2016
DOI: 10.1504/ijbis.2016.079519
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electronic intervention and platforms and their impacts on crowdfunding behaviour

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…those targeting a small group of beneficiaries to whom they can put a face and help realistically. This is consistent with studies which claim that DCF donors tend to often contribute small amounts, preferring smaller goals campaigns and prefer to keep contributing when a goal is nearly met (Cockrell et al, 2016).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…those targeting a small group of beneficiaries to whom they can put a face and help realistically. This is consistent with studies which claim that DCF donors tend to often contribute small amounts, preferring smaller goals campaigns and prefer to keep contributing when a goal is nearly met (Cockrell et al, 2016).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Updating, understood as the regular provision of information is therefore crucial to minimize the characteristic asymmetric distribution of information between fundraisers and potential contributors, particularly in digitally-enabled charitable campaigns (Yang et al, 2016;Tremblay-Boire & Prakash, 2017;Gleasure & Feller, 2018). In response to this information gap, potential donors may also collect information on past performance of promoters through the personal scrutiny of sites and (online) word-of-mouth in order to ensure their donations will be handled effectively (Cockrell et al, 2016;Tremblay-Boire & Prakash, 2017). In this sense, quantity, quality and accessibility of information is material, namely, the periodical updating on campaign progresses and on final allocation, and uses of funds (Byrnes et al, 2014;Fondevila et al, 2015;Choi & Kim, 2016;Kim et al, 2016a, b;Tanaka & Voida, 2016;Salido-Andres et al, 2019a, b), which would also reinforce the legitimacy of the campaign (Tanaka & Voida, 2016).…”
Section: Campaign Updatingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, Tanaka and Voida (2016) found that promoters' need to convey the legitimacy of DFC campaigns could act as a driving force. Also, the need for online charities to reach out to younger audiences may foster DFC (Cockrell et al 2016). Finally, the characteristic information asymmetry between nonprofits and potential donors can act in two different directions: as a barrier inhibiting DCF because of trust damage (Tremblay-Boire and Prakash 2017); and as an opportunity for organizations to demonstrate reliability through the promotion of DCF (Tremblay-Boire and Prakash 2017; Hsieh et al 2011).…”
Section: Why: Antecedents Of Dcf For Charitable Causesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Extant literature on DCF confirms donors' age is a relevant antecedent of DCF. Cockrell et al (2016) addressed the motivations of potential donors to contribute via crowdfunding, and found that younger respondents were the more likely to donate money via DCF websites in the future.…”
Section: Why: Antecedents Of Dcf For Charitable Causesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation