Content uploaded by Ajit Yadav
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ajit Yadav on Jun 24, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-023-00376-4
Abstract
Donation crowdfunding is a type of crowdfunding wherein the funders donate funds
in order to support a particular project through the internet (crowdfunding website/
platform) acting as the medium. It is based on pure philanthropic motives with
no expectations of any reward or return. In this study, we intend to explore the
antecedents that drive a funder’s intention to contribute in donation crowdfunding
campaigns in India by investigating the impact of identied factors on a funder’s in-
tention to donate. For the study, a survey was conducted on funders using a 5-point
Likert Scale through a structured questionnaire. The identied constructs determin-
ing the funder’s intention to donate were perceived project integrity, fundraiser’s
credibility, funder’s social inuence, crowdfunding readiness, funder’s self-ecacy,
crowdfunding platform reputation, and funder’s empathy. The ndings of the study
reveal that all the identied constructs signicantly aect the funder’s intention to
donate in donation crowdfunding campaigns. Moreover, crowdfunding readiness
partially mediates the relationship between the identied factors (except for the
funder’s social inuence) and intention to donate.
Keywords Donation crowdfunding · Intention to donate · Social inuence ·
Funders · Crowdfunding readiness · Mediation
Received: 30 July 2022 / Accepted: 2 May 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in
donation crowdfunding campaigns: a mediating role of
crowdfunding readiness
Vijaya1· AjitYadav1· Himendu PrakashMathur1
Vijaya
vijaya2890@gmail.com
1 Faculty of Management Studies, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi,
Uttar Pradesh 221005, India
1 3
Vijaya et al.
1 Introduction
The crowdfunding phenomenon forms part of today’s global and digital society. It
is a revolutionary process involving resourcing funds from a larger audience (Ger-
ber et al., 2012) who share a common goal and responsibilities. It has emerged as
an alternative to the traditional sources of nancing, especially for young and bud-
ding entrepreneurs, as they require funds to fuel their innovative and novel busi-
ness ideas but do not have a regular money ow to pay o loans (Cosh et al., 2009)
and also lack strong credit background to source money from traditional sources
such as banking and formal credit lending institutions. Crowdfunding is a relatively
younger phenomenon with its genesis in the concepts of crowdsourcing and micro-
nance. Crowdsourcing involves pooling ideas instead of funds from a large number
of people. Similarly, crowdfunding involves resourcing funds from the public, which
contributes a small/minuscule amount of money to nance a particular idea/project.
In crowdfunding, the internet acts as the communication medium between parties
contributing and sourcing funds (Choy & Schlagwein, 2016; Mollick, 2014).
Crowdfunding involves the intersection of three parties- the fund providers, the
fund-seekers, and the crowdfunding platforms who charge a set commission acting
as intermediaries between the fund providers and fund seekers. The fund seekers
pitch their project/cause on the crowdfunding platforms in anticipation of fund pro-
viders donating or investing money in return for material or non-material rewards
(Belleamme & Lambert, 2014; Belleamme et al., 2014). Crowdfunding takes up
many forms based on the return promised. Donation crowdfunding promises nothing
in return and is based on pure philanthropic/charitable motives (Chen et al., 2019;
Kim & Park, 2022; Wang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). Donation crowdfund-
ing is the most widespread and popular form of crowdfunding, with the underlying
cause of extending support to projects through charities. Equity crowdfunding prom-
ises ownership of the proposed/existing company in return for the funds contributed
(Ahlers et al., 2015; Lukkarinen et al., 2016; Vulkan et al., 2016). It comes under
the purview of investment with a potential return on the given investment through
the issue of shares. It is best suited for small or medium-sized organizations that
need capital inow to expand their business (Mochkabadi & Volkmann, 2020). Lend-
ing crowdfunding is another investment-oriented crowdfunding that allows earning
interest on the amount the fund provider lends (Morse, 2015; Moysidou & Hausberg,
2020). In lending crowdfunding, the funds extended by the individuals are treated as
a loan with a prexed rate of interest and time period. Finally, reward crowdfunding
promises a non-monetary reward to the fund providers in lieu of funds contributed
(Frydrych et al., 2014; Kraus et al., 2016; Shneor & Munim, 2019). The reward could
be any unique oering or the actual delivery of the potential promised product for
which the campaign was developed (Shneor & Munim, 2019). It acts as a pre-sales
counter for the potential product, with individuals extending funds to pre-book their
products (Yang & Zhang, 2016).
Donation crowdfunding is the most prevalent form of crowdfunding in India. The
donor’s behaviour in backing crowdfunding projects ranges from donating to health
campaigns and social services in the form of supporting small-scale or large-scale
organizations/projects/individuals/ideas (Zhang & Chen, 2018). Donation crowd-
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
funding, though popular, comes with its pros and cons. On one end, it does not create
any liability on the part of the fund-seekers, but on the other hand, the fund providers
or the backers do not receive any monetary or non-monetary rewards (Gleasure &
Feller, 2016), the success rate of raising funds through donation crowdfunding is low
(Kunz et al., 2017). Further, the likelihood of fund providers participating in dona-
tion crowdfunding is highly aected in subsequent campaigns (Choy & Schlagwein,
2016). Hence, the fund provider’s intention to donate is not very high and needs stim-
ulation or motivation to push them toward funding projects (Steigenberger, 2017).
Researchers in the area of crowdfunding have largely focussed on the antecedents
of incentive-based crowdfunding, such as reward, interest, and equity (Ahlers et al.,
2015; Bretschneider & Leimeister, 2017). However, few studies have studied factors
aecting a funder’s intention to donate in donation crowdfunding (Chen et al., 2019,
2021; Kim & Park, 2022; Liu et al., 2017, 2018; Wang et al., 2019; Zhang et al.,
2020) but still, the area is largely underexplored and requires intervention. Moreover,
factors that drive backers in donation crowdfunding dier signicantly from that of
incentive-based crowdfunding because there are no tangible rewards at all. Further,
studies that have explored factors aecting donation intention are based on evidence
from other countries, and since donation intention diers signicantly as per the
demographic prole of the funders and the economic status of the country (Zhao et
al., 2017), it becomes imperative to study the intention of backers to participate in
donation crowdfunding in India.
Although donation crowdfunding has its own merit, it is highly questioned regard-
ing donor protection and trust issues in terms of failure to deliver projects on time,
misappropriation of funds, problems related to data privacy, non-genuine campaigns,
and hidden campaign pricing (Shneor & Torjesen, 2020). Further, the lack of su-
cient research on the antecedents of the donation intention of the general public raises
important concerns, particularly when evidence indicates that donation crowdfund-
ing has a low success rate because of a lack of tangible compensation (Zhao & Sun,
2020), lack of dened nancial goal (Moss et al., 2018), lack of credit worthiness of
the fundraiser (Mollick, 2014), and limited managerial abilities (Lehner, 2013; Cason
& Zubrickas, 2019; Lee et al., 2016; Jin, 2019). On the ip side, the proportion of
the population engaging in donation crowdfunding is much higher as it is the most
prevalent form of crowdfunding in India, yet the research in the area is limited. Fur-
ther, the propensity of the funders participating in donation crowdfunding campaigns
is highly dependent on their readiness. Zhang et al. (2020) dened “Crowdfunding
readiness” as the psychological tendency of funders to participate in a crowdfund-
ing activity, including website interaction and actual donation actions. Hence, in this
study, we intend to study the antecedent factors that drive backers’ crowdfunding
readiness, ultimately aecting their intention to contribute to donation crowdfunding
campaigns in India.
This particular study marks several contributions. Firstly, it underlines the factors
that drive backers to contribute to donation crowdfunding campaigns. Further, the
factors such as perceived project integrity, fundraiser’s credibility, funder’s social
inuence, funder’s self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform reputation, and funder’s
empathy have been largely studied in the literature, but the study also focuses on
crowdfunding readiness. This study establishes crowdfunding readiness as the factor
1 3
Vijaya et al.
inuencing the intention donation of funders and as the mediator variable between
the identied constructs and intention to donate.
The rest of the section of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the
relevant literature and underlines the research hypotheses. Section 3 proposes the
research model. Section 4 discusses the methodology adopted in detail. Section 5
presents the analysis of the data. Section 6 includes the discussion and implications.
Finally, Sect. 7 highlights the limitations and scope for future research.
2 Literature review and hypotheses
2.1 Donation-based crowdfunding and antecedents to success
The donation-based crowdfunding is a popular model used by social enterprises and
individuals to raise funds. A crowdfunding campaign based on charity to fund social
and individual causes could range from health, community welfare, social needs, and
other undened charitable causes (Lehner, 2013). Apart from raising funds, donation-
based crowdfunding campaigns also raise social awareness (Bergamini et al., 2017)
about the project or the underlying problem people suer from by highlighting the
issue through the campaign. The success of a donation crowdfunding campaign relies
on the eectiveness of transmitting relevant information to the funders to capture
their interest (Kuppuswamy & Bayus, 2015). In addition, it requires each campaign
to capture the funder’s trust, as trust is a crucial element in ensuring the availability of
funds to the fundraiser. Trust in donation crowdfunding is an intangible concept that
the funders could only perceive through the campaign elements. The funder’s trust
could be dened as (1) the perceived project integrity in the eyes of the funders (Kim
& Park, 2022; Huang et al., 2021), (2) the fundraiser’s credibility perceived by the
funders (Bukhari et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2017), and (3) the crowdfunding platform
(website) reputation (Kim & Park, 2022; Zhang et al., 2020).
A crowdfunding campaign should signal project integrity or quality in order to
attract funding from the funders (Mollick, 2014). Since project integrity is a latent
construct, the information the project displays acts as an emblem of project quality,
ultimately driving fund providers toward funding crowdfunding projects (Liu et al.,
2018). Also, funders, while parting away with their funds, tend to ensure the genuine-
ness of the fundraiser and are ready to support a particular person/fundraiser only if
they believe that the fundraiser has the required expertise, ability, and knowledge in a
specic area (Ba et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2020). The fundraiser’s past crowdfunding
history and performance also signal fundraiser credibility (Zhang et al., 2021). Fur-
ther, the crowdfunding website’s reputation also plays an important role in achieving
funding goals as easy navigability and user-interface act as signals of quality (Liu et
al., 2017), which highly impacts the funder’s choice to donate. In a donation crowd-
funding environment, the choice to donate to a crowdfunding campaign is also heav-
ily inuenced by the funder’s social connections and sense of belonging to a specic
group (Agrawal et al., 2015; Burtch et al., 2015) propound that social norms and
social reputation inuence the prosocial behaviour of funders. The funders’ social
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
inuence governs their participation in donation crowdfunding campaigns, as people
tend to donate if their social group engages in the act of donation.
Moreover, apart from social inuence, funder-oriented factors also play a key role
in their donation action. The funder’s empathy towards a campaign inuences the
funder’s intention to donate in donation crowdfunding (Liu et al., 2018). Empathy
triggers an emotional response that guides the funder’s donation action (Li et al.,
2019), but empathy alone cannot strike the right balance unless it is supported by
self-ecacy (Basil et al., 2008). Self-ecacy inuences the funder’s decision to sup-
port a certain crowdfunding campaign on the basis of their own conviction and ar-
mation. It highlights their resolve and commitment towards a campaign (Shneor &
Munim, 2019).
Further, the funder’s act of donation in crowdfunding campaigns is preceded by
their intention to donate (Zhang et al., 2020), but intention can also follow crowdfund-
ing readiness. Readiness is the cognition-driven tendency of individuals that drives
them towards action (Meisels, 1998). The concept of readiness has been dened in
various contexts (Watkins et al.,2004), but the concept of readiness has been used by
Zhang et al. (2020) in the context of crowdfunding literature. They propound that an
individual’s donation action is governed by their crowdfunding readiness. Crowd-
funding readiness shows people’s preparedness in terms of cognition and behaviour,
forming their opinion and reecting their intention. In this study, we explore the
factors aecting the funder’s crowdfunding readiness and intention to donate. In the
study context, crowdfunding readiness reects preparedness (Zhang et al., 2020),
whereas the intention to donate is a pre-armation to indulge in the act (Liu et al.,
2018). Hence, we check for each factor’s (perceived project integrity, fundraiser’s
credibility, funder’s social inuence, funder’s self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform
reputation, crowdfunding readiness, and funder’s empathy) eect on crowdfunding
readiness as well as the intention to donate considering (1) both are independent out-
come (2) crowdfunding readiness mediating the relationship between the identied
factors and funder’s intention to donate.
The previous literature has drawn the set of factors that lead to donation action
by funders. The authors specically draw on the abovementioned factors with the
hypotheses about their potential inuence on the funder’s intention to donate and
their crowdfunding readiness discussed in sub-Sect. 2.2.
2.2 Factors affecting funder’s intention to donate and their crowdfunding
readiness
2.2.1 Perceived project integrity
Perceived integrity of the project refers to the funder’s judgmental belief about the
project being trustworthy, reliable, and consistent (Kim & Park, 2022). The high
degree of perceived integrity and reliability of the project signals a positive image
of the project in the eyes of the funders, which ultimately leads to crowdfunding
campaign success (Barbi & Bigelli, 2017; Huang et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2018). The
achievement of funding success is a function of project quality (Mollick, 2014). Vari-
ous studies have linked the project’s funding goal, duration, and other properties to
1 3
Vijaya et al.
its funding success (Agrawal et al., 2014, 2015; Greenberg et al., 2013; Kuppuswamy
& Bayus, 2015; Xu et al., 2014). The intelligent use of language, including its tone
and content, has also been studied for entrepreneurial projects (Chan & Park, 2015).
Further, the information content of the crowdfunding project, including the accu-
racy, completeness, tone, and length of the project description on the crowdfunding
platform website, also acts as a catalyst in ensuring project quality (Koch & Siering,
2015; Zhou et al., 2018). The description of the project greatly impacts the intention
of the fund providers to donate funds (Li et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2018) as higher
quality information content allows the funders to feel more condent and surer about
the project and consider it of high quality, ultimately leading to its success. The per-
ceived project integrity of a particular campaign in the eyes of the funders allows
them to prepare and work out the potential idea of the campaign. It allows the funders
to make up their mind, highlighting their crowdfunding readiness. The literature also
suggests that perceived project integrity can aect the funder’s intention to donate
(Liu et al., 2018). Hence, the above argument leads to the construction of the follow-
ing hypothesis:
H1a Perceived project integrity positively aects the funder’s intention to donate.
H1b Perceived project integrity positively aects the funder’s crowdfunding
readiness.
2.2.2 Fundraiser’s credibility
The fundraiser’s credibility refers to the required skills, ability, trustworthiness, com-
petence, and expertise of the fundraiser in the eyes of the funders (Bukhari et al.,
2019). Credibility can be better understood in terms of believability (Fogg et al.,
2001) and is a perceptual variable that emerges from the funder’s cognitive percep-
tion of the campaign owners. Further, according to several researchers (Fogg et al.,
2001; Wiener & Mowen, 1986), credibility can be broken down into two primary
components: expertise and trustworthiness. Expertise refers to how knowledgeable
and skilled the person is, whereas trustworthiness refers to how moral or good the
person is (Fogg et al., 2001). People are inclined to support a particular person if they
have the expertise, ability, and knowledge in a specic area. The fundraiser’s trust-
worthiness and credibility in the funders’ judgment strongly inuence the funder’s
intention to donate (Ryu & Kim, 2018). Therefore, the fundraiser’s credibility and
personality positively aect the crowdfunding campaign’s success (Bukhari et al.,
2019; Kim et al., 2017; Leonelli et al., 2020; Nitani et al., 2019). The fundraiser’s
credibility, as perceived by the funders, can potentially lead to the funder’s prepared-
ness (crowdfunding readiness) and can also help them form donation intention.
Hence, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
H2a Fundraiser’s credibility positively inuences the funder’s intention to donate.
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
H2b Fundraiser’s credibility positively inuences the funder’s crowdfunding
readiness.
2.2.3 Funder’s social influence
Social inuence refers to the process through which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs,
or behavior are modied by the presence or actions of others (Venkatesh et al., 2003;
Kim & Hollingshead, 2015) denes social inuence as the changes in an individual’s
attitudes, thoughts, and behaviour brought about by the direct or indirect inuence
of other people’s action or behaviour (Kim & Hollingshead, 2015). There is also the
possibility that social norms and reputational eects play a role in the decision to
donate, both of which have the potential to motivate people to act in a charitable man-
ner (Burtch et al., 2015). The social behaviour of people owing to social relationships
is highly driven by reciprocity within a group (Cecere et al., 2017). In a crowdfund-
ing setting, the funder’s sense of belongingness to a particular group or community
(Agrawal et al., 2015) and their social relations play a crucial role in their decision
to contribute to a crowdfunding campaign. Hence, the funder’s social inuence can
potentially lead to crowdfunding readiness, which may aect the funder’s intention
to donate. The following hypothesis has been proposed:
H3a Funder’s Social inuence positively inuences the funder’s intention to donate.
H3a Funder’s Social inuence positively inuences the funder’s crowdfunding
readiness.
2.2.4 Funder’s self-efficacy
Self-ecacy refers to an individual’s belief and condence in his capabilities and
performance in executing a particular task (Bandura, 1977). Higher self-ecacy is
associated with higher success and motivation in driving action. Individuals who
highly regard their ability will be more likely to participate in crowdfunding cam-
paigns than those who give less weight to their ability (Shneor & Munim, 2019).
Stevenson (2019), while studying equity-based crowdfunding, highlighted that self-
ecacy positively inuences people’s intention to make a nancial contribution and
share information. According to Bosson et al. (1999), one’s perception of their self-
competence positively inuences their motivation level. Therefore, self-ecacy pos-
itively inuences the funder’s action in guiding their readiness which may aect the
funder’s intention to fund or extend support to a particular crowdfunding campaign
(Harburg et al., 2015; Hoque et al., 2018; Stevenson et al., 2019; Troise et al., 2020).
Hence, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
H4a Funder’s self-ecacy positively inuences the funder’s intention to donate.
1 3
Vijaya et al.
H4a Funder’s self-ecacy positively inuences the funder’s crowdfunding
readiness.
2.2.5 Crowdfunding platform reputation
According to Floyd et al. (2014), the product’s reputation signicantly impacts its
sale in marketing parlance. This notion stands true for various contexts and across a
wide range of concepts. The satisfaction of the consumers and the sales volume are
highly aected by the reputation of the product/ service (Filieri & McLeay, 2014).
Reputation is the perceived goodness of the product that is highly governed by peo-
ple’s experiences during purchase transactions (Lee & Youn, 2009). In crowdfund-
ing, the experience that the funders have is through the crowdfunding platform, and
if the funders perceive that the crowdfunding website is of quality, secure and genu-
ine, they are highly likely to engage in the act of giving funds (Kim & Park, 2022).
According to Liu et al. (2017), the level of security, navigability, aesthetic appeal,
and ease of payment on the crowdfunding website positively relates to empathy and
perceived credibility, which impacts donation behaviour. Consequently, people’s per-
ceptions of the credibility and trustworthiness of the crowdfunding platform website
or digital platform can highly govern the funder’s preparedness or readiness, which
in turn can aect their intention to donate in donation crowdfunding. Hence, we pro-
pose the following hypothesis:
H5a Crowdfunding platform reputation positively inuences the funder’s intention
to donate.
H5b Crowdfunding platform reputation positively inuences the funder’s crowd-
funding readiness.
2.2.6 Funder’s empathy
Empathy refers to a person’s ability to understand other individuals’ feelings from
their reference point or state (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Cialdini et al., 1997). The
funder’s empathetic feeling toward a particular crowdfunding campaign has been
studied by various researchers (Li et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2017, 2018; Rhue & Robert,
2018). The studies show that empathy leads to a funder’s intention to donate to a char-
ity crowdfunding campaign. Furthermore, empathy drives the emotional reaction,
which stems the ground for achieving funding success (Li et al., 2019). Therefore,
the funder’s readiness to donate money in donation crowdfunding because of their
empathy toward particular crowdfunding projects (Liu et al., 2017) can inuence
the funder’s donation intention. Hence, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
H6a Funder’s empathy positively inuences the funder’s intention to donate.
H6b Funder’s empathy positively inuences the funder’s crowdfunding readiness.
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
2.2.7 Crowdfunding readiness
According to Armenakis et al. (1993), readiness is an antecedent of an individual’s
resistance or adoption of certain behaviour. The concept of readiness was introduced
by Jacobson (1957). It has been used in several marketing concepts (Armenakis et
al., 1993; Dada, 2006; Rohayani, 2015; Watkins et al., 2004; Bardakci & Whitelock,
2004) dene consumer readiness for mass-customized products using three criteria:
willingness to pay a premium for a product, willingness to wait to receive the prod-
uct, and willingness to invest time in designing the product. Smith and McSweeney
(2007) advocate that donation readiness precedes actual monetary donations. Ajzen
(1991) has associated readiness with the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the
theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Crowdfunding readiness refers to the psycho-
logical tendency of funders to participate in a crowdfunding activity, including web-
site interaction and actual donation actions (Zhang et al., 2020). Hence, the following
hypothesis has been proposed:
H7 Crowdfunding Readiness positively aects the funder’s intention to donate.
3 Research model and construct denitions
3.1 Research model
Based on the set of identied factors (independent variables) that drive funders to back
donation crowdfunding projects, we propose the research model depicted in Fig. 1.
We consider perceived project integrity, fundraiser’s credibility, funder’s social inu-
ence, funder’s self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform reputation, crowdfunding readi-
Fig. 1 The proposed research model
Source: The Authors
1 3
Vijaya et al.
ness and funder’s empathy as the independent factors that aect funder’s intention to
donate. Intention to donate is the dependent variable. Further, crowdfunding readi-
ness mediates the relationship between perceived project integrity, the fundraiser’s
credibility, social inuence, self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform reputation, and the
funder’s empathy and intention to donate.
4 Data and methodology
4.1 Measurement
All the constructs to study the drivers inuencing the funder’s intention to donate in
donation crowdfunding have been adapted from the literature. In order to measure
the items, a ve-point Likert scale has been used ranging between 1 and 5, where 1
represents strongly disagree, and 5 represents strongly agree. The items for accessing
perceived project integrity were adapted from Liu et al. (2017). Items for the fund-
raiser’s credibility were adapted from Liu et al. (2018). Items for Funder’s Social
inuence were adapted from Wang et al. (2019). Items for the funder’s self-ecacy
were adapted from Wang et al. (2019). Items for crowdfunding platform reputation
were adopted from Zhang et al. (2020). Items for the funder’s empathy were adapted
from Liu et al. (2018). Items for crowdfunding readiness were adopted from Zhang
et al. (2020). Finally, the items for intention to donate were adopted from Kim et al.
(2008). The questionnaire was rst drafted by making minor changes in the questions
to contextualize it in terms of donation-crowdfunding.
Further, it was sent to two experts (professors) in the specic area. Based on their
feedback, further modications to the questionnaire were made. Finally, the ques-
tionnaire was tested on a small set of respondents (65 participants) with 57 valid
responses, based on which it was modied again. The nal questionnaire drafted
comprised two parts. The rst part caters to the demographics of the respondents, and
the second part contains questions based on the construct items. Appendix 1 shows
the questionnaire instrument.
4.2 Data collection
The crowdfunding platform is an open online platform. A list of backers was made
with the help of representatives of Ketto and Milaap, two big crowdfunding platforms
operating in India. These crowdfunding platforms maintain a database of fund pro-
viders. We approached these two platforms and requested the availability of email ids
of fund providers who have participated in at least two (in order to assess their past
experience) crowdfunding campaigns and have prior experience donating to these
crowdfunding campaigns. The questionnaire was oated online (sent to the email
addresses obtained through the crowdfunding platform) and was sent to approxi-
mately 1500 fund providers. In order to receive a speedy response, reminder emails
were sent over a period of 6 months to those who did not respond. Acknowledging
that it is practically impossible to receive responses from all the respondents, we
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
resultantly gathered 509 valid responses, out of which only 427 questionnaires were
t for use in the analysis as questionnaires with incomplete responses were discarded.
5 Analysis
5.1 Descriptive statistics
The demographic prole of the respondents obtained through the rst part of the
questionnaire is described in Table 1. The survey shows that out of 427 respondents,
approximately 59.48% were male, and 40.52% were female. 3.28% of the respon-
dents were of less than 18 years of age, 65.11% of respondents belonged to the age
group of 18–30 years, 11.94% belonged to the age group of 30–45 years, 15.85%
belonged to the age group of 45–60 years, and 3.75% were above 60 years of age.
This shows that people aged between 18 and 30 years are more inclined to partici-
pate in donation crowdfunding campaigns. 10.07% of respondents were educated
up to high school or less, 8.90% completed intermediate, 22.72% were undergradu-
ate, and 58.31% had post-graduate or higher degrees, highlighting that education
plays an important role in governing people’s participation in crowdfunding cam-
paigns. Further, 7.96% of the respondents had an income up to Rs. 50,000 per month,
34.66% had an income between Rs. 50,000 to Rs.80,000 per month, 22.95% had an
income between Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 110,000 per month, and 28.80% had income above
Rs.110,000 per month. This shows that income is an important consideration for par-
ticipation in donation crowdfunding campaigns.
5.2 Measurement model
We employ the common factor-based approach to construct the measurement model
in our analysis. First, the Conrmatory Factor Analysis was applied to the model to
Measure Items Number Percentage
Gender Male 254 59.48
Female 173 40.52
Age < 18 14 3.28
18–30 278 65.11
30–45 51 11.94
45–60 68 15.85
> 60 16 3.75
Education High school or below 43 10.07
Intermediate 38 8.90
Under-Graduate 97 22.72
Post-Graduate or above 249 58.31
Income <Rs. 50,000 34 7.96
Rs.50,000-Rs. 80,000 148 34.66
Rs.80,000-Rs. 110,000 98 22.95
>Rs.110,000 123 28.80
Table 1 Demographic prole of
the respondents
Source: The Authors
1 3
Vijaya et al.
conrm the factor structure using IBM SPSS AMOS software (version 23). Further,
the model t was assessed with the help of various model t indices. The initial
model assessment revealed a poor t owing to which four factors were dropped from
various constructs, and then again, the model t was assessed. The measurement
model is shown in Fig. 2. The model t of the modied measurement model shows
that all the model t indices were achieved, as shown in Table 2.
Fig. 2 The measurement model
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
5.3 Reliability and validity
IBM SPSS software (version 25) and IBM SPSS AMOS software (version 23) were
used to check for convergent and discriminant validity. Factor loadings, compos-
ite reliability (CR), Cronbach’s alpha, and average variance extracted (AVE) were
used to assess convergent validity shown in Table 3. The factor loadings for most
items were above the suggested level of 0.7, except for FC4 and FE1, which is still
Constructs Code Standard
Loading
Cron-
bach
Alpha
Composite
Reliability
AVE
Perceived
project
integrity
PIC1 0.828 0.878 0.858 0.668
PIC2 0.789
PIC3 0.835
Crowdfund-
ing Platform
Reputation
CPR1 0.831 0.79 0.851 0.655
CPR2 0.782
CPR3 0.815
Fundraiser’s
credibility
FC1 0.851 0.891 0.881 0.652
FC2 0.841
FC3 0.835
FC4 0.691
Funder’s So-
cial inuence
FSI1 0.809 0.936 0.908 0.712
FSI2 0.818
FSI3 0.862
FSI4 0.884
Crowdfund-
ing Readiness
CR1 0.703 0.756 0.772 0.530
CR2 0.707
CR3 0.772
Funder’s
self-ecacy
FSE1 0.710 0.769 0.862 0.677
FSE2 0.878
FSE3 0.870
Funder’s
empathy
FE1 0.666 0.743 0.799 0.572
FE2 0.786
FE3 0.809
Intention to
donate
ITD1 0.864 0.837 0.867 0.687
ITD2 0.893
ITD3 0.719
Table 3 Factor Loadings,
Cronbach’s alpha, Composite
Reliability (CR), and Average
Variance Extracted (AVE)
Name of Index Measurement Level Analysis
Chi-Square (CMIN) p-value = 0.0009 Achieved
Chi-Square (CMIN/DF) CMIN/DF = 1.686 < 2 Achieved
GFI GFI = 0.925 > 0.90 Achieved
RMSEA RMSEA = 0.074 < 0.90 Achieved
NFI NFI = 0.837 > 0.80 Achieved
IFI IFI = 0.927 > 0.90 Achieved
TLI TLI = 0.914 > 0.90 Achieved
CFI CFI = 0.925 > 0.90 Achieved
Table 2 The model t for the
measurement model
1 3
Vijaya et al.
acceptable, as indicated by Yong and Pearce (2013), Williams et al. (1996), and Zhou
(2016). In addition, all the constructs have Cronbach’s alpha values of greater than
0.7, as recommended (Hair et al., 1995), ensuring internal consistency. Furthermore,
the Composite Reliability ranged from 0.772 to 0.908 for each construct, exceeding
the acceptable level of 0.7 (Hair et al., 1995). Moreover, the AVE values of each con-
struct were above the recommended level of 0.5 (Hair et al., 1995), implying good
convergent validity. Further, the square root value of the Average Variance Extracted
from the construct variables was calculated to ensure discriminant validity. It was
found to be more than the covariance values among constructs (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). Also, the cross-loading matrix (presented in Table 4) shows that the compo-
nents are not highly related to each other. Hence, the convergent and discriminant
validity was found to be satisfactory.
5.4 Common method bias
Common method bias (CMB) occurs when variations in responses are caused by the
instrument rather than the actual predispositions of the respondents that the instru-
ment attempts to uncover. Hence, to rule out the possibility of common method bias
in the study, we rst framed our questions in simple language and focused on ask-
ing specic questions. Moreover, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test. When
performing an Exploratory Factor Analysis, it is necessary to look at the factor solu-
tion in its unrotated form to determine the number of factors required to adequately
explain the items’ variance. In the event that a single factor accounts for the majority
of the covariance among the measures, it is concluded that the common method vari-
ance is present. Harman’s single-factor test results show that only 26.236% variance
was explained by the rst factor, signifying that CMB is not a concern in our analysis.
Table 4 Discriminant validity
PPI CPR FC FSI FSE CR FE ITD
PPI (0.817)
CPR 0.221 (0.809)
FC 0.268 0.264 (0.807)
FSI 0.151 0.022 0.154 (0.843)
FSE 0.021 0.192 0.194 0.113 (0.822)
CR 0.182 0.023 0.031 0.162 0.015 (0.728)
FE 0.041 0.222 0.024 0.031 0.041 0.237 (0.756)
ITD 0.153 0.251 0.134 0.112 0.077 0.064 0.249 (0.828)
Source: The authors
Notes: The diagonal values in the bracket show the square root of Average Variance Extracted, and
values in the lower cells are the covariance values between two variables
PPI: Perceived Project Integrity, FC: Fundraiser’s Credibility, FSI: Funder’s Social Inuence, CR:
Crowdfunding Readiness, FSE: Funder’s Self-ecacy, CPR: Crowdf unding Platfor m Reputation, FE:
Funder’s Empathy
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
5.5 Structural model
The structural model was used to test the proposed hypotheses, which involved
exploring both the direct and indirect associations (mediation) among the constructs.
The proposed model has eight constructs, namely Perceived project integrity (PPI),
fundraiser’s credibility (FC), funder’s social inuence (FSI), crowdfunding readiness
(CR), funder’s self-ecacy (FSE), crowdfunding platform reputation (CPR), inten-
tion to donate (ITD), and funder’s empathy (FE). The research model studies the
eect of six constructs (perceived project integrity, fundraiser’s credibility, funder’s
social inuence, funder’s self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform reputation, and
funder’s empathy) on the funder’s intention to donate and their crowdfunding readi-
ness. Further, the eect of crowdfunding readiness is also studied on -the intention
to donate. A regression estimate of R2 was used to assess the variance explained by
the predictive variables on the dependent variables. The regression results (with the
intention to donate as the dependent variable) show that the variance explained by the
identied factors aecting the intention to donate is 56.8%, F value 131.894, p < 0.01.
Moreover, the regression results (with crowdfunding readiness as the dependent vari-
able) show that the variance explained by the identied factors aecting intention to
donate 45.6%, F value 92.589, p < 0.01. 42.1% of the variance is explained by the
crowdfunding readiness aecting intention to donate with an F value of 161.235 at
Path Coecient SE t-value p-value Label
PPI→ITD 0.263 0.052 5.058 *** Supported
FC→ITD 0.241 0.038 6.342 *** Supported
FSI→ITD 0.342 0.054 6.333 *** Supported
FSE→ITD 0.163 0.049 3.327 0.04* Supported
FE→ITD 0.132 0.035 3.771 0.002** Supported
CPR→ITD 0.202 0.028 7.214 *** Supported
CR→ITD 0.468 0.089 5.258 *** Supported
PPI→CR 0.455 0.072 6.319 *** Supported
FC→CR 0.256 0.039 6.564 *** Supported
FSI→CR 0.014 0.064 0.218 0.152 Not Supported
FSE→CR 0.181 0.036 5.028 *** Supported
FE→CR 0.302 0.070 4.314 0.019* Supported
CPR→CR 0.254 0.045 5.644 *** Supported
Table 6 Hypotheses testing for
direct eect
Source: The Authors
Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,
***p < 0.001
Name of Index Measurement Level Analysis
Chi-Square (CMIN) p-value = 0.0006 Achieved
Chi-Square (CMIN/DF) CMIN/DF = 1.72 < 2 Achieved
GFI GFI = 0.945 > 0.90 Achieved
RMSEA RMSEA = 0.042 < 0.90 Achieved
NFI NFI = 0.901 > 0.90 Achieved
IFI IFI = 0.982 > 0.90 Achieved
TLI TLI = 0.910 > 0.90 Achieved
CFI CFI = 0.982 > 0.90 Achieved
Table 5 The model t for the
structural model
Source: The Authors
1 3
Vijaya et al.
p < 0.01. The model t of the structural model was achieved (shown in Table 5) and
was deemed t for further analysis.
The path loadings between perceived project integrity and intention to donate
stand at 0.263 with a p-value < 0.001. and between the fundraiser’s credibility and
intention to donate stands at 0.241 with a p-value < 0.001, respectively. The path coef-
cient between the funder’s social inuence and intention to donate stands at 0.342
with a p-value < 0.001, between the funder’s self-ecacy and intention to donate
stands at 0.163 with a p-value < 0.05, between crowdfunding platform reputation and
intention to donate stands at 0.202 with a p-value < 0.001, between funder’s empathy
and intention to donate stands at 0.132 with a p-value < 0.01 and between crowd-
funding readiness and intention to donate stands at 0.468 with a p-value < 0.001.
Hence, all the constructs, namely perceived project integrity, fundraiser’s credibility,
funder’s social inuence, funder’s self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform reputation,
and funder’s empathy and crowdfunding readiness, have a signicant and positive
impact on the funder’s intention to donate.
Further, the path loadings between perceived project integrity and crowdfund-
ing readiness stand at 0.455 with a p-value < 0.001, between fundraiser’s credibility
and crowdfunding readiness stand at 0.256 with a p-value < 0.001, between funder’s
social inuence and crowdfunding readiness stand at 0.375 with a p-value > 0.05,
between crowdfunding platform reputation and crowdfunding readiness stand at
0.254 with p-value < 0.001, between funder’s empathy and crowdfunding readiness
stand at 0.302 with a p-value < 0.05, between funder’s self-ecacy and intention to
donate stands at 0.181 with a p-value < 0.001. Hence, constructs, perceived project
integrity, fundraiser’s credibility, funder’s self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform repu-
tation, and funder’s empathy signicantly and positively impact the funder’s crowd-
funding readiness. Still, the funder’s social inuence does not signicantly aect
the funder’s intention to donate. Therefore, twelve out of thirteen hypotheses were
supported and accepted.
5.6 Mediation effect
A mediation model is a type of statistical model that seeks to identify and explain the
underlying mechanism underlying an observed relationship between an independent
variable and a dependent variable by including a third hypothetical variable known as
a mediator variable. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), in order to ensure a true
mediation relationship, a few requirements are to be met. The rst is to ensure a sig-
nicant inuence of the independent variable on the dependent variable. The second
step is to ensure the signicant eect of the independent variable on the mediating
variable. The last requirement is to predict the dependent variable using independent
and mediating variables. Suppose the relationship between the mediating variable
and the dependent variable is signicant, and that of the independent variable and
dependent variable is also signicant, then it is the case of partial mediation. In con-
trast, if the relationship between the mediating variable and the dependent variable
is signicant and that of the independent variable and dependent variable is not sig-
nicant, then it is the case of full mediation. Table 7 shows that for perceived project
integrity, fundraiser’s credibility, funder’s self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform repu-
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
tation, and funder’s empathy, both the independent and mediating variables strongly
aect the dependent variable, showing partial mediation. The results of the mediation
test indicate that crowdfunding readiness partially mediates the relationship between
perceived project integrity and intention to donate, fundraiser’s credibility and inten-
tion to donate, funder’s self-ecacy and intention to donate, crowdfunding platform
reputation and intention to donate, funder’s empathy and intention to donate. Fur-
ther, crowdfunding readiness does not mediate the relationship between the funder’s
social inuence and the funder’s intention to donate.
Table 7 Results of Mediation Analysis
IV M DV IV + M = DV
IV →DV IV→M IV→DV M→DV Mediating
Role
PPI CR ITD 0.447*** 0.329** 0.542** 0.286** Partial
FC CR ITD 0.294** 0.268** 0.126*** 0.158** Partial
FSI CR ITD 0.302** 0.0158NS 0.219** 0.243** No mediation
FSE CR ITD 0.311** 0.484** 0.173** 0.137** Partial
CPR CR ITD 0.432* 0.424** 0.154** 0.258** Partial
FE CR ITD 0.574** 0.498** 0.239** 0.323** Partial
Source: The Authors
Notes: IV = independent variable, M = mediating variable, DV = dependent variable, *p < 0.05,
**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, NS = Not Supported, CPR = Crowdfunding Platform Reputation, FE = Fu nder’s
Empathy, CR = crowdfunding Readiness, ITD = Intention to Donate, PPI = Perceived Project Integrity,
FC = Fundraiser’s Credibility, FSI = Funder’s Social Inuence, FSE = Funder’s self-ecacy
Fig. 3 The research model
Source: The Authors
Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
1 3
Vijaya et al.
6 Discussion and implications
6.1 Theoretical implications
This study helps understand the factors that inuence a funder’s intention to donate
in donation crowdfunding campaigns by identifying the antecedents of intention to
donate. The identied factors that impact a funder’s intention to donate are perceived
project integrity, fundraiser’s credibility, funder’s social inuence, crowdfunding
readiness, funder’s self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform reputation, and funder’s
empathy. The study conducted a survey on 427 fund providers, and with the help of
robust empirical techniques, it was concluded that all these factors have a positive
and signicant eect on the funder’s intention to donate in donation crowdfunding
campaigns.
Crowdfunding readiness emerges as the most inuencing factor that drives a
funder’s donation intention. The strong positive path coecient shows that intention
to donate is an act of psychological conrmation of the funder’s participation willing-
ness for a crowdfunding campaign underlying their crowdfunding readiness (Zhang
et al., 2020; Bardakci & Whitelock, 2004) dene readiness as willingness, indicating
that individuals who intend to donate while participating in donation crowdfunding
must be willing to contribute to the crowdfunding campaigns. This notion is con-
rmed by the ndings of Smith and McSweeney (2007), who propound that actual
monetary donation are followed by the cognition-supported readiness to donate.
The second most signicant antecedent of intention to donate is the funder’s social
inuence. Social inuence signicantly impacts an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, or
behavior (Kim & Hollingshead, 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2003). The positive and sig-
nicant path coecient shows that the funder’s social circle and the social environ-
ment drive their donation intention in crowdfunding campaigns. The social inuence
could stem from belongingness to a particular group or community, which may drive
people to participate in a particular crowdfunding campaign (Agrawal et al., 2015).
Further, Burtch et al. (2015) also conrm that social norms and reputation play a criti-
cal role in the decision to donate.
The third most inuential factor that strongly aects the funder’s intention to
donate is perceived project integrity. Perceived project integrity reects the project’s
image in the eyes of the funders, including its trustworthiness, reliability, and consis-
tency (Kim & Park, 2022). Furthermore, the information content that the crowdfund-
ing campaign depicts and the quality of the aforesaid information positively impact
the funders (Zhou et al., 2018), which drives their donation intention. The revelation
of the relationship between perceived project integrity and intention to donate is in
line with the work of Huang et al. (2022), Koch and Cheng (2016), Liu et al. (2018),
and Younkin and Kuppuswamy (2018).
The fundraiser’s credibility is also an important antecedent of the funder’s dona-
tion intention. A fundraiser’s credibility is a variable that arises from the funder’s
cognitive perception of the campaign owners and can be thought of as a perceptual
factor (Bukhari et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018). People are inclined to support a par-
ticular crowdfunding campaign if funders believe that the project owner has expertise
in a particular area and is trustworthy (Ryu & Kim, 2018). The ndings of the study
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
are in unity with the study of Bukhari et al. (2019), Kim et al. (2017), Leonelli et al.
(2020), and Nitani et al. (2019) but contradict the ndings of Kim and Park (2022)
as they assert that project owners’ credibility and funders intention to donate have a
negative relationship.
The eect of a crowdfunding platform’s reputation on a funder’s intention to
donate is signicant and positive. Since crowdfunding is an online mechanism with
no tangible product to see, feel, or touch (Zhang et al., 2020), the experiences that
the funders have is through the crowdfunding platform. If the funders perceive that
the crowdfunding website is of quality, secure and genuine, they are highly likely to
engage in the act of giving funds (Kenang & Gosal, 2021; Kim et al., 2021; Kim &
Park, 2022; Zhang et al., 2020). Furthermore, according to the studies of Liu et al.
(2017, 2018), the level of security, navigability, aesthetic appeal, and ease of pay-
ment on the crowdfunding website positively relates to funders’ perceived credibility,
which in turn impacts their donation behaviour. This is important as the perceived
credibility of the crowdfunding platform inuences the amount of money donated.
Resultantly, the degree to which individuals believe the website or digital platform to
be credible and trustworthy is a signicant factor in determining whether or not they
will donate money to the cause.
Funder’s self-ecacy also inuences their intention to donate in donation crowd-
funding campaigns. Funder’s self-ecacy has a positive inuence on both the inten-
tion of people to make a nancial contribution and also on their intention to share
information (Shneor & Munim, 2019). The revelation of a positive and signicant
relationship between a funder’s self-ecacy and the funder’s intention to donate is
in line with the study of Harburg et al. (2015), Hoque et al. (2018), Stevenson et al.
(2019), Troise et al. (2020).
The funder’s empathy is the next signicant factor aecting funders’ donation
intention. The revelation of the signicant and positive relationship between funder’s
empathy and their intention to donate is supported by the ndings of various studies
(Li et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2017, 2018; Rhue & Robert, 2018). The funder’s intention
to donate in charity crowdfunding is the result of their empathy towards the crowd-
funding campaign, which triggers their emotions and pushes their donation intention
(Gedda et al., 2016; Kuo et al., 2020).
The study further establishes that crowdfunding readiness partially mediates the
relationship between identied constructs and intention to donate, except for the
funder’s social inuence. The possible explanation could be funders, in their social
inuence and social pressure form donation intention even if they are not ready or in
agreement with the idea of participating in a donation crowdfunding campaign.
Crowdfunding readiness can be understood in terms of willingness to participate
in crowdfunding campaigns (Bardakci & Whitelock, 2004). People are assumed
to have crowdfunding readiness if they are willing to participate in further crowd-
funding campaigns, share and interact with other crowdfunders and perceive cer-
tain crowdfunding projects to be worthy of their contribution. Further, crowdfunding
readiness itself highly impacts the funder’s intention to donate. The study marks sev-
eral contributions to the body of knowledge. First, this research investigates the fac-
tors inuencing a funder’s intention to participate in donation crowdfunding in India.
Additionally, it extends the existing body of research on donation crowdfunding by
1 3
Vijaya et al.
highlighting the importance of crowdfunding readiness in driving people’s funding
intentions. Second, crowdfunding readiness recapitulates and reects the percep-
tion of the funders through their willingness to participate in donation crowdfunding
activities, which strikes their cognitive appeal to consent to donate, embarking on
the funder’s donation intention. Although signicant, crowdfunding readiness has
not been extensively explored in crowdfunding literature except for a few studies
(Sancak, 2016; Zhang et al., 2020). This study not only shows crowdfunding readi-
ness as the antecedent of intention to donate but also establishes it as the mediator
variable that mediates the relationship between identied variables (perceived project
integrity, fundraiser’s credibility, funder’s self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform repu-
tation, and funder’s empathy) and intention to donate.
6.2 Managerial implications
In light of the study’s ndings, a few pertinent implications can be drawn for crowd-
funding platform owners and crowdfunding campaign owners. Foremost, the study
demonstrates that crowdfunding platform owners tasked with listing the projects on
the website and scripting its project description should give careful consideration to
designing the project in terms of its content, language, and tone (Chan & Park, 2015)
and should ensure completeness of the project information (Kuppuswamy & Bayus,
2015). In addition, the project’s content should have a clear and robust public appeal
that must be powerful enough to trigger the public’s emotions. Further, since the
funder’s social inuence has a positive and signicant eect on the funder’s intention
to donate, crowdfunding platform owners should reach out and tap networking sites
to advertise the campaigns to increase their reach. Moreover, crowdfunding platforms
should focus on improving their performance by listing genuine projects which are
veried and validated. Also, crowdfunding platforms should improve their site navi-
gability and connectivity in order to ensure better funder-fundraiser communication.
7 Conclusion and scope for future research
The study explored the factors that aect a funder’s intention to donate in dona-
tion crowdfunding in India. The identied factors that impact a funder’s intention to
donate are perceived project integrity, fundraiser’s credibility, funder’s social inu-
ence, crowdfunding readiness, funder’s self-ecacy, crowdfunding platform reputa-
tion, and funder’s empathy. The results of the study were found to be in congruence
with the proposed research model. The study also establishes that crowdfunding
readiness mediates the relationship between the identied factors and intention to
donate, except for the funder’s social inuence in donation crowdfunding campaigns
in India.
The ndings of the study were in agreement with recent studies on antecedents of
intention to donate. Still, it has some drawbacks that necessitate thoughtful consid-
eration from future researchers in order to improve its eectiveness. Firstly, the fund
providers active (participated in at least two crowdfunding campaigns) on only Ketto
and Milaap were approached. Future researchers can incorporate fund providers from
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
other crowdfunding platforms as a larger set of responses would certainly increase
the external validity of this research. Secondly, crowdfunding readiness is largely
underexplored in the literature (Sancak, 2016; Zhang et al., 2020). This warrants
a window of opportunity for future researchers to embrace, study and expand the
theoretical knowledge of crowdfunding readiness in crowdfunding literature. Fur-
ther, the study only focuses on the unidirectional relationship between crowdfunding
readiness and intention to donate. Scholars in the future can explore the existence
of the bidirectional relationship between the intention to donate and crowdfunding
readiness.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12208-023-00376-4.
Author contribution Vijaya had the idea for the article. She performed the literature search and data analy-
sis. The paper was drafted with the combined work of Vijaya and Ajit Yadav. The article was revised by
Prof. H. P. Mathur. All the authors read and approved the nal manuscript.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. The
authors have no relevant nancial or non-nancial interests to disclose.
References
Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2014). Some simple economics of crowdfunding. Innovation
Policy and the Economy, 14(1), 63–97. https://doi.org/10.3386/w19133
Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, social networks, and the tim-
ing of investment decisions. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24(2), 253–274. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jems.12093
Ahlers, G. K., Cumming, D., Günther, C., & Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12157
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational
change. Human relations, 46(6), 681–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601
Ba, Z., Zhao, Y. C., Song, S., & Zhu, Q. (2022). Does the involvement of charities matter? Exploring the
impact of charities’ reputation and social capital on medical crowdfunding performance. Information
Processing & Management, 59(3), 102942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.102942
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-ecacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(1), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191
Barbi, M., & Bigelli, M. (2017). Crowdfunding practices in and outside the US. Research in International
Business and Finance, 42, 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.05.013
Bardakci, A., & Whitelock, J. (2004). How “ready” are customers for mass customisation? An
exploratory investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 38(11/12), 1396–1416. https://doi.
org/10.1108/03090560410560164
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Moderator mediator variables distinction in Social Psychological
Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and
ecacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20200
1 3
Vijaya et al.
Belleamme, P., & Lambert, T. (2014). Crowdfunding: Some empirical ndings and microeconomic
underpinnings. Revue Bancaire et Financi`er, 4(1), 288–296. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2437786
Belleamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Jour-
nal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.07.003
Bergamini, T. P., Navarro, C. L. C., & Hilliard, I. (2017). Is crowdfunding an appropriate nancial model
for social entrepreneurship? Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 23(1), 44–57.
Bosson, J. K., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (1999). Self-liking, self-competence, and the quest for self-
verication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1230–1241. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167299258005
Bretschneider, U., & Leimeister, J. M. (2017). Not just an ego-trip: Exploring backers’ motivation for
funding in incentive-based crowdfunding. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(4), 246–
260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.02.002
Bukhari, F. A. S., Usman, S. M., Usman, M., & Hussain, K. (2019). The eects of creator credibility and
backer endorsement in donation crowdfunding campaigns success. Baltic Journal of Management,
15(2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-02-2019-0077
Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2015). The hidden cost of accommodating crowdfunder privacy
preferences: A randomized eld experiment. Management Science, 61(5), 949–962. https://doi.
org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2069
Cason, T. N., & Zubrickas, R. (2019). Donation-based crowdfunding with refund bonuses. European Eco-
nomic Review, 119 (1), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.08.003
Cecere, G., Guel, F., Le, & Rochelandet, F. (2017). Crowdfunding and Social Inuence: An empirical
investigation. Applied Economics, 49(57), 5802–5813. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.134
3450
Chan, C. S. R., & Park, H. D. (2015). How images and Color in Business Plans Inuence Venture Invest-
ment Screening decisions. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 732–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusvent.2014.12.002
Chen, Y., Dai, R., Yao, J., & Li, Y. (2019). Donate time or money? The determinants of donation intention
in online crowdfunding. Sustainability, 11(16), 4269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164269
Chen, Y., Dai, R., Wang, L., Yang, S., Li, Y., & Wei, J. (2021). Exploring donor’s intention in charitable
crowdfunding: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 121(7),
1664–1683. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-11-2020-0631
Choy, K., & Schlagwein, D. (2016). Crowdsourcing for a better world: On the relation between IT aor-
dances and donor motivations in charitable crowdfunding. Information Technology & People, 29(1),
1–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0215
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empa-
thy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(3), 481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.481
Cosh, A., Cumming, D., & Hughes, A. (2009). Outside entrepreneurial capital. The Economic Journal,
119 (540), 1494–1533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02270.x
Dada, D. (2006). E-Readiness for developing countries: Moving the focus from the environment to the
users. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 27(1), 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00183.x
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 101(1), 91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91
Filieri, R., & McLeay, F. (2014). E-WOM and accommodation: An analysis of the factors that inuence
travelers’ adoption of information from online reviews. Journal of Travel Research, 53(1), 44–57.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513481274
Floyd, K., Freling, R., Alhoqail, S., Cho, H. Y., & Freling, T. (2014). How online product reviews
aect retail sales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretai.2014.04.004
Fogg, B. J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., & Treinen, M. (2001). What
makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on Human factors in computing systems, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365037
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224378101800104
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
Frydrych, D., Bock, A. J., Kinder, T., & Koeck, B. (2014). Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-
based crowdfunding. Venture capital, 16(3), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2014.9165
12
Gedda, D., Nilsson, B., Såthén, Z., & Søilen, K. S. (2016). Crowdfunding: Finding the optimal platform
for funders and entrepreneurs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(3), 31–40. https://doi.
org/10.22215/timreview/973
Gerber, E. M., Hui, J. S., & Kuo, P. Y. (2012). Crowdfunding: Why people are motivated to post and fund
projects on crowdfunding platforms. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–10.
Gleasure, R., & Feller, J. (2016). Emerging technologies and the democratisation of nancial services: A
metatriangulation of crowdfunding research. Information and Organization, 26(4), 101–115. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2016.09.001Get
Greenberg, M. D., Hui, J., & Gerber, E. (2013). Crowdfunding: A resource exchange perspective.
In CHI’13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, 883–888. https://doi.
org/10.1145/2468356.2468514
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis (2nd ed.).
New York: Macmillan.
Harburg, E., Hui, J., Greenberg, M., & Gerber, E. M. (2015). Understanding the eects of crowdfunding
on entrepreneurial self-ecacy. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675142
Hoque, A. S. M. M., Awang, Z., Muda, H., & Salleh, F. (2018). Ramication of crowdfunding on bangla-
deshi entrepreneur’s self-ecacy. Accounting, 4(4), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ac.2018.4.001
Huang, Z., Ouyang, J., Huang, X., Yang, Y., & Lin, L. (2021). Explaining donation behavior in
medical crowdfunding in social media. SAGE Open, 11 (2), 21582440211014520. https://doi.
org/10.1177/21582440211014520
Huang, S., Pickernell, D., Battisti, M., & Nguyen, T. (2022). Signalling entrepreneurs’ credibility and
project quality for crowdfunding success: Cases from the Kickstarter and Indiegogo environments.
Small Business Economics, 58(4), 1801–1821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00477-6. https://
link.springer.com/article/
Jacobson, E. (1957). Normal and pathological moods: Their nature and functions. The psychoanalytic
study of the child, 12(1), 73–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00797308.1957.11822803
Jin, P. (2019). Medical crowdfunding in China: Empirics and ethics. Journal of medical ethics, 45(8),
538–544. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105054
Kenang, I. H., & Gosal, G. (2021). Factors aecting online donation intention in donation-based crowd-
funding. The Winners, 22(2), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1758-7_2
Kim, Y. J., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2015). Online social inuence: Past, present, and future. InCommunica-
tion Yearbook, 39, 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679175
Kim, E., & Park, S. E. (2022). The determinants of supporting crowdfunding sites: Understanding internal
and external factors from public relations’ perspectives. International Review on Public and Non-
prot Marketing, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-022-00340-8
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making model in elec-
tronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision support systems,
44(2), 544–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001
Kim, Y., Shaw, A., Zhang, H., & Gerber, E. (2017). Understanding trust amid delays in crowdfunding.
In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on computer supported cooperative work and social
computing, 1982–1996. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998207
Kim, B. R., Park, H. S., & Kim, S. H. (2021). Empirical analysis of participation and word of Mouth
intention of reward-based Crowdfunding: Focusing on platform Trust. The Journal of Information
Systems, 30(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5859/KAIS.2021.30.2.1
Koch, J. A., & Cheng, Q. (2016). The role of qualitative success factors in the analysis of crowdfunding
success: Evidence from Kickstarter. 20th Pacic Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS)
Koch, J. A., & Siering, M. (2015). Crowdfunding success factors: The characteristics of successfully
funded projects on crowdfunding platforms. Twenty-Third European Conference on Information Sys-
tems (ECIS) Münster Germany 2015. https://doi.org/10.18151/7217393
Kraus, S., Richter, C., Brem, A., Cheng, C. F., & Chang, M. L. (2016). Strategies for reward-based crowd-
funding campaigns. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jik.2016.01.010
1 3
Vijaya et al.
Kunz, M. M., Bretschneider, U., Erler, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2017). An empirical investigation of sig-
naling in reward-based crowdfunding. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(3), 425–461. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10660-016-9249-0
Kuo, Y. F., Lin, C. S., & Wu, C. H. (2020). Why do people intend to back crowdfunding projects? A
perspective on social cognitive theory. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 21(3), 180–196.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1758-7_2
Kuppuswamy, V., & Bayus, B. L. (2015). Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers
in Kickstarter. The Economics of Crowdfunding: Startups, Portals, and Investor Behavior. https://
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2234765
Lee, M., & Youn, S. (2009). Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) how eWOM platforms inuence consumer
product judgement. International journal of advertising, 28(3), 473–499. https://doi.org/10.2501/
S0265048709200709
Lee, C. H., Zhao, J. L., & Hassna, G. (2016). Government-incentivized crowdfunding for one-belt,
one-road enterprises: Design and research issues. Financial Innovation, 2(1), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40854-016-0022-0
Lehner, O. M. (2013). Crowdfunding social ventures: A model and research agenda. Venture Capital,
15(4), 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2013.782624
Leonelli, S., Di Pietro, F., & Masciarelli, F. (2020). Narcissism, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy: How
do displayed entrepreneurs’ personality Dark Traits Inuence Crowdfunding Success? The entre-
preneurial Behaviour: Unveiling the cognitive and emotional aspect of entrepreneurship. Emerald
Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-507-920201007
Li, H., Chen, X., Zhang, Y., & Hai, M. (2018). Empirical analysis of factors on crowdfunding with trust
theory. Procedia computer science, 139, 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.227
Li, Y., Zhang, Z., Wang, R., & Chen, Y. (2019). Consumer purchase intention toward crowdfunding
products/services: A cost–benet perspective. Sustainability, 11(13), 3579. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11133579
Liu, L., Suh, A., & Wagner, C. (2017). Donation behavior in online micro charities: An investigation of
charitable crowdfunding projects. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on
system sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.100
Liu, L., Suh, A., & Wagner, C. (2018). Empathy or perceived credibility? An empirical study on indi-
vidual donation behavior in charitable crowdfunding. Internet Research, 28(3), 623–651. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IntR-06-2017-0240
Lukkarinen, A., Teich, J. E., Wallenius, H., & Wallenius, J. (2016). Success drivers of online equity
crowdfunding campaigns. Decision Support Systems, 87(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dss.2016.04.006
Meisels, S. J. (1998). Assessing readiness. In R. C. Pianta, & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kinder-
garten (pp. 39–66). Baltimore: Brookes.
Mochkabadi, K., & Volkmann, C. K. (2020). Equity crowdfunding: A systematic review of the literature.
Small Business Economics, 54(1), 75–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0081-x
Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of business venturing,
29(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.06.005
Morse, A. (2015). Peer-to-peer crowdfunding: Information and the potential for disruption in con-
sumer lending. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 7(1), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-nancial-111914-041939
Moss, T. W., Renko, M., Block, E., & Meyskens, M. (2018). Funding the story of hybrid ventures: Crowd-
funder lending preferences and linguistic hybridity. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 643–659.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.12.004
Moysidou, K., & Hausberg, J. P. (2020). In crowdfunding we trust: A trust-building model in lending
crowdfunding. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(3), 511–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/00
472778.2019.1661682
Nitani, M., Riding, A., & He, B. (2019). On equity crowdfunding: Investor rationality and success factors.
Venture Capital, 21(2–3), 243–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2018.1468542
Rhue, L., & Robert, L. P. (2018). Emotional delivery in pro-social crowdfunding success. In Extended
Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–6. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3170427.3188534
Rohayani, A. H. (2015). A literature review: Readiness factors to measuring e-learning readiness in higher
education. Procedia Computer Science, 59, 230–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.564
1 3
Reconnoitering antecedents of donation intention in donation…
Ryu, S., & Kim, Y. G. (2018). Money is not everything: A typology of crowdfunding project creators. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(4), 350–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.10.004
Sancak, I. E. (2016). Applicability and readiness of crowdfunding in Turkey. International Journal of
Business and Social Science, 7(1), 14–25.
Shneor, R., & Munim, Z. H. (2019). Reward crowdfunding contribution as planned behaviour: An extended
framework. Journal of Business Research, 103, 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.013
Shneor, R., & Torjesen, S. (2020). Ethical considerations in crowdfunding. Advances in Crowdfunding:
Research and Practice (pp. 161–182). Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The eectiveness of a revised theory of planned
behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology, 17(5), 363–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.906
Steigenberger, N. (2017). Why supporters contribute to reward-based crowdfunding. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(2), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJEBR-04-2016-0117
Stevenson, R. M., Ciuchta, M. P., Letwin, C., Dinger, J. M., & Vancouver, J. B. (2019). Out of control or
right on the money? Funder self-ecacy and crowd bias in equity crowdfunding. Journal of Business
Venturing, 34(2), 348–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.05.006
Troise, C., Tani, M., & Jones, P. (2020). Investigating the impact of multidimensional social capital on
equity crowdfunding performance. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102230
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information tech-
nology: Toward a unied view. MIS quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Vulkan, N., Åstebro, T., & Sierra, M. F. (2016). Equity crowdfunding: A new phenomena. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing Insights, 5(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2016.02.001
Wang, T., Li, Y., Kang, M., & Zheng, H. (2019). Exploring individuals’ behavioral intentions toward
donation crowdfunding: Evidence from China. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(7),
1515–1534. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2018-0451
Watkins, R., Leigh, D., & Triner, D. (2004). Assessing readiness for e-learning. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 17(4), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2004.tb00321.x
Wiener, J. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1986). Source Credibility: on the Independent Eects of Trust and Exper-
tise”, In Richard J. Lutz, Provo (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, 306–310.
Williams, L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and non measurement processes
with negative aectivity and employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 88–101.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.88
Xu, A., Yang, X., Rao, H., Fu, W. T., Huang, S. W., & Bailey, B. P. (2014). Show me the money! An analy-
sis of project updates during crowdfunding campaigns. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
human factors in computing systems, pp. 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557045
Yang, D., & Zhang, X. (2016). Review of the domestic crowdfunding industry development. Journal of
Service Science and Management, 9(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2016.91006
Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor
analysis. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 9(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/
tqmp.09.2.p079
Younkin, P., & Kuppuswamy, V. (2018). The colorblind crowd? Founder race and performance in crowd-
funding. Management Science, 64(7), 3269–3287. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2774
Zhang, Y., & Chen, Z. (2018). The Future Development of Crowdfunding Industry in China. In J. Wang,
H. Xu, J. Ma, Y. Zhang, & Z. Chen (Eds.), Financing from masses. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-10-5843-1_8
Zhang, Y., Tan, C. D., Sun, J., & Yang, Z. (2020). Why do people patronize donation-based crowdfunding
platforms? An activity perspective of critical success factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 11 2,
106470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106470
Zhang, X., Hu, W., & Xiao, Q. (2021). Inuences of medical crowdfunding website design features on
trust and intention to donate: Controlled laboratory experiment. Journal of medical Internet research,
23(5), e25554. https://doi.org/10.2196/25554
Zhao, L., & Sun, Z. (2020). Pure donation or hybrid donation crowdfunding: Which model is more con-
ducive to prosocial campaign success? Baltic Journal of Management, 15(2), 237–260. https://doi.
org/10.1108/BJM-02-2019-0076
1 3
Vijaya et al.
Zhao, Q., Chen, C. D., Wang, J. L., & Chen, P. C. (2017). Determinants of backers’ funding intention
in crowdfunding: Social exchange theory and regulatory focus. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1),
370–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.06.006
Zhou, M. (2016). A revisit of general self-ecacy scale: Uni-or multi-dimensional? Current Psychology,
35(3), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9311-4
Zhou, M. J., Lu, B., Fan, W. P., & Wang, G. A. (2018). Project description and crowdfunding success:
An exploratory study. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(2), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10796-016-9723-1
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional aliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and appli-
cable law.
1 3
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
