2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11266-017-9886-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social Impact Investment Behavior in the Nonprofit Sector: First Insights from an Online Survey Experiment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous studies of effectiveness indicators accordingly used student samples (e.g., Aknin et al, 2013; Cryder et al, 2013). Moreover, a recent study confirms that younger people are more likely to invest smaller amounts of money, which is pertinent to the current study context (Schrötgens & Boenigk, 2017). In addition, from a methodological perspective, student samples are highly suitable in experimental contexts due to the high homogeneity of this group (Koschate-Fischer & Schandelmeier, 2014).…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 77%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Previous studies of effectiveness indicators accordingly used student samples (e.g., Aknin et al, 2013; Cryder et al, 2013). Moreover, a recent study confirms that younger people are more likely to invest smaller amounts of money, which is pertinent to the current study context (Schrötgens & Boenigk, 2017). In addition, from a methodological perspective, student samples are highly suitable in experimental contexts due to the high homogeneity of this group (Koschate-Fischer & Schandelmeier, 2014).…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The check for how the three effectiveness indicators were perceived in terms of their social impact relied on four questions. One question appeared immediately after participants viewed their assigned campaign, together with questions about perceived innovativeness, sector attractiveness, trustworthiness, and perceived social impact (Schrötgens & Boenigk, 2017), which helped avoid participants’ reverse self-justification. After the dependent variable measures, the other perceived social impact items followed (adapted from Verkaik, 2016).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Understanding behavioural factors from the perspective of both impact investors and social entrepreneurs A fruitful area for future research is to conduct in-depth investigations into behavioural issues in impact investing. Although existing research (e.g., Schr€ otgens and Boenigk, 2017) shows that private investors' age has a significant influence on their willingness to participate in impact investing, we know little about the influence of their other personal characteristics (e.g., educational background, and commercial and social experience) on their impact investment behaviour. Furthermore, existing research identifies categorical cognition as a behavioural factor that limits impact investors' ability to make outcome-efficient decisions (Lee et al, 2020).…”
Section: Navigating Conflicting Requirements In Impact Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, research shows that the perceived innovativeness of impact investment products is positively related to private investors' willingness to participate in impact investing (Schr€ otgens and Boenigk, 2017). Indeed, individual investors are more inclined to allocate funds to impact investment products when they have higher confidence in the products' claims about their effectiveness in addressing targeted social problems (Apostolakis et al, 2018a).…”
Section: Influence Of Characteristics Of Investors and Investment Pro...mentioning
confidence: 99%