self-direction.
57January, 2015
Alternatively, in traditional investment contexts, individuals are motivated to provide
capital to needy entrepreneurs in the hopes of receiving a financial return on their
investment. However, the ability of investors to reap future financial gains, in return for
their investment, is contingent on the future financial performance of the venture (e.g.,
Certo, 2003). The core elements of an investment proposal—whether an initial public
offering (IPO) prospectus or a business plan—are risk and reward. These define how
much profit an entrepreneur anticipates and how much risk is planned (MacMillan,
Siegel, & Narasimha, 1986). Given that a presentation on this basis directs focus toward
a specific goal (i.e., future financial gain) that can only be attained by investors who
successfully select, and provide funds to, above-average ventures (i.e., successful entre-
preneurs), traditional investment contexts may best be viewed as activities in which the
participants (i.e., investors) are motivated by performance-contingent rewards (cf. Ryan,
Mims, & Koestner, 1983). Importantly, the controlling nature of performance-contingent
rewards constrain intrinsic motivation—and thus activate extrinsic motivation—in that
investors are required to meet or exceed some given performance level (i.e., in order to
receive some level of financial reward) rather than performing the task according to their
own self-direction, (e.g., Ryan et al.).
Unlike traditional investors, the intrinsic motivation of microlenders is near absolute
as they provide funds to needy entrepreneurs without the possibility of future financial
awards (Galak et al., 2011). However, the way in which individual microloan presenta-
tions are framed varies across entrepreneurs, and task framing is known to impact moti-
vation (e.g., Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck, 2007). Specifically, microloans may
be framed in a way that suggests the existence of an extrinsic performance-contingent
reward: the extent to which the entrepreneur portrays his or her venture as a good
investment that is likely to succeed financially and/or repay its debt (e.g., Harackiewicz,
Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984). The literature on cues has demonstrated that the ways
in which language is framed can influence motivation; accordingly, we refer to these as
extrinsic cues (e.g., Cimpian et al.). A microloan presentation on this basis suggests the
existence of a performance-contingent reward (e.g., Deci et al., 1999) because it directs
focus toward a specific goal (i.e., future repayment or venture success) that can only be
attained by investors who successfully select and provide funds to above-average ventures
(i.e., successful entrepreneurs). Despite their ability to reaffirm the psychological need for
competence (i.e., the reward is contingent on performance), performance-contingent
rewards generally constrain intrinsic motivation because they are often deemed as highly
controlling.
The likelihood of business success (i.e., entrepreneurs’ ability to repay a loan/future
financial success of the venture) likely represents an important consideration for the
majority of microlenders, particularly given their underlying desire to help needy entre-
preneurs and alleviate poverty (e.g., Galak et al., 2011). Thus, the question becomes: can
it be assumed that the attractiveness of a microloan to investors will not be influenced by
a microlending presentation framed in a way that focuses on the risk and return aspects of
a venture? Cognitive evaluation theory suggests that this is not the case. Rather, while
eventual business success and/or loan repayment may serve to reinforce lenders’ compe-
tence in their ability to help needy entrepreneurs or alleviate poverty, the opposite is likely
to be true for lenders’ need for self-direction. Specifically, extrinsic cues in the entre-
preneurial narrative will frame the opportunity in terms of how good of a business it is by
focusing on extrinsic (monetary) rewards (i.e., the financial success of the venture). This
is likely to be perceived by lenders as controlling, even if the reward is only the return of
the invested principal (e.g., Deci et al., 1999). Thus, a microlending presentation that is
framed as a traditional investment call (i.e., focused on potential future extrinsic rewards),
58 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
through the use of extrinsic cues, is likely to be less appealing to investors (e.g.,
Harackiewicz et al., 1984) and have worse fundraising performance. Stated formally:
Hypothesis 1a: Greater degrees of profit language are associated with a decrease in
the attractiveness of microloans among prosocial investors.
Hypothesis 1b: Greater degrees of risk taking language are associated with a decrease
in the attractiveness of microloans among prosocial investors.
Cognitive evaluation theory typically focuses on undermining: how extrinsic cues
(rewards)—whether promised or given, tangible or verbal—diminish the intrinsic moti-
vation to perform a task (Deci et al., 1999). Less appreciated is whether and how the way
in which a task is presented can in fact facilitate intrinsic motivation. An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory, self-determination theory, asserts that intrinsic motivation can
be facilitated by environmental factors, and that humans have a third basic need: relat-
edness (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). More specifically, self-determination
theory asserts that controlled social environments constrain intrinsic motivation (by con-
straining relatedness), while less controlled social environments facilitate intrinsic moti-
vation (Deci, Eghran, Patrick, & Leonne, 1994).
Need for relatedness refers to the need to feel close to others; this attribute is
generally found across cultures (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and increases intrinsic
motivation when met (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). When individuals feel close to others,
it becomes more likely that cooperation will occur (Abele & Stasser, 2008), and even
relatedness at an unconscious level may increase empathy and general liking (e.g.,
Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Social bonds, which form the basis for relatedness, form
easily (Baumeister & Leary). For example, individuals may feel close to others based on
varying dimensions of social commonality (Abele & Stasser), such as family or unique
personal characteristics.
Given that individuals generally form initial impressions during the first few minutes
of interaction (e.g., Dougherty, Turban, & Callender, 1994), we suggest that entrepreneurs
can support microlenders’ need for relatedness through specific language embedded
within entrepreneurial narratives—intrinsic cues that influence underlying motivation
through framing the fund-raising appeal (e.g., Cimpian et al., 2007). First, the entrepre-
neur may identify people to which prospective lenders can feel connected. Such individu-
als might consist of the entrepreneur themselves as well as their family and meaningfully
close friends or associates. We propose that using human interest language—language that
references the social environment of the entrepreneur seeking funds—will serve to satisfy
lenders’ need for relatedness (e.g., Hart, 2010). Second, the entrepreneur can identify
individuals in such a way that they are distinct and distinguishable; we propose that using
language emphasizing the diversity of the people in the microlending entrepreneurial
narrative will serve to satisfy the need for relatedness since it is easier to feel connected
to a well-defined person (e.g., Hart). Intrinsic cues in the narrative—greater amounts of
diversity language and human interest language—focus the tone of the narrative on
information that is salient to the microlending investors’ reasons for investing. Thus,
the presence of such language will be associated with improved fund-raising outcomes.
Formally:
Hypothesis 2a: Greater degrees of human interest language are associated with an
increase in the attractiveness of microloans among prosocial investors.
Hypothesis 2b: Greater degrees of diversity language are associated with an increase
in the attractiveness of microloans among prosocial investors.
59January, 2015
Research on cognitive evaluation theory and self-determination theory tends to
suggest that the effects of extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation, while verbal
praise—which enhances intrinsic motivation and thus may be cognitively inseparable
from internal feelings of satisfaction—tends to increase intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1972).
A handful of prior studies have examined which effect tends to be stronger. In a study of
time spent solving a puzzle when not required to do so, Deci found that the effect
of extrinsic motivation was generally stronger than the effect of intrinsic motivation-
strengthening verbal praise. Similarly, in a study of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
to use an Internet-based learning platform, extrinsic motivations were found to have a
stronger effect than intrinsic motivations (Lee, Cheung, & Chen, 2005).
Prior work on cognitive evaluation theory has always studied participants with little
inherent motivation to engage in the focal task (Deci, 1972; Lee et al., 2005). For example,
participants are asked to solve a puzzle. Yet these observations may not generalize well to
the actual task environment of people. Often people perform tasks that they have partially
determined themselves. For example, microlenders have selected themselves into a plat-
form that provides loans for prosocial and thus naturally intrinsic motives (e.g., Galak
et al., 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, they may tend to be more attuned to variations in
information on microloans; further, given their desire to connect with a borrower and
fulfill the need for relatedness, they may be relatively less susceptible to the undermining
effect of extrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci et al., 1999). In summary, we propose that
microlending investors will tend to respond more strongly to microlending entrepreneurial
narrative intrinsic cues than they do to extrinsic cues, as indicated by the relative effects
of each. Formally:
Hypothesis 3: The positive effect of overall intrinsic cues will be larger than the
negative effect of overall extrinsic cues among prosocial investors.
Method
Data
In this study, we focused on a set of entrepreneurs who sought microfinancing on the
United States-based crowdfunding platform Kiva.org. Kiva has been cited as the largest
crowdfunding platform of microloans (Needleman, 2010). As such, it represents a valu-
able context for the study of microlending. Microlending represents an important source
of financial capital for impoverished entrepreneurs and has provided over $25 billion in
loans since the industry’s initial conception in 1975 (Diekman, 2007). Since its initial
inception in early 2005, Kiva has facilitated more than $381 million in loans to over
927,000 entrepreneurs in 69 different countries. While the loans are uncollateralized, the
historic repayment rate within the platform exceeds 98%, and the average Kiva lender has
made nine loans (Kiva, 2012).
Data from Kiva have been used in prior microlending research in both marketing
(Galak et al., 2011) and entrepreneurship (Allison et al., 2013). Importantly, Kiva main-
tains detailed records of facilitated loans, including entrepreneurial narratives, loan
funding outcomes, time to loan funding, as well as data on objective loan risk measures
and information. Our sample consists of 36,665 loans that were made to entrepreneurs
who were based in 51 different countries. These entrepreneurs sought funding for an
average amount of U.S. $628.18 (standard deviation of U.S. $571.99). For a detailed
listing of the countries included in the sample and the number of entrepreneurs requesting
funds via microlending from each, please see Table 1.
60 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
Measures
Independent Variables. Data for the independent, control, and dependent variables were
obtained directly from the Kiva.org platform, using the Kiva Microfunds Application
Programming Interface (Kiva.org, 2012). As such, our dependent and control measures
were developed from objective data points produced by the platform. The data associated
with our independent measures were collected directly from each entrepreneurial narra-
tive and analyzed through the use of a content analysis methodology known as computer-
aided text analysis (Short, Broberg, Cogliser, & Brigham, 2010). A detailed description of
each measure follows.
We measured the intrinsic language cue items, human interest language and diversity
language, by drawing on research in rhetorical analysis. This research originated to
measure the persuasive language of politicians (Hart, 1984, 2002) but has spread to the
management literature to explain how the language in business plans may influence
potential investors, how leaders’ language may motivate their followers, and how
language in corporate communications may influence market participants (Allison,
McKenny, & Short, 2014; Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994; Short & Palmer, 2008). Human
interest language is operationalized using the HUMAN INTEREST dictionary developed
and validated by Hart (1984, 2001, 2010) to assess the extent to which a narrative
Table 1
Sample Representation by Country
Country N Country N
Armenia 237 Mali 108
Azerbaijan 322 Mexico 747
Benin 81 Mongolia 678
Bolivia 657 Mozambique 104
Burkina Faso 21 Nepal 86
Cambodia 1,354 Nicaragua 1,149
Cameroon 26 Pakistan 34
Chile 46 Palestine 262
Colombia 789 Paraguay 295
Congo 92 Peru 3,956
Costa Rica 246 Philippines 8,086
Dominican Republic 12 Rwanda 631
Ecuador 1,535 Samoa 377
El Salvador 1,330 Senegal 522
Georgia 204 Sierra Leone 262
Ghana 534 South Sudan 670
Guatemala 222 Tajikistan 989
Honduras 378 Togo 336
Indonesia 131 Turkey 26
Iraq 224 Uganda 1,453
Israel 28 Ukraine 217
Jordan 252 United States 65
Kenya 5,360 Viet Nam 492
Kyrgyzstan 218 Yemen 9
Lebanon 476 Zimbabwe 10
Liberia 326
N=36,665.
61January, 2015
concentrates on people and their activities. This word list includes words for family
members (wife, cousin, grandchild, uncle), as well as generic terms that refer to humans
(baby, friend, human). Diversity language is operationalized using the DIVERSITY
dictionary developed by Hart. This word list is designed to assess the extent to which a
narrative expresses that a person or group of persons stands out from the norm (Hart,
1984). Because the goal is to assess diversity, not any normative judgment, the dictionary
includes both normatively positive (e.g., unique, individualistic, exceptional) as well as
normatively negative (e.g., deviance, quirky, extremist) language. We calculate the vari-
able overall intrinsic cues by standardizing each of the two dictionary measures and
taking their sum. Below is an example of a microlending entrepreneurial narrative with
high levels of overall intrinsic cues. This appeal focuses on the people the loan will help.
It provides a clear picture of the borrower, Juana, and discusses those individuals around
her that are likely to benefit:
Juana, age 48, is a good, kind, and very enterprising woman. She is a woman who is
not afraid of the difficulties encountered along the way to her destiny. She was able to
raise her only daughter by herself. She gave her daughter an education. She separated
from her live-in partner, and from that time on she has been in charge of her
household. She lives with her only daughter and her grandson in her own house. Every
day they share the desire and enthusiasm of getting ahead and having a better quality
of life.
To measure the extrinsic language cue items using content analysis, we drew from
content analysis research on market orientation again using previously validated measures
(Zachary, McKenny, Short, & Payne, 2011). We operationalized profit language by using
the PROFITABILITY dictionary, which includes words such as gains, profitable, and
revenue, and is designed to assess the extent to which an entrepreneur or firm is focused
on generating profits (Zachary et al.). We operationalized risk taking language by using
the RISK TAKING dictionary. This is a previously validated measure that includes words
such as risky, chance, and bold, and is designed to assess the extent to which a firm or
entrepreneur takes risk in his or her enterprise (Zachary et al.). We calculate the variable
overall extrinsic cues by standardizing each of the two dictionary measures and taking
their sum. Below is an example of microlending funding appeal with high levels of
extrinsic cues:
Mubinakhon is the honest and loving mother of three children. She is married and her
husband is a businessman. For more than five years, she has worked drying fruit, and
she has sufficient experience to develop this business. With profits she has received,
she has provided for her family. Part of the profits she used to buy a radio and furniture
for her home. Mubinakhon would like to receive a loan of $1200 to process dried
fruits to sell them at a profitable price and make more money. She wants to thank all
the lenders for their support and encouragement.
Control Variables. Given a general lack of research within the microlending context,
and a general diversity within the population of entrepreneurs who seek microloans
through crowdfunding platforms, we drew upon past research in the area of strategy,
which suggests that the determinants of firm performance arise from country, industry,
and organizational factors (Makino, Isobe, & Chan, 2004). Accordingly, we controlled for
country, industry, and organizational considerations. We operationalized country by cre-
ating dummy variables that corresponded to the 51 countries represented in the sample.
For industry, we created dummy variables corresponding to the 15 industry sectors in
62 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
which our sample’s microlending entrepreneurs were classified, using the NAICS system
(e.g., Krishnan & Press, 2003). We measured risk unique to the field partner facilitating
the loan by including field partner risk rating, which indicates how likely loans through
a given field partner are to be repaid. Finally, we measured risk specific to the individual
loan using three measures. First is a set of two dummy variables to measure foreign
exchange risk coverage. There are three levels of this variable—the first indicates that the
lender will not be exposed to any possible losses associated with exchange rate valuation;
the second indicates that field partner is expected to cover any loss associated with
exchange rate variation. However, risk still exists, as lender protection is contingent on the
field partner fulfilling the agreement. The final level indicates that the lender will be
exposed to losses caused by currency exchange variations if those losses exceed 10% of
the principle. However, any losses below 10% are covered by the field partner. Our second
individual loan risk factor was the number of monthly repayments that the entrepreneur
would take to repay the loan. Our third and final individual loan risk control was the
entrepreneur’s requested loan size. Prior microlending research has suggested that loan
size—the amount of funds requested—is an important factor in funding success (Galak
et al., 2011). Accordingly, we include the natural log of the size of the requested loan
to control for this potential alternative explanation. Finally, given the importance of
storytelling and narratives in entrepreneurship research (e.g., Cornelissen & Clarke,
2010; Martens et al., 2007; Zott & Huy, 2007), we control for a set of seven aspects of
entrepreneurial rhetoric that previous microlending research has found to be important
to resource acquisition performance (Allison et al., 2013). These are political rhetoric
in funding appeals, in the form of accomplishment, blame, tenacity, leveling, present
concern, concreteness, and variety language (Allison et al.). Following prior work, we
measured these using the DICTION 6.0 software package (Hart, 2010) and included them
as control variables.
Dependent Variable and Statistical Analysis. Our dependent variable, time to funding,
operationalizes the attractiveness of the loan to the pool of prosocial investors by mea-
suring how long it takes for the loan to be funded. It is measured continuously in days and
indicates how many days it took for each loan to become fully funded. Time to funding is
an indicator of lender preference; loans that fund more rapidly while controlling for loan
size are typically more attractive to lenders on average (Galak et al., 2011). This measure
is consistent with prior microlending research that has used time to funding as a measure
of the attractiveness of loans to funders (Allison et al., 2013; Galak et al.), as well as the
broader entrepreneurship literature that has used time to funding as a measure of entre-
preneurial performance in timely acquisition of resources (Chatterji, 2009). Prior research
has suggested that how long it takes to get needed resources is an important type of
entrepreneurial performance, since without the resources the venture cannot launch or
grow (e.g., Chatterji). This is especially true in crowdfunding and crowdfunded micro-
lending as such platforms often use an all-or-nothing model (e.g., Allison et al.; Mollick,
2014). In these all-or-nothing models, if the loan is not fully funded within a preset time
line (most often 30 days), the investors do not make any investment at all. This all-or-
nothing structure is a ticking clock that gives slow fund-raising real consequences.
We observed the underlying variations in the time it took for loans to fund in seconds;
therefore, the theoretical minimum value of this variable is a small fraction of an hour (one
second). The average time to fund for loans was 7.29 days (standard deviation 9.96). The
time it took for loans to fund ranged from 1 minute (for small loans of $25–$50) to 55.88
days. Our research design allows us to assess entrepreneurs’ microloan funding outcomes
in terms of lender preference for some loans but not others as indicated by how long it
63January, 2015
takes for the loan to be funded while controlling for loan size and other attributes.
All loans in our study were posted on the site at the same time, and thus potential funders
had a choice between which to fund. There is no significant outside promotion of the loans
other than the lending profile posted on the website. We used ordinary least squares
regression as there was no censoring in our data. To guard against multicollinearity, we
mean-centered the six variables testing our five hypotheses. Our regression diagnostics
indicated no multicollinearity issue for any of the models, even when using untransformed
variables.
Results
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and correlations for our variables. Table 3 pres-
ents the results of our regression analysis. All control variables were entered in Model 1.
The four measures of intrinsic cues and extrinsic cues were entered in Model 2. Model 3
adds the composite measures of intrinsic cues and extrinsic cues.
Hypothesis 1a stated that greater degrees of profit language would be associated with
an increase in the time needed to fund a microloan. We find support for this hypothesis
(B =0.15; p<0.01). The underlying variable ranges from 0 to 14, and thus the full range
of difference in investor preferences is up to 28% in the data. Hypothesis 1b stated that
greater degrees of risk taking language would be associated with an increase in the time
needed to fund a microloan. We find support for this hypothesis as well (B =0.20;
p<0.01). This variable ranges from 0 to 5, and thus the full range of difference in investor
preferences is up to 12% in the data. As expected, we found that increasing focus on these
extrinsic motives embedded in the entrepreneurial narratives significantly diminished
investor interest in the loans, all other factors being equal.
Hypothesis 2a stated that greater degrees of human interest language would be
associated with a decrease in the time needed to fund a microloan. We find support for this
hypothesis (B =−0.10; p<0.01). This variable ranges from 0 to 92, and thus the full range
of difference in investor preferences is up to 112% in the data. Hypothesis 2b stated that
Table 2
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations (SD)†
Variable Mean SD 123456789
1 Time to funding (in days) 7.29 9.96
2 Loan amount (logged) 6.16 0.75 0.39
3 Field partner risk rating 3.30 0.75 0.09 0.21
4 Number of payments 16.86 12.78 0.00 −0.12 −0.05
5 Profit language 2.08 2.12 −0.03 0.09 0.12 −0.06
6 Risk taking language 0.24 0.57 0.01 0.08 −0.01 −0.05 0.12
7 Human interest language 22.34 13.24 −0.05 0.18 0.07 −0.25 0.32 0.18
8 Diversity language 0.35 0.67 0.03 0.10 −0.02 −0.09 0.10 0.07 0.27
9 Overall intrinsic cues −0.13 1.51 −0.02 0.17 0.04 −0.22 0.27 0.16 0.82 0.77
10 Overall extrinsic cues −0.08 1.42 −0.01 0.11 0.07 −0.07 0.75 0.75 0.33 0.11 0.29
†N=36,665. Correlations that exceed |0.01| are significant at p<0.05.
64 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
greater degrees of diversity language would be associated with a decrease in the
time needed to fund a microloan. We fail to find support for this hypothesis (B =0.04;
p=0.59).
Finally, our results lend support to hypothesis 3, where we suggested that the positive
effect of overall intrinsic language would outstrip the negative effect of overall extrinsic
language. Overall intrinsic language (B =−0.52; p<0.01) and overall extrinsic language
(B =0.13; p<0.01) were both significant predictors of investor preferences, but the
intrinsic cue effect was five times stronger than the extrinsic cue effect (standardized
regression coefficient beta values: βintrinsic =−0.08; βextrinsic =0.02; p<0.01).1
1. We conducted three post hoc analyses to demonstrate the robustness of our results. First, we conducted a
Cox regression to ensure that our ordinary least squares results match those from a nonparametric estimator
(e.g., Cox, 1972; Cox & Oakes, 1984). For all hypotheses, our results were identical in terms of sign and
significance. Second, we conducted a post hoc analysis in order to assess the extent to which our results are
Table 3
Results of OLS Regression Analysis for Loan Funding†
Variables Model 1: Controls Model 2: Components Model 3: Overall
Country controls‡
Industry controls§
Currency risk controls¶
Loan amount (logged) 5.76** (0.08) 5.84** (0.08) 5.82** (0.08)
Field partner risk rating −0.92** (0.11) −1.04** (0.11) −0.98** (0.11)
Number of payments 0.05** (0.005) 0.05** (0.005) 0.05** (0.005)
Accomplishment 0.01** (0.004) 0.01** (0.004) 0.01** (0.004)
Blame −0.03 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) −0.01 (0.02)
Tenacity 0.01 (0.004) 0.01 (0.004) 0.004 (0.004)
Leveling −0.06** (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) −0.02 (0.01)
Present concern 0.001 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.005 (0.01)
Concreteness 0.001 (0.004) 0.003 (0.004) 0.001 (0.004)
Variety 4.22** (0.60) 1.07 (0.62) 2.89** (0.61)
Independent variables
Profit language 0.15** (0.02)
Risk taking language 0.20** (0.08)
Human interest language −0.10** (0.005)
Diversity language 0.04 (0.07)
Overall intrinsic cues −0.52** (0.04)
Overall extrinsic cues 0.13** (0.03)
Constant −26.50** (0.67) −25.30** (0.67) −25.98** (0.67)
Model R20.35 0.36 0.35
ΔR2— 0.01** 0.004**
Model df 76 80 78
Residual df 36,588 36,584 36,586
Standard errors in parentheses (#.##). All models compared with Model 1.
†N=36,665.
‡51 Countries, 50 dummy variables included in model but not reported in this table; Philippines reference category.
§15 Industries, 14 dummy variables included in model but not reported in this table. Industries represented comprise the
following NAICS codes: 11, 23, 31, 32, 33, 42, 44, 45 (reference category), 48, 51, 53, 61, 62, 71, 81.
¶3 Categories, 2 dummy variables included in model but not reported in this table.
*p<0.05, ** p<0.01.
OLS, ordinary least squares.
65January, 2015
Discussion
Microlending represents an increasingly important conduit through which impover-
ished entrepreneurs, particularly those in emerging or underdeveloped economies,
can access financial capital (e.g., Bruton, 2010). Since the industry’s conception,
microlending institutions have provided over $25 billion in loans, largely to the world’s
most impoverished entrepreneurs (Diekman, 2007). In this study, we attempted to gain a
deeper understanding of whether investor attraction to certain loans is influenced by
intrinsic and extrinsic cues embedded in entrepreneurial narratives. By doing so, we not
only provide the first examination of the role played by different types of cues in
microlending platforms, but also suggest that cognitive evaluation theory can serve as a
theoretical framework for predicting the investment decisions of microlenders (e.g., Deci
et al., 1999).
Our findings support prior research using cognitive evaluation theory by suggesting
that extrinsic cues impair intrinsic motivation, and extend the applicability of this theory
by examining it in the emerging crowdfunded microfinance context. Given the increasing
importance of both crowdfunding and microfinance, it is vital to develop theory-based
understandings of these fields (e.g., Gaggioli & Riva, 2008; Prentice, 2012; Torrens,
2012). We also suggest that the effect of external cues in strengthening preexisting
intrinsic motivation, which has previously been examined in the form of verbal praise
(e.g., Deci, 1972), may be due to the need for relatedness (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000). Using
a content analysis methodology, we find evidence that this may be the case. Finally,
we compare the relative effects of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. We find that, in
crowdfunded microfinance at least, the effect of intrinsic cues is stronger than the effect
of extrinsic cues. We suggest that this may be due to the relative importance of intrinsic
cues among a group of lenders who are intrinsically motivated and self-select into
participating in crowdfunded microfinance.
In our analysis, we did not find a significant effect of diversity language on intrinsic
motivation. While we cannot interpret a nonsignificant result, it may be that diversity does
not help someone feel connected to another, and thus fails to fulfill the need for related-
ness. This may be partially attributed to the existence of group and similarity effects (e.g.,
Galak et al., 2011), which may offset the increased connection that one develops from
knowing more about a person. On the other hand, it appears that the implicitly personal
language of family and friends may fulfill this need to feel connected to the person who
is under consideration to receive a loan.
Taken together, this study opens new avenues of research on both microlending and
the decision-making considerations that influence the choice of individuals, as lenders,
to provide capital to needy entrepreneurs. Our findings underscore the importance of
supporting the intrinsic motivation of resource providers in microlending. We found that
entrepreneurial narrative language likely to bolster intrinsic motivation had a stronger
also present in smaller samples (cf. Kirk, 1996). We selected a 1% random subsample of our data set; we ran
all models and found support for all hypotheses that were significant in the main analysis except for hypothesis
1b, which was not significant (B =−0.01; p=0.99). This nonsignificance appears to be due to reduced
variance in the smaller sample. Third, we collected additional data to demonstrate that fundraising speed is
positively related to investors’ thoughts about loans. We collected a sample of 239 loans where the funders
made positive comments about the loan at the time of investing. We compared this data with a sample of
randomly selected loans without positive comments at the time of investing. We found that loans with positive
comments raised funds at a rate of 2.4 days for each $10,000, while loans without positive comments raised
funds at less than half that rate: 7.3 days per $10,000, a significant difference (t =−2.50; p<0.05).
66 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
effect than language likely to undermine intrinsic motivation (i.e., language associated
with extrinsic motivation).We suggest that this occurs because crowdfunded microfinance
investors self-select into a platform where their motivation is exclusively or nearly exclu-
sively intrinsic. Future research may develop this finding further by examining whether
self-selection in participating in an activity for intrinsic reasons affects the susceptibility
of the subject to the undermining effect of extrinsic motivation in other contexts.
Our contributions should be viewed in light of the limitations of this study. This study
uses a content analysis method known as computer-aided text analysis, which measures
constructs using dictionary-based calculations in the form of counts of word occurrences
in an analyzed text. Limitations of this method are that it can fail to detect out-of-context
use of words (e.g., Loughran & McDonald, 2011) and that the rich meaning that can be
assessed in a smaller number of narratives through more qualitative methods is sacrificed.
We made these trade-offs in our design in order to secure a number of benefits. First, since
tested and high-quality content analysis dictionaries are preexisting for our measures,
our confidence in the validity of our measures is high (e.g., Loughran & McDonald). With
strong dictionaries, computer-aided content analysis allows the researcher to measure
constructs in thousands of documents with perfect reliability (Duriau, Reger, & Pfarrer,
2007). Our study does not suffer from variations in reliability arising from the direct use
of human coders. Prior research has suggested that human coders’ evaluations of narra-
tives can be captivated by the message of a text (Hart, 2001) and thus fail to reliably code
the construct of interest.
Limitations notwithstanding, our findings have valuable implications for both
research and practice. In this study, we focused on the effect of different cues on micro-
lending funding outcomes. While well-established constructs, such as those assessed here,
benefit from computerized measurement, the application of traditional, manual content
analysis to microlending entrepreneurial narratives may reveal additional nuance and
constructs for future investigation. For example, future studies might employ constant
comparative analysis (e.g., Neuendorf, 2001) to explore how other intrinsic and extrinsic
cues may affect fund-raising outcomes. Yet the method of content analysis is not limited
to text and written language, but can also be applied to multimedia data, such as audio,
photos, and video content (e.g., QSR International, 2010). In this study, we study narra-
tives but not the material artifacts present in the funding appeals. This may form an
important opportunity for future research. For example, prior microlending research has
already used content analysis of photographs to investigate the role of borrower gender
(Galak et al., 2011) and ethnicity/race (Pope & Sydnor, 2011) on microlending funding
outcomes. Future research might examine the extent to which nonverbal communication
present in entrepreneurs’ images (i.e., the photo(s) included within each funding solici-
tation) influences the way resource providers in the microfinancing or crowdfunding
contexts perceive information communicated textually through the entrepreneurial narra-
tive (e.g., Ray & Smith, 2012). By doing so, scholars might gain further insights into the
role played by impression management within the prosocial lending context.
Our research could be extended by examining how manipulations of intrinsic and
extrinsic cues in microlending narratives influence psychometric measures of motivation
to invest. One important attribute of crowdfunded microlending is that lay investors are the
primary audience (e.g., Allison et al., 2013). Crowdfunded microlending operates primary
through websites, and there is growing interest in understanding the role of websites
in firm outcomes (e.g., Chandler, Broberg, & Allison, 2014; Walker et al., 2013). Given
this, a crowdfunding study could be designed as a lab experiment using fabricated
microlending profiles on a dummy microlending website to examine lenders’ behaviors in
detail. Participants could be presented with varying types of appeals, their clicking and
67January, 2015
lending behavior tracked, and their motivation directly assessed using psychometric
instruments.
Another opportunity for future research is in applying qualitative methods to under-
standing the presence, role, and impact of analogical and metaphorical reasoning in
microlending and crowdfunding appeals. Research suggests that entrepreneurs make
sense of opportunities by reasoning with analogies and metaphors to familiar contexts
(e.g., Weick, 1995). This in turn is used to impart meaning about the venture to potential
resource providers. Thus, future crowdfunding and microlending research could qualita-
tively assess, using a method such as manual content analysis, how the occurrence of
metaphor and analogy in entrepreneurial funding appeals influences fund-raising out-
comes. This study could be paired with an experimental or conjoint study to assess how
the presence of metaphor and analogy influences how resource providers make sense of
the funding appeal (e.g., Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010).
An opportunity for future research lies in following lenders over time to discern their
investing patterns. Research on entrepreneurial resource acquisition has long sought to
understand resource provider decision making. While a number of studies have been able
to do so (e.g., Zacharakis & Meyer, 1998), crowdfunded microlending would provide an
opportunity to follow investors through dozens of investing decisions. This study could
perform a discriminant analysis to determine whether investors fall into discernible
behavioral pattern groups in terms of their longitudinal investing behavior.
A further opportunity for future research is in examining the role of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivators in crowdfunding contexts outside of the prosocial lending environ-
ment we examined in this study. On a prosocial crowdfunding platform, there may be
self-selection that results in a higher than average propensity toward prosocial behavior.
This may be a function of the unique role that such social entrepreneurs play in the greater
entrepreneurial landscape (Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009). Consequently, this may
influence the relative effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. In particular, our results
suggest that factors thought to be generally positive in attracting investment (e.g., empha-
sizing profits) appear to be detrimental for entrepreneurs in a prosocial funding environ-
ment. Future research can examine whether this holds in reward-based crowdfunding
environment (e.g., Kickstarter) and in equity-based crowdfunding.
Implications for Practitioners
For practitioners, crowdfunding platforms represent a valuable tool for bolstering
entrepreneurial activity through microcredit. Our results suggest that entrepreneurs
obtaining funding via microlending will tend to achieve the highest probabilities of loan
funding when their appeals for funding are framed to appeal to the intrinsic reasons
microlenders provide capital—to help others. Further, our research suggests that focusing
on the business aspects of a venture is likely to be counterproductive for fund-seeking
entrepreneurs. Moreover, our findings underscore the potential danger of introducing
extrinsic cues into microlending platforms. Schemes such as “gamification” seek to make
activities more “fun” by adding features such as leaderboards, badges, virtual tokens, and
points in return for completing an activity (e.g., Deterding, Sicart, Nacke, O’Hara, &
Dixon, 2011). These features need to be carefully tested in crowdfunding. While some,
such as leaderboards, may function analogously to verbal feedback (e.g., Deci, 1972)
in strengthening intrinsic motivation, others such as rewards, badges, and points may
function as extrinsic cues and undermine intrinsic motivation. Our findings based on
cognitive evaluation theory suggest that such a strategy is likely to result in diminished
microlending participation. Furthermore, there may also be a danger to crowdfunding/
68 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
microlending shifting to a traditional investment model where interest is paid or equity
returns are promised. Thus, it may be that attempts by microlending platforms to entice
lender participation may actually have the opposite effect.
Our research also suggests the need to examine the factors that determine the extent
to which ventures are perceived as attractive by investors in the equity and debt
crowdfunding platforms that are expected to emerge from the 2012 JOBS Act. While
intrinsic motivators, such as interest in a product or cause, may continue to bring potential
investors to crowdfunding platforms and build communities, the promised future mon-
etary rewards on such platforms may be even more explicit than the narrative cues
examined in this study. As such, these platforms will need to strike a delicate balance
between extrinsic and intrinsic cues (e.g., Deci et al., 1999). If such a balance is not
achieved, the increased performance and financial success on these platforms may under-
mine the intrinsic motivation that currently brings people to crowdfunding rather than
other investment options. With intrinsic motivation undermined, it is possible that the
community and mission of such platforms may be impaired.
Conclusion
Our work is the first to assess how the extrinsic and intrinsic motivating cues in
microloan entrepreneurial narratives impact funding outcomes. Our results suggest that,
consistent with cognitive evaluation theory, the intrinsic motivation of lenders to provide
capital is undermined when entrepreneurs focus on future extrinsic rewards associated
with lending. For entrepreneurship researchers, our results suggest that microlenders
behave according to this well-established theory of motivation. Future research might
examine both whether and how other theories of motivation predict microlending, as well
as the role played by other types of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational cues. For entre-
preneurs, both in developing countries and social entrepreneurs, this study suggests that
framing a microloan request as an investment opportunity is less effective than focusing
on the reasons why funding the microloan would be intrinsically satisfying to the lender.
REFERENCES
Abele, S. & Stasser, G. (2008). Coordination success and interpersonal perceptions: Matching versus mis-
matching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,95(3), 576–592.
Allison, T.H., McKenny, A.F., & Short, J.C. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending
investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of Business Venturing,28(6), 690–707.
Allison, T.H., McKenny, A.F., & Short, J.C. (2014). Entrepreneurial rhetoric and business plan funding.
In R.P. Hart (Ed.), Communication and language analysis in the corporate world (pp. 21–35). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global.
Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal
of Political Economy,97(6), 1447–1458.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The
Economic Journal,100(401), 464–477.
Anthony, D. (2005). Cooperation in microcredit borrowing groups: Identity, sanctions, and reciprocity in the
production of collective goods. American Sociological Review,70(3), 496–515.
69January, 2015
Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial
microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal,53(6), 1419–1440.
Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,117(3), 497–529.
Bruton, G.D. (2010). Letter from the editor. The Academy of Management Perspectives,24(3), 6–10.
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D., & Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we
today and where should the research go in the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,32(1), 1–14.
Buckley, G. (1997). Microfinance in Africa: Is it either the problem or the solution? World Development,
25(7), 1081–1093.
Certo, S.T. (2003). Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures.
Academy of Management Review,28(3), 432–446.
Chandler, G.N., Broberg, J.C., & Allison, T.H. (2014). Customer value propositions in declining industries:
Differences between industry representative and high-growth firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
doi: 10.1002/sej.1181.
Chartrand, T.L. & Bargh, J.L. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76, 893–910.
Chatterji, A.K. (2009). Spawned with a silver spoon? Entrepreneurial performance and innovation in the
medical device industry. Strategic Management Journal,30(2), 185–206.
Cimpian, A., Arce, H.C., Markman, E.M., & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect children’s
motivation. Psychological Science,18(4), 314–316.
Cornelissen, J.P. & Clarke, J.S. (2010). Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: Inductive reasoning and the
creation and justification of new ventures. Academy of Management Review,35(4), 539–557.
Cox, D.R. (1972). Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,34(2), 187–220.
Cox, D.R. & Oakes, D. (1984). Analysis of survival data (Vol. 21). London: Chapman & Hall.
Deci, E.L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,18, 105–115.
Deci, E.L. (1972). The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,8(2), 217–229.
Deci, E.L., Eghran, H., Patrick, B.C., & Leonne, D.R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-
determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality,62, 119–142.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects
of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,125(6), 627–668.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–80). New York: Academic
Press.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier
(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237–288). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
70 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11(4), 227–268.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University
Rochester Press.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts:
An overview of self-determination theory. In R.M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation
(pp. 85–107). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Using game-design
elements in non-gaming contexts. CHI ’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
2425–2428.
Diekman, R. (2007). Microfinancing: An emerging investment opportunity. Frankfurt, Germany: Deutsche
Bank.
Dougherty, T.W., Turban, D.B., & Callender, J.C. (1994). Confirming first impressions in the employment
interview: A field study of interviewer behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,79(5), 659–665.
Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K., & Pfarrer, M.D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in
organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational
Research Methods,10(1), 5–34.
Florin, J., Lubatkin, M., & Schulze, W. (2003). A social capital model of high-growth ventures. Academy of
Management Journal,46(3), 374–384.
Gaggioli, A. & Riva, G. (2008). Working the crowd. Science,321(5895), 1443.
Gagne, M. & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior,26, 331–362.
Galak, J., Small, D., & Stephen, A.T. (2011). Microfinance decision making: A field study of prosocial
lending. Journal of Marketing Research,48(SPL), S130–S137.
Harackiewicz, J.M., Manderlink, G., & Sansone, C. (1984). Rewarding pinball wizardry: Effects of evaluation
and cue value on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,47, 287–300.
Hart, R.P. (1984). Verbal style and the presidency. New York: Academic Press.
Hart, R.P. (2001). Redeveloping DICTION: Theoretical considerations. In M.D. West (Ed.), Theory, method,
and practice in computer content analysis (pp. 43–60). New York: Springer.
Hart, R.P. (2002). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hart, R.P. (2010). Diction 6.0 manual. Austin, TX: Digitext, Inc.
Herzenstein, M., Sonenshein, S., & Dholakia, U. (2011). Tell me a good story and I may lend you my money:
The role of narratives in peer-to-peer lending decisions. Journal of Marketing Research,48(SPL), S138–S149.
Karlan, D.S. & Zinman, J. (2008). Credit elasticities in less-developed economies: Implications for
microfinance. The American Economic Review,98(3), 1040–1068.
Khavul, S. (2010). Microfinance: Creating opportunities for the poor? The Academy of Management Per-
spectives,24(3), 58–72.
Khavul, S., Bruton, G.D., & Wood, E. (2009). Informal family business in Africa. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice,33(6), 1219–1238.
71January, 2015
Khavul, S., Chavez, H., & Bruton, G.D. (2013). When institutional change outruns the change agent: The
contested terrain of entrepreneurial microfinance for those in poverty. Journal of Business Venturing,28(1),
30–50.
Kirk, R.E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological
Measurement,56(5), 746–759.
Kiva. (2012). Kiva history. Available at http://www.kiva.org/about/history, accessed 16 February 2012.
Kiva.org. (2012). Kiva.org API. Available at http://build.kiva.org, accessed 4 January 2012.
Krishnan, J. & Press, E. (2003). The North American industry classification system and its implications for
accounting research. Contemporary Accounting Research,20(4), 685–717.
Lee, M.K., Cheung, C.M., & Chen, Z. (2005). Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: The role of
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information & Management,42(8), 1095–1104.
Loughran, T. & McDonald, B. (2011). When is a liability not a liability? Textual analysis, dictionaries, and
10-Ks. The Journal of Finance,66(1), 35–65.
MacMillan, I.C., Siegel, R., & Narasimha, P.N. (1986). Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new
venture proposals. Journal of Business Venturing,1, 119–128.
Makino, S., Isobe, T., & Chan, C.M. (2004). Does country matter? Strategic Management Journal,25(10),
1027–1043.
Martens, M.L., Jennings, J.E., & Jennings, D.P. (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the money they need?
The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal,50(5),
1107–1132.
Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing,
29(1), 1–16.
Needleman, S.E. (2010, October 22). Kiva expands microlending reach to U.S. businesses. The Wall Street
Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303738504575568032575697328
Neuendorf, K.A. (2001). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorpo-
rated.
Pope, D.G. & Sydnor, J.R. (2011). What’s in a picture? Evidence of discrimination from Prosper.com. Journal
of Human Resources,46(1), 53–92.
Prentice, S. (2012). Crowdfunding is changing the approach to innovation. Stamford, CT: Gartner Research.
QSR International. (2010). Nvivo 9 manual. Doncaster, Australia: QSR International Pty. Ltd.
Ray, J. & Smith, A. (2012). Using photographs to research organizations: Evidence, considerations, and
application in a field study. Organizational Research Methods,15(2), 288–315.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist,55(1), 68–78.
Ryan, R.M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context on
intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personal and Social
Psychology,45, 736–750.
Shamir, B., Arthur, M.B., & House, R.J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical
extension, a case study, and implications for research. The Leadership Quarterly,5(1), 25–42.
72 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
Short, J.C., Broberg, J.C., Cogliser, C.C., & Brigham, K.H. (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided
text analysis (CATA). Organizational Research Methods,13(2), 320–347.
Short, J.C., Moss, T.W., & Lumpkin, G.T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and
future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,3, 161–194.
Short, J.C. & Palmer, T.B. (2008). The application of DICTION to content analysis research in strategic
management. Organizational Research Methods,11(4), 727–752.
Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Small, D.A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative
thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes,102(2), 143–153.
Spooner, L. (1846). Poverty: Its illegal causes and legal cure: Part first. Boston: B. Marsh.
Torrens, J.M. (2012, March 18). Should equity-based crowd funding be legal? No. The risks are too high.
The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203370604577265512766
009938
Walker, H.J., Bauer, T., Cole, M., Bernerth, J., Feild, H., & Short, J. (2013). Is this how I will be treated?
Reducing uncertainty through recruitment interactions. Academy of Management Journal,56(6), 1325–1347.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Weinstein, N. & Ryan, R.M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and
its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,98(2),
222–244.
Zacharakis, A.L. & Meyer, G.D. (1998). A lack of insight: Do venture capitalists really understand their own
decision process? Journal of Business Venturing,13(1), 57–76.
Zachary, M.A., McKenny, A., Short, J.C., & Payne, G.T. (2011). Family business and market orientation
construct validation and comparative analysis. Family Business Review,24(3), 233–251.
Zott, C. & Huy, Q.N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly,52(1), 70–105.
Thomas H. Allison is anAssistant Professor of Strategic Management and Entrepreneurship in the Department
of Management, Information Systems, and Entrepreneurship, College of Business, Washington State Univer-
sity, Todd Hall 442, PO Box 644743, Pullman, WA, USA.
Blakley C. Davis is a Doctoral Candidate at Oklahoma State University, School of Entrepreneurship, Spears
School of Business, 104 Business Building, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Jeremy C. Short is the Rath Chair in Strategic Management at the University of Oklahoma, Division of
Management & Entrepreneurship, Michael F. Price College of Business, 307 W Brooks St., Adams Hall 206,
Norman, OK, USA.
Justin W. Webb is an Assistant Professor at Oklahoma State University, School of Entrepreneurship, Spears
School of Business, 104 C Business Building, Stillwater, OK, USA.
73January, 2015
