Thesis Master in Marketing 2006/2007

What Drives Motivation to Participate Financially in a Crowdfunding Community?

Michel Harms
Stud.Nr. 1633678
Thesis Supervisor:
Drs. Mirella Kleijnen
Date of submission:
13.07.2007

Acknowledgement

This is my master thesis, written as the final assignment of the Master Course Marketing Strategy
2006/2007 at the Vrije Universitaet Amsterdam. I would like to thank my supervisor Drs. Mirella
Kleijnen for her continuous support during the completion of this thesis. She also gave the initial idea
for the research question. It was very valuable to receive her critical and constructive feedback while
writing this thesis. Without her challenging attitude, this thesis would not have the academic ambition
which it claims to have now.

Furthermore I would like to thank Magda and Patrick, my two international fellow students, for
accompanying me during this one year of master programme. It was good to face and take the same
challenges together as a threesome. Without them at my side, Masterdam would not have been what it
was: a good time.

Finally I want to thank my parents for all the years of boundless support and encouragement. It is
relieving and encouraging to have their backing and to know that I can count on them anytime.
Without their support I would not be where I am now.

Michel Harms
Amsterdam, 13.07.2007

Abstract
This thesis aims to analyse consumers motivation to contribute financially to a project that wants to
create something new. The principle of consumers pooling their money together in order to support a
specific project initiated by someone else, is refered to as crowdfunding. From a practical point of
view it is essential for everybody, who wants to use crowdfunding to finance the realization of a
project to understand the motive forces of potential supporters. This research contributes to theory as it
merges three different research fields creating a unique perspective to deal with this question: it
combines relevant aspects from consumer behaviour, behavioural finance and social psychology.
Moreover, theory of consumption value is used as a framework to capture five value dimensions
relevant for driving motives to participate in crowdfunding activities. An extensive literature and a
desk research led to the development of 15 hypotheses. Ten direct effects on the intention to invest, as
well as four mediating and one moderating effect were identified. A fictional exemplary crowdfunding
project and an associated questionnaire were developed to test the conceptual model. The results of
196 respondents illustrated various values that drive the intention to invest in a crowdfunding project.
Significant values were found within the value dimensions financial value, quality performance value,
social value and emotional value. Furthermore a positive moderating effect of lead user characteristics
on the intention driving value personal utility was found.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ....... 7
1.1. Problem Statement ... 9
1.2. Subquestions ..... 9
1.3. Delimitations ........ 10
1.4. Scientific Contribution . 10
1.5. Managerial Contribution ....... 11
1.6. Structure .... 11
2. Theoretical Background ........ 12
2.1. Crowdfunding and its Relevance for Innovation ............. 12
2.2. Content Analysis of Crowdfunding Projects ......... 13
2.3. Conceptual Model........ 17
2.4. Financial Value ....... 18
2.5. Functional Value ......... 20
2.6. Social Value ..... 21
2.7. Epistemic Value ....... 23
2.8. Emotional Value .. 23
2.9. Moderating Effect of Lead User Characteristics ......... 26
3. Research Method .. 28
3.1. Questionnaire Design...... 28
3.2. Exemplary Crowdfunding Project 28
3.3. Measurement Development ... 30
3.4. Sample and Data Collection... 32
4. Results ..... 33
4.1. Sample Characteristics .. ... 33
4.2. Multi-Item Measures ...... 36
4.3. Test of Hypotheses ...... 37
4.4. Cross classification ..... 41
4.5. Feedback and Reactions of Respondents .... 43
5. Discussion ... 44
5.1. General Discussion of Results ...... 44
5.2. Managerial Implications ........... 46
5.3. Limitations and Future Research ............ 47
6. References ...... 49
7. Appendices ......... 52

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figures
1. The five value dimensions driving the intention to participate in
a crowdfunding project...

17

2. Conceptual research model: Theory of intention driving values ...

27

3. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of sample ....

34

4. Histogram: criterion variable intention to invest .

35

5. Conceptual model: Results ...

41

1. Overview current crowdfunding projects ..

16

2. Exemplary project proposal: Requirements and implementation .

29

3. Scales used in questionnaire ....

31

4. Means and standard deviations on value drivers of exemplary crowdfunding case

36

5. Modelfit without moderating effect ..

39

6. Modelfit with moderating effect

39

7.

ANOVA .

39

8. Coefficients Regression ..

40

9. Cross classification of significant differences on mean values ..

42

Tables

The more generous we are, the more joyous we become. The more cooperative we are, the more
valuable we become. The more enthusiastic we are, the more productive we become. The more serving
we are, the more prosperous we become
William A. Ward (1921 1994)

Today, if you look at financial systems around the globe, more than half the population of the world out of six billion people, more than three billion - do not qualify to take out a loan from a bank. This is
a shame.
Muhammad Yunus (Nobel Peace Price 2006)

Each of us has much more hidden inside us than we have had a chance to explore. Unless we create
an environment that enables us to discover the limits of our potential, we will never know what we
have inside of us.
Muhammad Yunus (Nobel Peace Price 2006)

1. INTRODUCTION
Preface: Three recent developments in the first decade of the new century:

1. Goods go public.
Due to digitalisation many products which were banned previously on a tangible medium, are
nowadays transformed into bits and bytes and by that easily and cheaply to duplicate without
any losses in quality. Most prominent examples are music and movies. It can be argued that
they hold nowadays the characteristics of public goods: they are non-rival in consumption and
due to sharefile networks it is (virtually) impossible to exclude consumers who did not pay for
from consumption (Varian, 2005). The arduousness to protect property rights of theses public
goods, lead to declining motivation of industrial investors to finance the provision of such
goods (Easley, 2005).
There is a need for a new approach to finance the provision of such goods
2. Rise of Open Source & Crowdsourcing networks.
The emerge and development of internet gave rise to a lot of projects in which (lead) users
took an active part in the development of new solutions and products. Open Source projects
such as Linux and Wikipedia are successful examples of online communities where users
create something in a joint action. Virtual networks enable a new shape of division of labour.
Jeff Howe terms this phenomena crowdsourcing and defines it as the act of taking a job
traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an
undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call (Howe, 2006).
People use the internet to cooperate
Consumers participate increasingly in the production process
3. The Nobel Peace Price 2006: Microcredits.
In the year 2006 Muhammad Yunus received the Nobel Peace Price for his commitment to
give micro credits to entrepreneurs in developing countries. The Grameen bank of Yunus gives
microcredits to entrepreneurs, who do not qualify for a loan from a regular bank, to empower
them to lift themselves out of poverty and to live a life on their own.
Social finance obtains new relevance and public recognition

Aspects of all three developments are closely related to the central theme of this research:
The phenomena of crowdfunding.

Crowdfunding describes the collective cooperation, attention and trust by people who network and
pool their money together, usually via the internet, in order to support efforts initiated by other people
or organizations (http://crowdfunding.pbwiki.com). It is about a group of consumers that join forces
(financial resources) together, to make a specific project happen. Crowdfunding can be used for a
variety of purposes: e.g. for a group purchase, political campaigns, disaster relief, support of artists,
starting up a business. There are prominent examples where groups of several hundreds people pool
money together to finance the CD production of a musician or the production of a movie. The outcome
of a crowdfunding project can be of material or immaterial nature, the intent of the project can be
commercial or non-profit. Thus, there is a variety of possible applications which can make use of the
principle of crowdfunding.

How crowdfunding relates to the recent developments mentioned previously:

The principle of crowdfunding can be used as an approach to finance the provision of
public goods.
The principle of crowdfunding uses the proven mechanism of crowdsourcing. While
crowdsourcing focuses on pooling labor resources, crowdfunding pools another factor of
production: capital.
The principle of crowdfunding is a further step of consumer involvement in the production
process.
The principle of crowdfunding uses the idea of social finance which found global
recognition with the award of the Nobel Price.

Hence, the concept of crowdfunding is highly relevant in present days. To start a crowdfunding project
it is essential to understand the consumers motives that makes them contribute to a crowdfunding
community. This research aims to reveal driving values which trigger the intention to participate
financially in such a crowdfunding project. The research exclusively focuses on motives of consumers
to participate in crowdfunding projects which pool money to enable somebody (or a group) to create
something new. This could be music, art, software, but also the development of a new physical
product, the set-up of a new business or something completely different.

This research investigates the phenomena of crowdfunding by analysing six prominent current
crowdfunding projects and reviewing literature in different relevant scientific fields. A conceptual
research model is proposed. It is based on the theoretical framework of consumption value (Sweeney
and Soutar 2001; Seth et al. 1991) and identifies ten motivation driving values which are categorized
in five value dimensions. Furthermore three antecedents and a moderating effect of lead user
characteristics are identified. To verify the research model an examplary crowdfunding case was
developed and posted together with a questionnaire. Based on the answers of 196 respondents several

regression analyses were conducted to test the model. An extensive discussion part gives theoretical
and practical implications. The findings gained in this research are worthful for everybody who plans
to initiate a crowdfunding project.

Financial participation in a crowdfunding project can be seen from different perspectives: for example
as a supportive action, an investment or an act of collective buying. This becomes obvious when we
look at how differently crowdfunding projects designate their participating consumers, for example as
supporters, investors, participants, believers. In this thesis the act of getting financially involved in a
crowdfunding activity is described as making an investment and the person participating financially is
called an investor. However, these designations were chosen without considering the different
perpectives and they shall act as a substitute for all possible perspectives to facilitate readability. This
research aims to gain insight into motivation relevant to all possible perspectives.

1.1. Problem Statement

The crucial point about crowdfunding is to attract individual consumers who are willing to invest in a
specific project. To attract these consumers it is essential to know how they value the participation in a
crowdfunding project. This research follows the definition of crowdfundig given above. But it focuses
solely on those crowdfunding projects which aim to realize the creation of something new.

Research question:
What drives consumers motivation to participate financially in a crowdfunding community
that is aiming to enable the creation of something new?

1.2. Subquestions
The current research also aims to answer the following sub questions:

What are the common characteristics of current crowdfunding projects?

How can theory of consumption value serve as a framework to assess values that drive the
intention to invest in a crowdfunding project?

How does the evaluation of value drivers differ among respondents based on their
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics?

To what extent do lead user characteristics influence the impact of values on intention to
invest in a crowdfunding project?

What is the role of lead users when it comes to support a project in their field of interest?

What antecedents that are directly related to the crowdfunding project have an impact on
the driving values?

What managerial implication for initiators of crowdfunding projects can be derived from
the underlying motives?

1.3. Delimitations
This research does not provide insights into classical fundraising. It does not take into account
communites or projects which solely fund money for charity purposes. This thesis exclusively focuses
on crowdfunding projects which aim to finance the creation of something new. It can be differentiated
between crowdfunding projects that aim to create material goods and projects that aim to produce
immaterial goods. It is most likely that there are also different motivation patterns for both types of
crowdfunding projects. But these differences are not considered in this research. Neither does this
research examine for which type of projects the principle of crowdfunding is especially useful. The
effects of the target amount level, the number of peer-investors and minimum price for an intended
investment into a crowdfunding project are not part of this research. Moreover, the research does not
take into account the motivation of initiators to finance their project via crowdfunding.

1.4. Scientific Contribution

This research will be the first (to the best of the authors knowledge) that examines consumers
motivation to participate financially in a crowdfunding community. As such, it contributes to the
understanding of consumer behaviour and decision making processes.

We have existing literature explaining consumer technology adaptation with the help of the
technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989). The TAM is criticised for limited application and
its parsimony. Furthermore its focus on attitudes is questionable, as recent research indicates that
attitudes are not an appropiate predictor of the consumers intention to use a certain technology.
Moreover, recent research suggests that value may be a driver of consumer intention (Kleijnen et al.,
2007). This research will contribute to the existing literature to that effect that it uses the theory of
consumption value (Sweeney and Soutar 2001; Seth et al. 1991) to explain consumer decision making
in the context of crowdfunding. As previous research was limited on an overall evaluation of the value
dimensions, this research elaborates indepth the value dimensions in context of crowdfunding. By
incorporating different perspectives for value dimensions it aims to gain deeper insights. It
incorporates value driving forces of contexts that, up to now, have been analysed separately as
collective buying, investment decision making and donating behaviour into one model. This research
merges three different literature streams: consumer behaviour, behavioral finance and (social)

10

psychology. As such the research follows the argumentation of Konana et al. (2005) who propose a
multifacet approach which accommodates social, economic and psychological perspective to achieve a
comprehensive understanding of consumers doing online investments.

Furthermore this research also contributes to theory concerning lead user involvement in innovation
processes (Hippel, 1988). The research examines the moderating effect of lead user characteristics on
intention driving value to participate in an innovative project.

1.5. Managerial Contribution

Being appreciative of consumers motivation to participate in crowdfunding projects can help project
initiators who want to employ crowdfunding to offer suitable incentives to attract supporters. Knowing
what participants wish and value can increase the success of new features and services which really
meet their needs. It is essential to satisfy all participating stakeholders in crowdfunding projects,
especially the investors, and just by doing so a sustaining and stable business model can be achieved.

Using the principles of crowdfunding insights that were gained by this research might be helpful for
project initiators when setting their marketing strategy in terms of targeting and positioning. Hence,
the findings of this research may be very usefull to work out an appropriate crowdfunding design but
also to improve communication with potential investors.

1.6 Structure
The structure of this thesis is as follows: As there is little literature on the phenomena of
crowdfunding, first a representation of six current crowdfunding projects is given. A content analysis
is conducted to identify common characteristics and differences of these crowdfunding projects. By
examining the incentive structures and the particular crowdfunding designs first clues for potential
motivation driver are obtained. In the following the consumption value model, as an abstract
framework of capture driving values, is introduced. A literature review in different relevant scientific
fields and a desk research is conducted to uncover relevant motivation for each value dimension. On
the basis of this research, hypotheses and a conceptual model concerning motivation drivers and
mediating and moderating effects is developed. Chapter 3 will discuss the development of the research
design to test the conceptual model. In chapter 4 by means of several regression analyses the gathered
date is used to test the conceptual model and its hypotheses. Furthermore the demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics of the sampling frame and its differences on variables are presented. In
chapter 5 the findings are critically discussed. It presents conclusions and main findings. Finally
limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

11

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. Crowdfunding and its relevance for Innovation
This research focuses on crowdfunding projects that aim to finance the creation of something new. As
such crowdfunding serves as an enabler of innovation, defining innovation as the introduction of a
new thing or method (Luecke and Katz, 2003). But next to the ability to provide the necessary capital
resources to enable an innovation, the principle of crowdfunding has more positive impacts on the new
product (service, solution) development process.
First, as consumers decide whether to invest in a crowdfunding project before the output is produced,
their reaction on the proposal can be already interpreted as a market pre-test. The market (i.e. the
consumer) indicates before the production process starts whether the outcome is wanted.
Second, as crowdfunding (dependent on crowdfunding design) may let consumers participate
financially in the market success of the project outcome, it offers an additional financial incentive to
them to contribute in to development of a new product (or service or solution) as regards content.
Their participation in the product development process may increase the degree to which the project
outcome meets consumer needs.
Third, consumers who participate financially in sales, have most probably a higher intention to spread
the innovation via word of mouth. This accelerates the diffusion and thus success of the project
outcome.

The involvement of consumers in innovation processes is not new. Hippel (1988) argues to involve
lead users in the development of new products, as they are a viable source for innovation. He defines
lead users of a novel or enhanced product, process or service as those who display two characteristics:
first lead users face need in the marketplace months or years before the bulk of that marketplace
encounters them. Second lead users are positioned to benefit significantly by obtaining a solution to
those needs. The three advantages of involving consumers in the innovation process via crowdfunding
may even be stronger for lead users. As lead users are per definition ahead of the market, their
evaluation is especially useful in pre-testing. Hippel (1988) claims that manufacturers which find lead
users to adapt products for their own use, will have an advantage over manufacturers that do not
involve lead users in the development process. Hence the second advantage of involving consumers in
the product development process may also be stronger for lead users. Hippel and Krogh (2006) argue
that freely revealing lead users may benefit by sharing ideas from enhancement of reputation and
positive network effects due to an increased diffusion of their innovation. But it is questionable to
which extent lead users are really willing to share their ideas in the long run without any financial
benefits in return. Crowdfunding could be a possible approach to tackle this problem by giving an
incentive in form of financial participation to lead user to share their ideas. Urban and Hippel (1988)
suggested that lead users serve as opinion leaders to speed up diffusion of new products. As opinion
leaders, the word-of-mouth of lead user has probably a stronger impact. Therefore, it seems that

12

involvement of consumers in new product development is especially valuable when involving lead
users.

Furthermore, the principle of crowdfunding can be especially interesting for lead users to implement
their ideas themselves, as they often tend to establish the first companies which exploit a new user
innovation (Hippel, 2006). A prominent example is the origin of the snowboard which was developed
by users. Nowadays Burton, a snowboard company which was founded by a lead user, is one of the
worlds leading companies in its industry. The bottleneck on the way to the realization of an idea is the
requirement of financial resources. When institutions such as banks refuse to provide money because
they do not see the potential of the idea or because the project does not promise any monetary return
on investment, other ways of financing are needed. Hence, the principle of crowdfunding can find
application for (lead) users who want to realize their ideas on their own.

2.2. Content Analysis of Crowdfunding Projects

In the following is an overview given about six prominent current projects related to crowdfunding.
All projects are online projects.

Artistshare (www.artistshare.com)
Artistshare defines itself as a place where fans fund the projects of their favorite artists in exchange
for the privilege of participating in the creative process. The supporting fans are titled as participants.
Most of the artists offer a range of different packages to their fans. These packages have different
participant-levels which determine its price, ranging from a few dollars up to 10.000 US Dollar or
more. Dependent on the participant-level, and by that the price, these packages include different
benefits which are set independently by the artists. They often include downloads of music, notes
about the recording process, exclusive photos, personal stories, video records of concerts, exclusive
interviews and autographs of the artist. High value packages in some cases include items such as a. a
personal letter of appreciation, concert tickets or the personal iPod of the artist full with his favorite
songs. Artistshare is very much about developing long lasting relationships with the fans. It is about
supporting an artist financially and, in return, being involved by participating in the creative process.

Fundable (www.fundable.com)
Fundable lets groups of people pool money to make purchases or raise money. It serves as a platform
to raise money for a project. These projects can be of different nature as for example a personal
project, a ground trip, group-buying to get a discount, pooling money for a gift, selling to a group
before making a product or collect money to throw an event. Everybody can be a group initiator and
set up projects for different purposes. Fundable distinguished basically between three types of raising

13

money. Purchase: pooling money for a purchase. Group initiator buys on behalf and then distributes.
Fundraiser: pooling money for a cause. Group initiator ensures that the fund fulfils its purpose. Offer:
seller offers a product. The group leader makes a product, then distributes to buyers. For any type the
group initiator sets the amount of money which is to be funded and the number of needed people,
which leads to the amount of money everybody has to give. Every project has limited runtime. If the
collection expires before the aimed amount is reached, the project does not accomplish and nobody
has to pay.

Kiva (www.kiva.org)
Kiva is a platform where people can lend money directly to entrepreneurs in developing countries.
These credits aim to empower people to lift themselves out of poverty. The amount of money
entrepreneurs ask for usually is around $1.000. The smallest amount that can be lend is $25. The
credits are usually pooled together from several people. Entrepreneurs introduce themselves with a
picture and an explanation what kind of business they want to set up. Borrowers receive periodic email journal updates about the developments of the business they lent the money to. The period for the
repayment of the amount usually is 6 12 months. Borrowers do also have a personal profile on the
website, so that people can see who (else) lent money to a project.

A Swarm of Angels (www.aswarmofangels.com)

A Swarm of Angels approaches itself as a new way to fund and make a film together. The project aims
to create a 1 million film. If the movie is realized it will be freely shareable and is non-profit
distributing. The project is split into 5 phases. At the end of the fifth phase the final movie is the result.
The achievement of the next phase is coupled to a specific number of members. Each member
supports the project with 25. In return members can vote on creative decisions, have priority access
to downloads, can join the production crew and receive a member-only DVD and exclusive
merchandise.

SellaBand (www.sellaband.com)
The most progressive example that makes use of crowdfunding is probably SellaBand. SellaBand is
based upon the idea that musicians and fans make music and money together. Musicians, who do not
have any record deal, upload their music and their profiles to attract consumers to invest in them.
Consumers, who are called believers, can buy parts (one part costs $10) of artists and enable them by
that to produce their own CD. When believers accumulated the amount of $50.000, the artist records a
CD in a professional studio. The CD is later offered as a free download on SellaBands webpage. The
income which is generated via advertising in the download section of the website is shared by artists,
believers and SellaBand. Next to future revenues every believer receives one CD for every part he
oder she holds. Some musicians try to attract believers by giving additional incentives for every part

14

(as e.g. exclusive downloads, lottery of concert tickets). Believer do also have a personal profile on the
SellaBand website, so that people can see in which bands the believer invested.

My Football Club (www.myfootballclub.co.uk)

My Football Club aims to collect 1.75 million to purchase a soccer club. The amount should be
provided by 50.000 members who pay 35 each. If 50.000 people came together every member owed
an equal share and had an equal voice. The members can then hold a vote on most of decisions
concerning the team. They decide which team to buy, on team selections, player transfers and club
finances.

The examples above show that each project is unique in its approach to the principle of crowdfunding.
All projects have a different character. Each project gives a unique name to its supporters who
constitute the essential part of a crowdfunding project. But even if every project sets a different focus,
there are common underlying characteristics and techniques which are summarized in the following.

A) Personal introduction of the project initiator

The person responsible for executing the project, is introduced for most project very much in
detail. Personal details as a short curriculum and pictures are given in most cases.

B) Project realization only if the planned amount has been collected

Most of the projects only start if a sufficient number of consumers decided to support the
project. Then consumers can be sure that they will never be the only ones investing in the
project. It will be always a group investment or no investment at all.

C) Passive involvement of investors in the project

In most crowdfunding projects investors are provided with exclusive up-to-date information
about project progress and insights in development stage of the project.

D) Active involvement of investors in the project

In projects like A Swarm of Angels and MyFootballclub investors take an active role in
decisions processes of the project. By this co-determination investors get actively involved in
the project. This point is very much related to crowdsourcing which were discussed briefly in
the introduction.

E) Material copy of the project outcome

In some crowdfunding projects investors receive a material copy of the project outcome. Like
the CD for SellaBand or the DVD for A Swarm of Angels.

15

F) Investors participate in financial success of project

That investors participate financially in a commercial success of the project, holds only for the
example of SellaBand which can be seen as the most progressive example of crowdfunding.

G) Community platform for investors

Projects as SellaBand or Kiva offer a platform which can be used to communicate and
selfpresentation of investors. Investors can set up their online profile with personal details as
photos, personal introduction and contact data.

H) Project outcome is freely available to everybody

In many crowdfunding projects, the main outcome of the project is freely available to
everybody, also for people who did not contribute financially to the project.

Table 1 summarizes the key characteristics of the crowdfunding projects presented above. The column
common factors shows which of the identified common crowdfunding characteristics apply to the
particular project.

Table1: Overview Crowdfunding Projects

Project
Sell a Band
sellaband.com

Who/What is
financed
CD production of
musicians

Naming of
supporters
Believer

Artistshare
artistshare.com

Projects of artists

Participant

A Swarm of Angels
aswarmofangels.com

Movie Production

Angel /
Member

Fundable
fundable.com
Kiva
kiva.org
Myfootballclub
myfootballclub.co.uk

Everything

User

Entrepreneurs in
developing
countries
Purchase and
management of a
football club

Borrower

Member

get components (as

promoted on the webpage)
-CD
-share of future revenues
-individual incentives set by
artists
-participation in the creative
process
-individual incentives set by
artists
-vote on creative decisions
-priority access to
downloads
-member-only DVD
-exclusive merchandise
-depends on project
-payback of money lent
-regular e-mail updates

Form of
Investment
1 Part = $10
target
$50.000 per CD
amount set by
artist for
different
packages
25

Common
Factors*
ABCE
FG

AC

CDE

target:
1 million
Set by group
initiator
Units of $25

-co-determination on
35
decisions such as selecting
target:
the team, buying players,
1.75 million
club finances
* Indicates which of the identified common characteristics of crowdfunding apply to the specific project

AB
ABCG

BCD

16

2.3. Conceptual Model

The aim of this research is to get an understanding of what drives consumers motivation to participate
financially in a crowdfunding community. Zeithamls (1988) definition of perceived value as
consumers overall assessment of the utility of a product (or service) based on perceptions of what is
received and what is given, is used to answer the research question. Seth et al. (1991) argue that
consumer choice is a function of multiple consumption values. Hence, this research aims to reveal
values that drive consumers intention to invest in a crowdfunding project. Intention is defined as the
decision to act in a particular way (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). The theoretical framework of
consumption values serves as the basis to examine drivers of motivation to participate in
crowdfunding projects (Sweeney and Soutar 2001; Seth et al. 1991). The current research model (see
figure 1) includes five value dimensions: financial value, functional value, social value, epistemic
value and emotional value.

Conditional value is defined as perceived utility acquired by an alternative as the result of the specific
situation or set of circumstances facing the choice maker (Sheth et al. 1991). It arises when
situational factors moderate the perceived value-outcome process. Conditional value is not part of the
current research model, as situational factors do not seem of relevance for the motivation to participate
in a crowdfunding project.

In the study of Sweeney et al. (2001) value dimensions are allowed to be interrelated, contrary to the
study of Seth et al. (1991), who argue that value dimension are independent as they relate additively
and contribute incrementally to choice. This framework follows the argumentation of Sweeney et al.
that value dimensions do not have to be necessarily independent. This is also conditioned to a variable
that serves as an antecedent for two different value dimensions, consequently these value dimensions
cannot be absolutely independent.

Figure 1: The five value dimensions driving the intention to participate in a crowdfunding project

Financial Value
Functional Value
Social Value

Intention to participate in a
crowdfunding project

Epistemic Value
Emotional Value

17

2.4. Financial Value

The dimension financial value is based on the functional value dimension in terms of price (value for
money) of Sweeney and Soutar (2001). The financial value dimension in the current model is defined
in terms of the investors individual return on investment. As identified in the previous, some
consumers might receive an individual return on their investment, partly dependent on the size of their
share. This return on investment can be tangible in the sense of a copy of the outcome of the supported
project, but also monetarian as a financial participation on future revenues generated by the outcome
of the supported project. A review on financial behaviour literature reveals insights into the financial
motivation pattern of investors. Behavioural finance argues that some financial phenomena can
plausibly be understood by using models in which some agents are not fully rational (Barberis and
Thaler, 2003). The most dominant rationales used by consumers will be discussed next.

Economic Value
The definition of perceived economic value used in this research is based on Zeithamls idea of
customer value as a trade-off between give and get components (Zeithaml, 1988). Perceived
economic value captures the perceived overall investment conditions. It considers the trade-off
between what the individual pays and receives in return for the investment. As an overall assessment,
it captures a monetarian return (as e.g. a participation on future revenues) and/or tangible returns (as
e.g. an individual copy of the outcome). In economic terms, investment utilizes capital for maximal
possible return (Adair et al., 1994). Hence, the assumption of a positive relationship between
perceived economic value of an investment possibility and the intention to invest in the project seems
reasonable. Even if the economic criteria seem to vary in importance, it is important for informal
investors to obtain an economic return on their investment (Landstrm, 1998). It is assumed that
perceived positive economic value of the project drives intention to invest in a crowdfunding project.

H1: Perceived positive economic value of the project has a positive effect on the intention to
invest in a crowdfunding project.

For the perceived economic value of a project, two antecedents were identified. These variables do not
present direct values to the consumer and consequently do not directly drive intention to invest. But
they are highly related to the project and have mediated by economic value impact on the intention to
invest.

Social Utility (as antecedent of economic value)

The perceived functional utility of the project-outcome for society has an indirect influence on
intention to invest. The concept of functional utility is discussed in sub-chapter 2.4. When regarding
society as a market, perceived utility of society for the project outcome should increase the perceived

18

economic value of the project, as a perceived market demand for the project outcome increases
expected future revenues from the project. Maula et al. (2005) show that individuals perception of
good opportunities to start a new busines, increases its propensity to make informal investments. The
evaluation of the future prospects of a project are relevant when to decide whether one should invest in
a crowdfunding project. When an investor expects a high market demand for the project outcome the
expected get-components of economic value increase if the investor participates financially on future
revenues. Hence, it is hypothesised that social utility serves as an antencedent of economic value.

H1b: The relationship between perceived positive utility of society for the project outcome
and the intention to invest in the crowdfunding project is mediated by the perceived economic
value of the project.

Abilities Initiator (as antecedent of economic value)

Research about the informal investors ways of identifying and assessing new investment
opportunities showed that investment decisions to a large extent are person-dependent (Hoffmann,
1972). Studies show the importance attached by informal investors, in their assessments of new
investment proposals to the entrepreneurs competence and capability (Landstrm, 1998). People who
invest in crowdfunding projects provide money to the project initiator before the product (or service)
is produced. Thus, when an investor considers the overall give and get components related to a
proposed crowdfunding proposal, assessing economic value, the perceived abilities of the initiator are
of importance. As it is not possible to evaluate the project output in advance with regard to the quality
of the get components, investors fully rely on the people running the project. Hence, it is suggested
that the perceived abilities of the project initiator have a positive impact on the perceived economic
value.
H1c: The relationship between the perceived positive abilities of the project initiator and the
intention to invest in the crowdfunding project is mediated by the perceived economic value of
the project.

Lottery Effect
Beyond the perceived general economic value, crowdfunding projects can provide the chance of an
extraordinary financial gain. As people invest at an early stage of the project, usually before the
production process starts, it is difficult to evaluate the outcome and by that the demand of the market.
Especially the market reaction for experimental products (creative and artistic output such as music
or movies) is difficult to predict. The demand for this type of products is highly uncertain, since it is
difficult for consumers to evaluate the quality of such a product until they actually experienced it
(Sawhney, 1996). But these projects always bear the chance to hit taste of the bulk of consumers and
potentially are able to generate large revenues. Thus, investing in crowdfunding projects, where

19

investors receive a proportional part of future revenues, comes along with the potential chance to
generate extreme revenues. Tversky and Kahneman (1986) conducted experiments concerning
prospect theory which tries to captures consumer attitudes to risky gambles. The results of these
experiments give several insights in investment behaviour relevant to crowdfunding. Their
experiments show that people are risk averse only over gains (loss aversion), and risk-seeking over
losses. Despite the fact of loss aversion, there are situations in which the small chance of large gains
can lead to risk-seeking. The findings of Tversky and Kahneman (1986) show that the small chance of
a large gain leads to a risk seeking behaviour (lottery effect). It is argued that this phenomenon is of
relevance in the context of crowdfunding. Crowdfunding participants support a project from the
beginning and do not know to which extent the project becomes a commercial success. It is assumed
that the perceived chance to hit the jackpot has a positive influence on the intention to invest in a
crowdfunding project.

H2: The chance to gain an exceedingly high financial profit has a positive effect on the
intention to to invest in a crowdfunding project.

Certainty Effect
Another finding of Tversky and Kahneman (1979) is the certainty effect which says that people put
much more weight on outcomes that are certain than on outcomes that are merely probable. People
also tend to prefer a sure-small reward over a large-uncertain reward when there are effort
requirements present (Kivetz, 2003). This preference of people for the absolute is also assumed to be
of importance for crowdfunding. As identified in the content analysis, in some crowdfunding projects
investors receive a material copy of the project outcome. While future revenues are hard to predict and
merely unsure, a guaranteed tangible return (usually a copy or a documentation of the outcome of the
crowdfunding project) serves this certainty effect. It is hypothesised that a guaranteed tangible copy of
the outcome of the crowdfunding project drives motivation to invest.

H3: A guaranteed tangible output of the supported project has a positive effect on the intention
to invest in a crowdfunding project.

2.5. Functional Value

Sweeney and Soutar (2001) introduce the functional value dimension in terms of performance
(quality). In their definition functional value is defined as utility derived from the perceived functional,
utilitarian or physical performance. Functional value follows the definition of functional product
meaning. As such functional value refers to the abilities of the project outcome to accomplish specific
acts, based on properties such as its physical characteristics and features (Fournier, 1991). Hence, the

20

functional value dimension, as defined here in the context with crowdfunding, answers basically the
question to which extent the project outcome serves a functional need. For every crowdfunding project
outcome a distinction can be made between functional utility for a single consumer (personal utility)
and the functional utility for others in general (society utility). It is suggested that personal utility
presents a value which directly drives intention to invest. It is suggested that society utility does not
directly drive intention to invest, as it does not present a direct value to consumers. But society utility
has mediated by other values (economic value, supportiveness) an indirect impact on the intention to
invest.

Personal Utility
Personal utility is defined as the degree to which the functional benefits of the project outcome serves
a functional need of the individual consumer. Concerning the functional meaning of a product or a
service, consumers choose in general those products (and services) that provide the greatest utility to
them (Ligas, 2000). Furthermore, studies from industrial and process innovations have shown that the
greater the functional benefits are an entity expects to obtain from a needed innovation, the greater the
entitys investment in obtaining a solution (Mansfield, 1968). It is suggested that this also applies in
the context of crowdfunding. The higher the personal functional utility a consumer expects to obtain
from the project outcome, the higher is the consumers intention to invest in that project in order to
make use of the outcome. The triggering motivation is to enable the provosion of the project outcome
in order to satisfy ones needs for it. It is hypothesised that positive perceived personal utility derived
from the project outcome, drives intention to invest in the project.

H4: Perceived positive personal functional utility derived from the project outcome has a
positive effect on the intention to invest in a crowdfunding project.

2.6. Social Value

Social value is defined as the utility derived from the products or service ability to enhance social
self-concept (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). The association with one or more specific social groups
can lead to perceived utility, which increases the social value of a product or service (Seth et al.,
1991).

Self-Expressiveness
Motivation behaviour can also arise from a need of the consumer to express ones self-concept
(Houston and Walker, 1996). A product or service can help the consumer in the development of a
visible, unique and personal representation of him- or herself. As that products serve as stimuli;
acting with a product that has a specific meaning enables the consumer to a) express a role to others,

21

b) define ones unique or conformist character, or c) indicate common understanding in a socially

constructed marketplace (Ligas, 2000). Hence, people may use engagement in a crowdfunding
project to express themselves. Especially the internet is used increasingly as a platform to connect and
to present oneselves, as can be seen from the emergence and success of social online networks as
MySpace, Hyves (Netherlands) or StudiVZ (Germany). Schau and Gilly (2003) demonstrated in their
study that consumers use digital stimuli and hyperlinking to express who they are. Entertainmentoriented external links (as music, film/video, sports, and hobbies) as well as technology orientated
ones are most common. Hence, the linking of commitment to crowdfunding activities to personal
profiles on networks as MySpace can be used to shape ones online-identity. Thus, when engagement
in crowdfunding activities can be used to shape ones online identity and to present oneself, it is
suggested that self-expressiveness serves as a driver to participate in a crowdfunding project. It is
hypothesised that self-expressiveness, defined as the degree to which consumers perceive an
investment in the corresponding crowdfunding project as suitable for expressing their emotions and
social or personal identity (Nysveen et al., 2005), has a positive impact on the intention to invest.

H5: The possibility to use engagement in crowdfunding to express oneself has a positive
effect on the intention to invest in a crowdfunding project.

Investor Community
An important feature of crowdfunding is that a project is not financed by a single investor but jointly
by a group of consumers (investors). Thus the investor is a part of a group of peer-investors. Many
crowdfunding projects offer a community platform for their investors. Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002)
examined how individual and social determinants of action drive participation in virtual communities.
Their results show that social identification with the group increases intention to be an active member
of the group. Dyson (1997) argues that people seek virtual community for fellowship and security, as
the world becomes increasingly complex. Klandermans (1984) finding that the motivation of people to
participate in a social movement is higher when they expect that others will also participate, applies to
most crowdfunding projects. In most of the projects the investment is only accomplished when enough
people participate and the target sum (which is announced in advance) is achieved. As that people are
ensured that they will invest as a group and not as a single investor. It is suggested that the
involvement in a group of peer-investors presents a value to consumers and is a driving force on the
intention to invest.

H6: Perceived involvement in a group of peer-investors has a positive effect on the intention
to invest in a crowdfunding project.

22

2.7. Epistemic Value

Epistemic value is the utility acquired from an alternatives capacity to arouse curiosity, provide
novelty, and/or satisfy a desire for knowledge (Sheth et al., 1991). Sweeney and Soutar (2001) did
not include epistemic value in their model, they argue that epistemic value is particularly relevant for
experimental services. Epistemic value is included in the current research model.

Epistemic Value
Per definition new experiences certainly provide epistemic value (Sheth et al., 1991). Crowdfunding
projects are, as defined in the research question, conducted to finance the creation of something new.
Thus, crowdfunding projects, as examined in this research, provide new experiences and subsequently
epistemic value. Epistemic value can serve consumers desire for novelty seeking, defined as the
desire of an individual to seek out novel stimuli (Hirschman, 1980).
SellaBand for example serves as a viable source of music with new and fresh styles from all over the
world. Believers can explore the profiles, listen to new songs and fulfil their desire for novelty and
variety seeking. Furthermore crowdfunding projects as Artistshare offer their participants exclusive
up-to-date insights into the progress of the projects. So participants can really take part in the
production process and track the latest developments of the project.
As this research examines crowdfunding projects that aim to create something new, they provide new
experiences and subsequently epistemic value. It is hypothesised that epistemic value drives intention
to invest.

H7: Epistemic value has a positive effect on the intention to invest in a crowdfunding project

2.8. Emotional value

Emotional value (Sweeney and Soutar 2001; Seth et al. 1991) is utility acquired from the feelings or
affective states that a product or service generates. As positive emotions can lead to goal directed
behaviour (Bagozzi et al., 1999), it is assumed that emotional value plays an important role in driving
intention to participate in a crowdfunding project. Next to a literature review, a screening of
crowdfunding online newsgroups where consumers exchange experiences provided insights in
emotions in context of doing crowdfunding investments. There were basically three important
emotions found that are positively related with making crowdfunding investments.

Enjoyment
The emotion of enjoyment plays an important role in experimental services, characterized by ritualistic
orientation and hedonic benefits from the use of the service (Nysveen et al., 2005). A review of
discussions of crowdfunding participants in online newsgroups showed that many consumers

23

emphasise how much they enjoy to invest in crowdfunding projects. This is in line with the
argumentation of Koufaris et al. (2001), who examine the relation between shopping enjoyment and
the intention to do online shopping. They argue that enjoyment of the shopping experience is an
important determinant of consumer behaviour. It is suggested that enjoyment is also of significance in
the context of crowdfunding. It is assumed that the positive emotion of enjoyment in the context of
participating in a crowdfunding activity has positive influence on consumers intention to invest.

H8: Enjoyment of supporting a crowdfunding-project has a positive effect on the intention to

invest in a crowdfunding project.

Involvement
Exclusive and up-to-date background information concerning the project progress lets consumers
participate passively at the project process. The possibility of voting on decisions related to the project
gives investors the chance to participate actively and to co-determine the production process. This
active and/or passive participation in the crowdfunding project can create a feeling of involvement in
the project. The definition of the feeling of involvement used in this research is closely related to the
concept of identification. Identification is defined as the extent to which a person perceives to be part
of or to belong to an organization (Bhattacharya et al., 1995). A study of Bhattacharya et al. (1995)
shows that members' identification is positively related to donating activity, tenure of membership and
visiting frequency. A review of online discussions revealed that consumers value the feeling of being
involved in a crowdfunding project. To perceive themselves as co-producer and essential part of the
project is important for at least part of those consumers who have already invested in crowdfunding
projects. This feeling of involvement can vary with the extent to which consumers are given the
opportunity to participate in the specific project and the desire of consumers to participate. Hence, it is
suggested that for consumers who wish to feel involved in a project, the feeling of involvement
presents an important value. Based on the findings of Bhattacharya et al. (1995) and on what
consumers wrote in online discussions, it is hypothesised that the positive emotion of involvement has
a positive influence on the intention to invest.

H9: The feeling of involvement in a project has a positive effect on the intention to invest in a
crowdfunding project.

Supportiveness
Supportiveness in this context is defined as an emotion derived in the context of helping behaviour.
Helping behaviour, defined as behaviour that enhances the welfare of a needy other (Bendapudi et al.,
1996), seems to occur in context of crowdfunding. Review of online discussions showed that part of
consumers perceive themselves as supporters and do the investment for helping motives. Walker

24

(2004) states that the argument I feel good when I give is a very strong motivation of charitable
givers. Altruistic motives seem to be of relevance when investing in crowdfunding projects.

Helping behaviour in the context of crowdfunding can occur in two directions: towards the initiator
and towards the public (society in general or specific groups). As that the positive emotion of feeling
supportive can be derived by investing in a crowdfunding project. This can be done with the
underlying motivation to support the initiator or to support the provision of the project outcome to the
society. These two antecedents of supportiveness are discussed in the following. It is hypothesised that
emotional value of supportiveness, derived from giving money to support a person realizing a good
thing, drives the intention to invest.

H10: The feeling of being supportive has a positive effect on the intention to invest in a
crowdfunding project.

As mentioned before, the feeling of being supportive can be derived from enabling the provision of the
project outcome to the public (or a group or person) and by enabling the project initiator to implement
his/her project. The intention driving value of supportiveness has two antecedents: perceived utility of
the project outcome for society and perceived similarity with the initiator.

Society utility (antecedent of supportiveness)

The generic helping process has four sequential steps: perception of need, motivation, behaviour and
consequences (Bendapudi et al., 1996). In the context of crowdfunding, it is suggested that a perceived
need of society for the project outcome is mediated by the feeling of supportiveness and consequently
increases motivation to support its realization. A highly perceived utility for society increases the
positive feelings of supportiveness concerning the provision of the project outcome to society (or to
specific target groups). As that perceived society utility for the project outcome serves as an antecedent
of supportiveness.

H10b: The relationship between the positive functional utility for society derived from the
project outcome and the intention to invest in the crowdfunding project is fully mediated by
the feeling of supportiveness.

Similarity Initiator (antecedent of supportiveness)

The finding of Hoffmann (1972) that informal investment decisions are person-dependent to a large
extent can also be applied to the social relationship level with the initiator. It seems obvious that
people are more willing to invest in a crowdfunding project when they wish to support the project
initiator, when they hold positive feelings towards him or her.

25

In most crowdfunding projects the initiator introduces himself or herself in detail. Research shows that
perceived similarity with the beneficiary influences helping behaviour positively (Piliavian et al.,
1981). The reasoning behind this argumentation is based on evolution theory which says that helping
similar others is a selfish way of ensuring that a persons own genetic pool is reserved (Bendapudi et
al, 1996). Hence perceived similarity with the project initiator is mediated by the emotional value
driver supportiveness.

H10c: The relationship between the perceived similarity with the project initiator and the
intention to invest in the crowdfunding project is fully mediated by the feeling of
supportiveness.

2.9. Moderating Effect of Lead User Characteristics

It is argued that personality traits interact with perceived costs and benefits in the value formation
process (Kleijnen et al., 2007). The concept of lead users may be of special relevance in the context of
crowdfunding as mentioned previously. Its role in the value formation process is discussed in the
following.

Lead User Characteristics

A lead user is, as defined by Hippel (1988), positioned to benefit significantly from obtaining a
solution to his or her needs. Moreover, lead users are more likely to innovate (Hippel, 2002). Based on
these findings it is suggested that a lead user who faces a crowdfunding proposal - with a project
outcome that provides personal utility to him/her - has a higher intention to invest in the project and to
make it happen than a non-lead user who perceives the same level of personal utility. It is therefore
hypothesised that perceived personal utility of the project outcome has a stronger influence on the
intention to invest for people having a high level of lead-user characteristics.

H11: For lead user, the relationship between personal utility and the intention to participate in
a crowdfunding project is strengthened

26

Figure 2: Conceptual Research Model: Theory of intention driving values

Lead User Characteristics
H1
Ability Initiator

Financial Value
Economic Value
Lottery Effect
Certainty Effect

H1

H11

H2
H3

Functional Value

H1c

Personal Utility
Social Value

H4

H5

Self-Expression
Society Utility
Peer Investors

H6

Intention to
invest in a
crowdfunding
project

Epistemic Value
Epistemic Value

H7

H10b
Emotional Value
Enjoyment
Involvement
Supportiveness

Similarity Initiator

H8
H9
H10

H10c

27

3. RESEARCH METHOD

The development of the research design follows the guidelines for marketing research by Churchill
(1999). Descriptive research is used to test the hypotheses. To test the conceptual model with its value
drivers, its antecedents and the moderating effect, a set of regression analyses with intention to invest
as the criterion variable, is an appropriate approach. The required data for the regression analysis are
collected gathered via questionnaires.

3.1 Questionnaire Design

At the beginning of the questionnaire some opening words and a short introduction note in the field of
crowdfunding is given. Then the questionnaire begins with an exemplary crowdfunding case, written
as a realistic proposal addressed to the respondents. A directly formulated project proposal was chosen
as it puts respondents in a realistic scenario situation. Just explaining the principles of crowdfunding
would hold the risk that respondents do not fully understand the phenomena. The development of the
exemplary crowdfunding proposal was based on several criteria and is reasoned in the sub-chapter 3.2.
Following the project proposal, the respondents were asked to rate their intention to invest in the
project. The intention to invest serves as the dependent variable for the analysis. All variables were
measured on 7-point Likert scales. The scale development is documented in sub-chapter 3.3. The final
part of the questionnaire asks for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of respondents such
as occupation, academic background, age (grouped), gender, country of residence, whether the
respondent holds shares and whether he or she is already experienced in crowdfunding. These details
were included to cross-classify collected data in order to possibly gain some more insights.

3.2. Exemplary Crowdfunding Project

The exemplary crowdfunding case was developed on the basis of the results of the content analysis
and the conceptual research model. In the exemplary proposal a 29 year old male university graduate
wants to realize a regional project for runners (appendix 1). His project is about screening and
documenting the best routes for running in the city. The project initiator wants to mark the best routes
and to position some distance markings which allow runners to measure the distance they cover. He
wishes to publish his findings on a webpage, which should serve as a regional portal for runners. It is
exposed that the project initiator - since he does not have the necessary financial resources at the
amount of 5.000 EUR to implement the project - is looking for 500 people who support the project
with 10 EUR each. In return, he promises every supporter a DVD with the documentation of the
project. The content of the DVD is essentially the same that can be found later on the project website.
Furthermore, he promises every supporter a share in future profits which he wants to generate via
advertising on the project website. He wants to give 50% of the profit to the investors. So every
supporter receives 0.1% of future revenues. The tonality of the project proposal aims to communicate

28

that these revenues are not predictable and unsure. Table 2 gives an overview on the requirements for
the exemplary case and how they were implemented. The requirements for the exemplary case were
derived from the content analysis in chapter two and the hypotheses that have to be tested are taken
into consideration.

Table 2: Exemplary crowdfunding project proposal: Requirements and implementation

Conditions / Requirements

Implementation in proposal

Common characteristics of crowdfunding projects

Personal introduction project initiator (A)

The project initiator Robert is introduced shortly with his professional background,
hobbies and a personal picture.

Project realization only if aimed amount is

reached (B)

Proposal communicates that the 10 Euro do only have to be paid, when 500 people
came together to finance the project.

Passive involvement of investors (C)

Investors receive an exclusive weekly newsletter reporting the newest development

of the project.

Active involvement of investors in the project The active involvement component of crowdfunding is not included in the project
(D)
proposal for two reasons: First to separate clear from the phenomena of
crowdsourcing and second to avoid information overload towards respondents.
Material copy of the project outcome (E)

Investorss receive a DVD which documents the project and shows the best routes to
run with interactive maps, pictures & videos.

Investors participate on financial success of

project (F)

50% of future advertising revenues generated with the runner website will be shared
among the 500 investors.

Community platform for investors (G)

This was not included in the proposal to avoid information overload and reduce
complexity of the proposal.

Project outcome is freely available to

everybody (H)

As the project is realized in public areas the running routes and deposit locker can
be used by everybody. Also by people who did not invest in the project.

Requirements due to conceptual model

The theme of the project needs to be related The topic running was choosen, instead for a example a music or movie project, as
to a topic which is testable for lead user
lead user characteristics can be measured easily.
characteristics
Requirements due to research question
Creation of something new

Talking to several lead users in the field of running led to the conclusion that the
project topics marked running routes with distance markings and deposit lockers
for runner are new for most cities.

Based on the results of a pre-test with 21 respondents some minor changes were made in the proposal
to improve comprehensibility. The proposal and questionnaire were also translated into German
language (see appendix 2). The German version of the proposal was translated backwards into English
by a German native, who is not involved in the topic, to ensure that the translation is correct.

29

3.3. Measurement Development

An overview of the scales that were used to measure the variables of the conceptual model can be
found in table 3. Most of them are based on existing scales used previously by other researchers. For
the variables certainty effect, involvement and supportiveness new scales were developed, as no
appropriate existing scales were found. The scales were developed by screening scales that measured
similar concepts, by brainstorming with another researcher and by discussing with consumers. Scales
were developed with respect to the guidelines by Churchill (1979).

The questionnaire was pre-tested with 21 international students. Based on their feedback the wording
of some questions was adjusted to ensure a better understanding. The data of the pre-test were used to
check that each of the 15 variables is indeed represented by a scale that is valid and reliable. While a
sample of 21 student respondents is by no means reliable, it can be indicative for signalling major
problems. All scales were checked for inter-item-correlations, item-to-total correlations and
Cronbachs alpha, based on the standard minimum values mentioned by Lindquist (1981). To ensure
relibility of the scales, Cronbachs alpha needs to have a minimum of 0.7 according to Lindquist. The
inter-item correlation, which checks if questions practically do not ask the same question, should be
between 0.1 and 0.6 for all individual items. The item-to-total correlation should lie between the limits
of 0.3 and 0.8.

After exclusion of one item each of the constructs measuring intention to invest, personal utility and
social utility all constructs, except self-expressiveness, reported sufficient alphas. Economic value,
abilities initiator and involvement reported alphas below the critical value defined by Lindquist
(1981). But as all three scales had alphas above 0.65, they were still acceptable based on the
judgement of the researcher. The pre-test reported an insufficient alpha of 0.562 for selfexpressiveness, but assuming that the alpha will increase with more respondents the scale was kept.
The scale measuring supportiveness reported a high alpha of 0.927. But a mean value of 2.15 (on a 7point Likert scale) and the fact that 55% of the respondents marked on both items the lowest possible
value of 1, led to the judgement that it is not an appropriate means to measure the construct. Therefore,
a new scale for supportiveness, developed by the researcher, replaced the previous one. Apart from
minor excesses all inter-item and item-to-total correlations where within the limit set by Lindquist
(1981). All scales were measured on 7-point Likert scales, where 4 was the neutral point, and 1
strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree. An overview of the scales used in the questionnaire and its
alphas is shown in table 3.

30

Table 3: Scales used in the questionnaire

Variable

Adapted from:

Used Items

Intention to use
Kleijnen et al. (2007)
Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002)

Unlikely - likely
Uncertain certain
Definitely would not invest Definitely would invest

Economic Value
Perceived economic value of
the project

Economic Value
Mathwick et al. (2001)

To invest in the project is of good economic value

Overall, I am happy with the investment conditions
The price you have to pay to support the project is too high, given what
you receive in return (r)

Lottery Effect
The chance to gain an
exceedingly financial profit

Monetary Motive
Lee et al. (2007)

I take a chance and might win big money with small money
I make money easily
There is a chance to win big money
I heard other "hit the jackpot" by investing in such a project

Pre-Test
Alpha

Final
Alpha

0.890

0.952

0.680

0.652

0.792

0.804

0.738

0.578

Intention
Intention to Invest

Driving Value

I like to receive a tangible product (e.g. a DVD) that results from such a
crowdfunding project
I do not mind about a material copy of the outcome (r) (item dropped)
Receiving a guaranteed product as an outcome of such a project is
important to me

Certainty Effect
A guaranteed tangible output of
the project

Personal utility
Perceived personal functional
utility

Hedonic and Utilitarian

Consumer Attitudes
Batra and Ahtola (1991)

useless - useful
harmful - beneficial
foolish -wise

0.861

0.886

Utility Society
Perceived functional utility for
society

Hedonic and Utilitarian

Consumer Attitudes
Batra and Ahtola (1991)

useless - useful
harmful - beneficial
foolish -wise

0.863

0.923

Abilities Initiator
Perceived abilities of project
initiator

Attraction (task)
DeCarlo and Leigh (1996)

I have confidence in his ability

He appears to be not competent in the field (r )
If I wanted to get things done, I could depend on him

0.670

0.797

0.562

0.795

0.774

0.852

0.758

0.941

0.717

0.830

0.880

0.813

0.652

0.711

Expressiveness
Self-Expressiveness
Possibility to use engagement in Nyvsveen et. al (2005)
crowdfunding to express oneself

I would talk to others about the project

I would mentioned in my online profile that I support the project (as
MySpace, StudiVZ, Hyves, XING)
Supporting the project would be part of how I express my personality

Involvement (social)
Community
Involvement with group of peer- Wilkes (1992)
investors

I like to be involved with other people that participate in such projects

I enjoy being around other consumers that take part in crowd funding
projects
Taking part in communities related to such crowd funding projects and
activities is important to me

Endorser Similarity
Similarity Initiator
Perceived similarity with project Feick and Higie (1992)
initiator

Robert and I probably have similar values and beliefs

Robert is quite a bit like me
It's likely that Robert and I have similar tastes and preferences

Epistemic Value

Novelty (Activity)
Unger (1981)

There is novetly in it
It satisfies my sense of curiosity
It offers novel experiences
I feel like I'm exploring new worlds

Antencedents
Enjoyment

Intrinsic Enjoyment
Mathwick et al. (2001)

I enjoy supporting crowdfunding projects, not just for the things I

receive in return
I invest in crowdfunding projects for the pure enjoyment of it.

Involvement

I appreciate receiving exclusive up-to-date information about recent

developments of the project
Supporting such a project would make me feel that it is also my project
I am very interested in what others think about the project.

Supportiveness

I think it is important to support people with new ideas like Robert

I like to contribute to things which seem right to me
If I would never give to crowdfunding project, I would feel a bit bad
about myself (item dropped)

0.677

Moderator
Lead user Characteristics
Lead User Characteristics
Lead User characteristics in the Franke and Shah (2003)
field of running

In the field of running I usually find out about new products, solutions
and services earlier than others
In the circle of my friends I am regarded as being on the cutting edge
in the field of running
I have benefited significantly by the early adoption and use of new
products, solutions and services in the field of running
Concerning running I have new needs which are not satisfied by
existing products and services

0.849

0.879

31

3.4. Sample and Data Collection

The data were collected by means of convenience sampling (Churchill, 1999) via the online survey
tool www.thesistool.com. The link to the questionnaire was distributed via the personal mailing list of
the researcher and in particular via the German student network StudiVZ. The request to take part in
the survey was posted in the public guestbooks of direct personal contacts of the researcher. Following
the snowball principle (Churchill, 1999), these contacts were asked to forward this request to their
contacts. An e-mail with the request to participate in the survey was also sent to all students of the
mastercourse Marketing Strategy 2006/2007 at Vrije Universitaet Amsterdam. In total a direct request
to participate in the survey was sent to about 300 people.

Additionally, the request to participate in that survey was posted systematically in several StudiVZ
newsgroups related to running. The request to take part in the that survey was also posted in public
newsgroups related to running such as www.laufen-aktuell.de and www.runnersworld.com. This was
done to assure that the sampling frame contains a sufficient level of lead users to test the hypothesis
concerning its moderating effect.

The minimum ratio of observation to variables for a multiple regression is specified with 5:1 (Hair et
al., 1998). The scales measuring the ten direct effects and the moderating effect use in total 37 items.
Consequently a minimum of 185 respondents is required to conduct the regression.

32

4. RESULTS

4.1 Sample Characteristics

A data collection period of three weeks yielded 359 responses. 44.1% had missing values on the scale
measuring intention to invest and/or more missing values on other scales. After deleting these cases
and two outlier cases (see chapter 4.3.) a final sample of 196 respondents remained. The sample meets
the requirements for a minimum ratio of observations to variables with a ratio of 5.3:1 (Hair et al.,
1998).
Demographic Characteristics
The final sample of 196 respondents is fairly represented by both genders with of 46.5% women and
51.5% men (missing percent to 100% are due to missing values). 3% of respondents are under 21
years, the majority of the respondents (65.3%) is between 21-30 years, 14.8% are between 31-40
years, 10.7% are between 41-50 years and 5.1% are older than 50 years. Most respondents orginate
from Germany (79.6%), 9.2% from the Netherlands and 9.7% from other countries. About one quarter
(24%) of the respondents is holding shares. As the questionnaire was also distributed via the German
student-network StudiVZ and the mailing list of master of marketing students at VU Amsterdam, the
high representation of students of 50% is traceable. 29.1% of the respondents are employees, 9.2%
self-employed, 2% unemployed and 8.7% hold another unspecified status. 78.6% of the respondents
have an academic background. 18.9% of the respondents have a university background in economics
or business, 13.3% specialise in social science, 13.3% in natural science, 10.2% in the field of
music/art/design, 5.6% in law and 17.3% have some other field of specialisation. Only 1.4% of the
respondents in the sample have experience with crowdfunding. A graphical presentation of the sample
statistics is given in figure 3.

33

Figure 3: Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of sample

34

Variables: Means and Standard Deviations

As all constructs were measured on 7-point Likert scales a mean value above 4 indicates on average a
positive perception of the value driver among respondents. A mean value with a value below 4
indicates a perception which is on average negative among respondents towards the corresponding
variable. The mean value of intention to invest is 3.95 and suggests that the respondents were on
average rather neutral in their intention to invest in the project. But the standard deviation of 2.011
indicates a great variability in the intention to invest among the respondents. Figure 4 clarifies this
phenomenon. Intention to invest is not normally distributed, the plot shows a U-shape with two peaks
at the outer ends of the scale. It indicates that respondents had either a strong intention to invest or a
strong intention not to invest. The difficulty which comes along with a dependent variable that is not
normally distributed is discussed in chapter 4.3.

Figure 4: Histogram of criterion variable intention to invest

Intention

30

25

Frequency

20

15

10

Mean =3,9507
Std. Dev. =2,01146
N =196

0
1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

Intention

Economic value (mean=4.51) has a positive mean value, while the other two variables of the financial
value dimension, lottery effect (mean=2.89) and certainty effect (mean=3.82) have means below the
neutral point 4. The mean value of the lottery effect with 2.89 the second lowest of all variables. The
personal utility of the project is perceived positive with a mean value of 4.86. The antecedent society
utility with 5.32 has the second highest mean of all variables. The social value of self-expression is
rated in neutral on average with a mean of 3.99. The other social value community (3.35) is perceived
negative. Respondents rated on average an epistemic value of 4.34 for the project proposal. The
emotions of involvement (mean=4.05) and enjoyment (mean= 3.87) are perceived rather neutral on
average. The feeling of supportiveness (mean=5.41) is strong among respondents, this variable has the
highest mean of all variables. The perceived abilities inititator (mean=4.22) is positive, while the
perceived similarity initiator (mean=3.51) is negative on average. The sample frame has a low value
for lead user characteristics in the field of running (mean=2.72). The high standard deviation of 1.61

35

indicates broad variation on this characteristic among the respondents. Table 4 provides an overview
of the means and standard deviations for all variables included in the research model.

Table 4: Means and standard deviations on value drivers of exemplary crowdfunding case
Variables

Mean

Std. Deviation

Variables

Mean

Std. Deviation

Intention to invest
Intention to invest

3,95

2,011

Epistemic Value
Epistemic Value

4,34

1,321

Financial Value
Economic Value
Lottery Effect
Certainty Effect

4,51
2,89
3,82

1,319
1,325
1,573

Emotional Value
Enjoyment
Involvement
Supportiveness

3,87
4,05
5,41

1,737
1,393
1,271

Functional Value
Personal Utility

4,86

1,67

Social Value
Self-Expression
Community

Antencedents
Society Utility
Abilities Initiator
Similarity Initiator

5,32
4,22
3,51

1,485
1,223
1,49

3,99
3,35

1,508
1,458

Investor Characteristics
Lead User

2,72

1,612

4.2 Multi-item measures

Scales were checked for reliability and validity. Reliability was verified by using Cronbachs alpha.
The scale measuring supportiveness did not report a sufficient level of alpha (alpha=0.471). After
dropping one item, the new and final two-item scale reports an alpha of 0.677. The scale measuring
the certainty effect also reported an insufficient alpha of 0.514. Item 2 of the scale certainty effect was
deleted, the final two-item scale reports an mediocre alpha of 0.578. Finally the scales measuring
certainty effect (alpha=0.578), economic value (alpha=0.652), supportiveness (alpha=0.677) and
novelty seeking (alpha=0.698) did not reach the critical value for Cronbachs alpha of 0.7 set by
Lindquist (1981). Due to the judgement of the researcher these values are still acceptable. All other
multi-item measures are reliable with an alpha above the limit of 0.7. The last column of table 3 shows
the alpha coefficients of the scales.
To check validity the inter-item correlation and the item-to-total scales were analysed. Again values
set by Lindquist (1981) werde used as a guideline. For the scales measuring economic value, certainty
effect, self-expressiveness, supportiveness and involvement inter-item correlation and the item-to-total
correlation are within the limits. The validity for these scales is therefore ensured. The scales lottery
effect, abilities initiator, epistemic value, and enjoyment slightly exceeded the inter-item-correlation.
The scales measuring intention to invest, similarity initiator, community, personal utility, social utility
and lead user characteristics exceeded the inter-item correlation and the item-to-total correlation, too.
Hence, validity cannot be ensured for these scales for the critical values set by Lindquist (1981). But
the values are still valid in the judgement of the researcher.

36

4.3 Test of Hypotheses

A set of regression analyses was conducted to test the research model and its hypotheses. The analysis
follows the guideline of Hair et al. (1998). Beforehand the data were checked for the underlying
assumptions.

Test of model assumption

The data set was tested for the underlying assumption for multiple regression analysis. Normality of
the variables was examined with an empirical measure reflecting the shape of distribution. For every
variable the z-scores of skewness and kurtosis were calculated to check for significant deviations from
normality. For the variables lottery effect, economic value, abilities initiator, personal utility, social
utility, lead user and supportiveness significant deviations were found for skewness. The variables
intention to invest, similarity initiator, expressiveness, community, personal utility, lead user,
supportiveness and enjoyment deviate from normality in the sense of kurtosis. An overview table with
calculations is included in appendix 4. The assumption of normality was also checked graphically,
normality plots gave a clearer picture about the of the shape of the distribution. The results revealed
that the variables mentioned previously show deviations from normality. Variables deviating from
normality were transformed by taking the square root. But the transformed value did not lead to better
results for the regression analyses. Hair et al. (1998, p. 81) argue that for a sample size of 200 or more,
the detrimental effect of non-normality may be negligible. Following this argumentation and a sample
size of 196, the non-transformed values were used for further calculations and the assumption of the
normality distributions was neglected.

The assumption of linearity is assessed by an analysis of residuals of the overall variate and partial
regression plots for each independent variable in the analysis. A visual review of a plot of standardized
predicted values versus studentized residuals for the dependent variable (appendix 6) shows no
nonlinear pattern to the residuals. Thus for the overall equation the assumption of linearity is met.
Partial regression plots for each independent variable in the analysis prove that no nonlinear pattern is
shown. Thus the assumption of linearity for each independent variable is also met.

The assumption of constancy of the residuals across values of the independent variables is checked by
a visual examination of residuals (appendix 5). The plot does not show any pattern of increasing or
decreasing residuals. Hence, homoscedasticity can be assumed.

Normal Distribution of error terms

The assumption of normality of the error term of the variate was conducted with a visual examination
of the normal probability plots of residuals. The plot (appendix 7) shows that values fall along the

37

diagonal without any substantial departure. Residuals are considered to represent a normal
distribution, hence the regression variate meets the assumption of normality.

Multi-collinearity
Multi-collinearity was checked by examining the variance inflation factors (VIF) for each variable
(appendix 8). For all variables VIF is below the critical value of 10 (Hair et al., 1998). Also the direct
correlations between variables were inspected (appendix 9). There are several significant correlations
between several independent variables. In the following cases exists a person correlation above 0.6:
society utility and personal utility, society utility and economic value, expressiveness and community.
As VIF is not critical for all variables and as society utility is not a variable with a direct effect on
intention - and as such not part of overall regression analysis - the revealed correlation does not seem
to be problematic.

Outliers
The data set was checked for multivariate outliers using the Mahalanobis D measure. Calculating the
probabilities of the Mahalanobis D revealed two cases with a probalility less than 0.001
(D=35.58, p<0.001; D=31.58, p<0.001). After a visual inspection of these cases and a comparison of
its values on the single variable to the mean, these cases were deleted.

Mediating effects
To test the hypotheses concerning the mediating effect the Baron-and-Kenny-approach (1986) was
used.

Society utility (=0.452, p<0.01) and abilities initiator (=0.267, p<0.01) have a significant positive
effect on economic value (R=0.410, F=65.419, p<0.01). Society utility (=0.469, p<0.01) and abilities
initiator (=0.216, p<0.01) do also have a significant positive direct effect on intention to invest
(R=0.379, F=57.442, p<0.01). Including Society utility and abilities initiator in the regression with
the 10 hypothesised predictor variables and intention to invest as dependent variable, shows that
economic value is indeed mediated positively by both antecedents. Economic value (=0.300, p<0.05)
has a positive direct effect on intention to invest, while society utility and abilities initiator do not
have. Hence, economic value is a fully mediator of society utility and abilities initiator. Hypotheses
1b and 1c are approved. Details can be found in appendix 10.

Society utility (=0.426, p<0.01) and similarity initiator (=0.204, p<0.01) have a significant positive
effect on supportivess (R=0.291, F=38.251, p<0.01). Society utility (=0.466, p<0.01) and similarity
initiator (=0.297, p<0.01) do also have a significant positive direct effect on intention to invest
(R=0.420, F=68.109, p<0.01). Including Society utility and similarity initiator in the regression with

38

the 10 hypothesised predictor variables and intention to invest as a dependent variable, shows no
significance for the hypotheses that supportiveness is mediated positively by both antecedents.
Supportiveness does not have a significant effect on intention to invest. Hence, supportiveness is no
mediator for society utility and similarity initiator. Hypotheses 10b and 10c are rejected. Details are
shown in appendix 11.

Moderating effect
A regression analysis testing the impact of the 10 predictor variables on intention to invest leads to a
R of 0.574 (see table 5). A regression including additionally the variable lead user characteristics and
the mean-centered interaction term of lead user characteristics and personal utility (Baron and Kenny,
1986), lead to a better model fit. The R-square goes up to 0.601 (see table 6). R increases by 2.6%,
thus the inclusion of the moderator effect lead to better overall model fit. The increased adjusted R
(from 0.550 to 0.573) indicates no overfitting of the model. In the following the moderator of lead user
characteristics therefore is included when testing the direct effects of the 10 hypothesised predictor
values.

Table 5: Modelfit without moderating effect

Model Summary
Model
1

R
R Square
,758a
,574

Adjusted
R Square
,550

Std. Error of
the Estimate
1,34494

a. Predictors: (Constant), Enjoy, Lottery, Certainty,

Epistemic, Involvement, Support, Community,
PersUtility, Economic, Express

Table 6: Modelfit with moderating effect of lead user characteristics

Model Summary
Model
1

R
R Square
,775a
,601

Adjusted
R Square
,573

Std. Error of
the Estimate
1,31205

a. Predictors: (Constant), Lead_PersUt, Economic,

Lottery, LeadUser, Certainty, Support, Community,
Involvement, Epistemic, Enjoy, Express, PersUtility

Table 7: ANOVA
ANOVAb
Model
1

Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
440,643
292,652
733,294

df
12
170
182

Mean Square
36,720
1,721

F
21,331

Sig.
,000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Lead_PersUt, Economic, Lottery, LeadUser, Certainty,

Support, Community, Involvement, Epistemic, Enjoy, Express, PersUtility
b. Dependent Variable: Intention

39

Table 8: Coefficients Regression

Coefficientsa

Model
1

(Constant)
Economic
Lottery
Certainty
PersUtility
Express
Community
Epistemic
Enjoy
Involvement
Support
LeadUser
Lead_PersUt

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
-1,754
,514
,508
,104
-,020
,079
,158
,074
,398
,090
,195
,097
-,103
,097
,128
,099
,181
,074
-,139
,090
-,057
,100
-,016
,079
,146
,046

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,333
-,013
,123
,325
,148
-,074
,084
,155
-,096
-,036
-,012
,174

t
-3,414
4,891
-,252
2,138
4,406
2,010
-1,069
1,293
2,426
-1,538
-,570
-,199
3,160

Sig.
,001
,000
,802
,034
,000
,046
,287
,198
,016
,126
,570
,842
,002

Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance
VIF
,507
,840
,713
,431
,434
,496
,555
,575
,601
,577
,606
,771

1,972
1,190
1,402
2,320
2,302
2,016
1,802
1,739
1,664
1,734
1,651
1,297

a. Dependent Variable: Intention

Direct effects
The R-Square indicates that 60.1% of total variation of the intention to invest is explained by the
regression model. ANOVA analysis shows that the overall model is significant with an overall F value
of 21.33

Five out of ten hypothesised direct effects on intention to invest are significant. Economic value has
with a standardized coefficient of 0.333 (p<0.01) the strongest influence on intention. Also personal
utility has with a standardized coefficient of 0.325 (p<0.01) has a strong positive effect on intention.
Certainty effect (=0.123, p<0.05), self-expressiveness (=0.148, p<0.05) and enjoyment (=0.155,
p<0.05) do also have a significant positive influence on intention to invest. Hypotheses 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8
are approved. Economic value, personal utility, certainty effect, self-expressiveness and enjoyment
have a significant positive impact on the intention to invest. The lottery effect, community effect,
epistemic value and the emotions of involvement and supportiveness do not have a significant effect on
the intention to invest. Thus, hypotheses 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected.

Lead user characteristics (=0.174, p<0.01) moderate positively and significantly the positive effect
of personal utility on intention to invest. Hypothesis 11 is approved. Figure 5 gives an overview of the
conceptual model with achieved values.

40

Figure 5: Conceptual Model: Results

Lead User Characteristics
0.216**
Ability Initiator

Financial Value
Economic Value
Lottery Effect
Certainty Effect

0.174**
0.333**
-0.013
0.123*

Functional Value

0.469**

Personal Utility
Social Value

0.325**

0.148*

Self-Expression
Society Utility
Peer Investors

-0.074

Intention to
invest in a
crowdfunding
project

Epistemic Value
Epistemic Value

0.084

0.426**
Emotional Value
Enjoyment
Involvement
Supportiveness

Similarity Initiator

0.155*
-0.096
-0.036

0.204**

**p<0.01 / *p<0.05

4.4. Cross classification

A cross-classification of significant differences on means on the measured variables for different
groups of the sample on the basis of demographic characteristics can be found in table 9. To test the
significance of the differences between two groups of respondents, such as women and men, the
independent samples t-test was run. A one-way ANOVA was run to test whether there are differences
among more thantwo groups, as for example the field of studies of the respondents.
A significant difference in intention to invest was found between students and non-students. Students
with a mean of 3.33 have a significant lower intention to invest than non-students (mean of 4.36).
Women and men had significant differences in two variables. Women perceived the abilites of the
initiator significantly more positive than men (mean=4.47 vs. mean=3.99; P<0,01). Also on the
variable enjoyment, woman scored significantly higher than men (mean=4.18 vs. mean=3.60; P<0,05).
Splitting the respondents into the place of their residence revealed significant differences in their
feeling of being supportive. Respondents from Germany have a mean of 5.42, respondents from The
Netherlands 4.25 and respondents from other countries a mean of 5.58.

41

Dividing the sample according to their fields of study reveals significant differences for the variables
supportiveness and similarity. Respondents with a university background in design, music, art and
other unspecified subjects had the highest mean for self-expression and similarity initiator.
Whether respondents hold a student status results in significant differences in the mean value of five
variables. It was mentioned above that non-students have a higher intention to invest. Non-students do
also have higher means on the variables certainty effect, self-expressiveness, community and
involvement. People who have been already experienced with crowdfunding showed a significant
higher mean on the variable community.

Table 9: Cross classification of significant differences on mean values

Gender
Female
Male
Significance (2-tailed)

Intention to
Abilites
Enjoyment
Invest
Initiator
4,00
4,47
4,18
3,91
3,99
3,60
0,008
0,020
0,759

Place of residence
Germany
Netherland
Other
Significance

Intention to
Supportivene
Invest
ss
3,98
5,42
4,00
4,25
3,49
5,58
0,592
0,026

Field of studies
No studies
Economics/Business
Social Science
Natural Science
Law
Design/Art/Music
Other
Significance

Intention to
Abilites
Invest
Initiator
3,80
4,12
3,91
4,37
3,26
5,39
4,28
0,105 0.005

Intention to
Invest
Workstatus
Student
Non-Students
Significance (2-tailed)

Crowdfunding
Experience
Yes
No
Significance (2-tailed)

3,55
4,36
0,040

4,07
3,77
4,23
4,52
3,60
4,67
4,87

Supportivene
ss
5,66
5,09
4,76
5,60
5,23
5,86
5,95
0.08

Certainty
Effect

SelfCommunity
Involvement
Expressivene
ss
3,56
3,78
3,11
3,88
4,12
4,20
3,61
4,22
0,011
0,049
0,017
0,033

Intention to
Community
Invest
4,44
5,00
3,96
3,35
0,679
0,049

42

4.5. Feedback and reactions of respondents

Some respondents gave verbal or written feedback on the project proposal and the questionnaire. The
feedback revealed that some of the respondents showed a lack of acceptance for the term of investment
in context with the project proposal. They did not agree with terming the act of giving 10 Euro to the
running project as an investment. They did not see themselves as investors. Moreover some
respondents became distrustful about the terming. They saw the act of giving 10 Euro for the project
more as a contribution to the public, as a supportive move towards the initiator or just as a purchase.
Some respondents also were sceptical about the conditions of the proposal. They criticised the
underlying calculation of the proposal and argued that the sum of 5.000 Euro would be not enough to
realize the project.

The most sceptical feedback came from those respondents recruited in the online newsgroup
www.laufen-aktuell.de. Those respondents who do not have any direct or indirect relation to the
researcher unlike those recruited via the snowball principle, were generally more distrustful towards
the request to participate in the questionnaire. Some suspected deception behind the request.

Furthermore, some of the respondents from the newsgroup www.laufen-aktuell.de, potential lead
users, gave also detailed feedback, critics and additional ideas on the functional design of the runner
project. They were discussing the utility of the runner project, exposing weaknesses and suggesting
improvements.

43

5. DISCUSSION

5.1. General discussion of results

The aim of this research was to discover the motivation for individual consumers to invest financially
in a crowdfunding project. 10 direct intention-driving-values were identified. For two driving values
two antencedents each were found. Lead user characteristics were assumed to moderate the intention
driving value personal utility. The proposed model integrated 15 hypotheses. Eight of these
hypotheses were confirmed. Within in the value dimensions financial value, functional value, social
value and emotional value elements were found to significantly drive intention to invest. Epistemic
value is the only value dimension without any element that has significant impact on the intention to
invest. The fact that for four out of five value dimensions significant value-drivers were found
indicates that the theory of consumption value is an appropriate framework to capture peoples
motivation on crowdfunding. The results support the argumentation of Konana et al. (2005). It seems
necessary to merge social, economic and psychological perspectives achieve a comprehensive
understanding of consumers motivation to invest in a crowdfunding project.

Financial Value
Perceived positive economic value, as the overall assessment of financial and tangible give and get
components, drives the intention to participate in a crowdfunding project. The impact of economic
value on intention is the strongest of all predictor variables. Self-directed motives seem to play an
important role in the context of crowdfunding. Economic value serves a fully mediator of society
utility and abilities initiator in their impact on intention to invest. Hence consumers take the abilities
of the initiators and their perceived utility of the project outcome for society into account, when
assessing economic value of a crowdfunding project. The finding that women perceived the abilities of
Robert the project initiator significantly higher than men, can be possibly attributed to an opposite sex
effect. The certainty effect is significant, a guaranteed tangible output of the project has a positive
effect on the intention to invest. To receive a tangible output is of importance to consumers and
presents an intention driving value. The lottery effect has no significant impact on the intention to
invest. As the variable lottery effect achieved a very low mean, a possible explanation could be that
respondents in general did not see a possible chance to gain a large profit for the exemplary proposal.
As the exemplary proposal focussed on a regional project for runners, the opportunities for growth are
limited. Consequently also possibilities to gain a large profit are limited.

Functional utility
Personal utility is a strong predictor variable on intention to invest. The choice to take a runners
project as the exemplary crowdfunding case may contributed to the strength of the effect. As the

44

outcome of such a pointed project clearly gives different levels of use-utility to respondents. This
indicates also the high standard deviation for the total sample on personal utility. The predictor effect
of personal utility on the intention to invest is almost that strong as the effect of economic value. The
strongness of this impact is again an indicator for the importance which self-directed motives seem to
play in the context of crowdfunding.

Social Value
The possibility to use engagement in crowdfunding for self-expression has a positive significant effect
on the intention to invest. In consumer decision making processes concerning crowdfunding, the
possibility to use an engagement for self-expression presents an important value. There is no
relationship between the value derived by joining a crowdfunding community of peer-investors and the
intention to invest. An explanation for this non-existing relation could be the missing information
about a community of peer-investors in the exemplary project proposal. As a consequence respondents
may not really realize aspects and benefits which can come along with being part of a crowdfunding
community. This argumentation is supported by the fact that respondents with crowdfunding
experience had a significant higher mean value for the variable community. Maybe it is therefore
necessary t experience joining a community in order to realize its value.

Epistemic Value
The utility acquired from an alternatives capacity to arouse curiosity, provide novelty, and/or satisfy
a desire for knowledge (Sheth et al., 1991) has no influence on the intention to invest. Thus,
epistemic value is the only value dimension of the five-value model without any element that
influences intention.

Emotional Value
The emotional feeling of enjoyment is a significant driver of the intention to invest. Of all significant
value drivers, enjoyment is the weakest. Hedonic benefits derived by investing in crowdfunding
projects present a relevant value to respondents. Women in the sample had a significant higher mean
value on the variable enjoyment than men.
The feeling of involvement does not have significant impact on the intention to invest. The
involvement in a crowdfunding project does not present a value to consumers that drives their
intention to invest. A possible explanation is that the exemplary crowdfunding case offered only
passive and no active involvement to consumers. The proposal offered an exclusive newletter, but no
participation on decision-making to investors.
The positive influence of the feeling supportiveness on the intention to invest is not confirmed.
Supportive motives does play a role for the exemplary project.

45

As there is no significant impact of supportiveness on intention to invest, supportiveness does also not
serve as a mediator of similarity initiator and society utility on intention to invest. But both variables,
similarity initiator and society utility have significant positive impact on the feeling of supportiveness.

Moderator: Lead User characteristics

The intention-driving impact of personal utility is even stronger for lead users. There is no direct
positive relationship between the level of lead user characteristics and the intention to invest. Lead
users do not have a generally higher intention to invest. But if a lead user perceives a high level of
personal utility from the project outcome, he or she has a higher intention to obtain the outcome by
investing in the project than a non-lead user. Hence, the personal functional utility is especially
important for lead users.
This finding give support the Hippel (1988), who argues to involve lead user in the innovation process.

5.2. Managerial implications

The results of this research lead to a number of managerial implications. When setting up a
crowdfunding project, project initiators should pay particular attention the economic conditions of the
project. The get components should stay in a good relation to the give components. Project
initiators should clearly communicate their abilities to improve perceived economic value of the
project. A personal introduction and reference projects could be helpful to convince consumers of their
abilities. Furthermore initiators should point out the relevance of the project. If consumers see a
market demand for the project outcome they perceive a higher economic value of the project. Initiators
could work with market forecasts or trend scenarios to clarify the future need for the project outcome.

Personal utility is next to economic value the other main driving value of the intention to invest.
Project initiators should take this into account, when setting up their project. Involvement of (lead)
users in the pre-development phase of the project can be helpful to ensure a high level of use-utility to
consumers. When communicating the project, initiators should point out the functional utility of
project. Later on initiators should approach especially lead users as they have an even higher intention
to invest when perceiving a high level of personal utility.

As a guaranteed tangible copy of the project outcome presents a relevant value to consumers, initiators
should think about the provision of such. For a digital product as music the provision on a CD is not
very costly. In other contexts where the provision of a copy of the project outcome is more costly
initiators should balance wisely. If the costs of doing so would lead to a strong increase of the amount
of money consumers have to invest, initiators should be careful. If the rise of the perceived give
components exceed the perceived get-components, this results in a decreased economic value.

46

As consumers value the possibility to use investments in crowdfunding projects for self-expression,
initiators should provide means to enable consumers to do so easily. This could be for example an
exclusive digital logo of the crowdfunding project which investors can incorporate in their online
profiles (as e.g. myspace, hyves, studiVZ). The provision of other tangible advertising mediums as tshirts or stickers of the project gives opportunity to consumers the present themselves outside the
internet. Initiators also benefit when consumers communicate the project, as it may attract new
investors.

Initiators should recognize that consumer value enjoyment when setting up the crowdfunding design
and in their communication. The mechanism and the implementation should not be too technical and
complicated. Moreover implementation should provide experimental surplus value to consumers. This
surplus value should be communicated clearly to consumers.

A major challenge for project initiators is to overcome the distrust of consumers. An early
involvement of consumers in the development of the crowdfunding project is also suggestive to obtain
customer trust. As feedback of respondents revealed, many of them have a critical attitude towards
projects asking for monetarian contributions. The calculations and the budgeting of the project should
be disclosed to investors. The initiator should design the project as open as possible. The provision of
references, an open communication policy, personal and immediate replies to consumer requests and
regular updates concerning recent developments should be taken for granted.

5.3. Limitations and future research

The hypotheses of the current research are derived from a content analysis of current crowdfunding
projects, a literature review in relevant scientific fields and screening of online newsgroups concerning
crowdfunding. A qualitative research among consumers already involved with crowdfunding could be
useful to gain value-driving clues that have not been revealed by now.

The current research is a first attempt to build a model of the driving values and its antecedents to
invest in a crowdfunding project, as well as the moderating consumer trait of lead user characteristics.
The model is extensible to that effect that it has room for the incorporation of more moderating effects
by consumer characteristics. It could lead to interesting insights to examine for example the
moderating effects of different consumer characteristics on the value dimension. This could be for
example the the level of personal self-expressiveness, level of inherent novelty ,level of altruism or the
level of collectivism. This could also serve as a starting point to examine and cluster different types of
consumers. It is thinkable that different types of consumers, value the value dimension differently.
They may perceive themselves correspondingly as investors, supporters, customers etc. Further

47

knowledge in this area can be very useful to segment consumers and subsequently improve targeting
and communication.

Another promising approach would be to examine the underlying motivation with help of a means-end
chain to understand consumer goals on different hierarchical levels. It could be possible to
differentiate between end-values of crowdfunding projects, which may result in a general
categorization of crowdfunding projects. In any case, a research which categorizes intention-driving
values with a mean-ends chain can help to ensure consistency in project attributes and communication.
Categorizing these driving values by hierarchy can deliver useful insights for design of crowdfunding
projects and its communication.

Also research on how the target amount, the number of peer-investor and the minimum size for an
investment influences consumers decision making processes can be very useful for practitioners who
want to set up a crowdfunding project

The research model is tested with an exemplary crowdfunding case. It is questionable to which extent
results of this research are transferable to other crowdfunding projects in a different context. Another
exemplary case may lead to different results. It would be interesting to test the model using exemplary
(or real) cases with other contexts.

48

6. REFERENCES
Adair, A.S., Berry, J.N., McGreal, W.S. (1994), Investment decision making: a behavioural
perspective, Journal of Property Finance, 5(4), p. 32-42.
Barberis, Thaler (2003), A Survey of Behaviorial Finance, Handbook of the Economics of Finance
Bagozzi, R.P, Dholakia, U.M. (2002), Intentional social action in virtual communities, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 16(2).
Bagozzi, R.P, Gopinath, M. , Nyer, P.U. (1999), The role of emotions in marketing, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), p. 184-206.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6), p. 1173-1182.
Bendapudi, N., Surenda, N.S., Bendapudi, V., (1996), Enhancing helping behaviour: An integrative
framework for promotion planning, Journal of Marketing, 60, p. 33-49.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H., Glynn, M.A. (1995), Understanding the bond of identification: An
investigation of its correlates among art museum members, Journal of Marketing, 59(4).
Churchill, G.A. (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs, Journal
of Marketing Research, 16(1), p. 64-73.
Churchill. G.A. (1999), Marketing research: methodological foundations (7th edition), Dryden Press
Cotte, J. (1997), Chances, trances and lots of slots: Gambling motives and consumption experiences,
Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4), p. 380-406.
Dabholkar, P.A., Bagozzi, R.P. (2002), An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service:
Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 30(3), p. 184-201.
Dyson, E. (1997), Release 2.0. New York Broadway Books
Easley, R.F. (2005), Ethical issues in the music industry response to innovation and piracy, Journal of
Business Ethics, 62, p. 163168.
Ellsberg, D. (1961), Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
75(4), p. 643-669.
Feick, L., Robin, A.H. (1992), The effects of preference heterogenity and source characteristics on ad
processing and jundgments about endorsers, Journal of Advertising, 21 (2), p. 9-24.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and
research, Reading MA, Addison-Wesley
Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and their brands: Relationship theory in consumer research, Journal
of Consumer Research, 24, p. 343-373.
Franke, N., Shah, S. (2003), How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of
assistance and sharing among end-users, Research Policy, 32(1), p. 157-178.

49

Franke, N., Hippel, E., Schreier, M. (2006), Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test
of lead-user theory, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), p. 301315.
Franke, N., Bruber, M., Harhoff, D. Henkel, J. (2006), What you are is what you likesimilarity
biases in venture capitalists evaluations of start-up teams, Journal of Business Venturing, 21, p. 802
826.
Hair, J.F., Tatham, R.L., Anderson, R.E., William, B. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis (5th edition),
Uppers Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
Heath, C and Tversky, A. (1991), Preference and belief - ambiguity and competence in choice under
uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1), p. 5-28.
Hirschman, E. (1980), Innovativeness, novelty seeking and consumer creativity, The Journal of
Consumer Research, 7, p. 283-295.
Hippel, E. (1988), Predicting the source of innovation: Lead Users, From Sources of Innovation,
Oxford University Press, p. 102-115.
Hippel, E. Krogh, G. (2006), Free revealing and the private-collective model for innovation
incentives, R&D Management, 36(3), p. 295-306.
Hoffmann, C.A. (1972), The venture capital investment process : A particular aspect of regional
economic development, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Houston, M. B., Walker, B. A. (1996), Self-relevance and pruchase goals: Mapping a consumer
decision, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, p. 232-245.
Howe, J. (2006), The Rise of Crowdsourcing, Wired Magazine (June 2006).
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk,
Econometrica, 47(2), p. 263-292.
Klandermans, B. (1984), Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource
mobilzation theory, American Sociological Review, 49(5), p. 583-600.
Kivetz, R. (2003), The effects of effort and intrinsic motivation on risky choice, Marketing Science, 22
(4), p. 477.
Kleijnen, M., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. (2007), An assessment of value creation in mobile service
delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness, Journal of Retailing, 83(1), p. 33-46.
Konana, P., Balasubramanian, S. (2005), The SocialEconomicPsychological model of technology
adoption and usage: An application to online investing, Decision Support Systems, 39, p. 505 524.
Koufaris,M., Kambil,A., LaBarbera, P.A. (2002), Consumer Behavior in Web-Based Commerce: An
Empirical Study, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), p. 115-138.
Landstrm, H. (1998), Informal investors as entrepreneurs, Technovation, 18(5), p. 312-333.
Lee, H.P., Chae, P.K, Lee, H.S., Kim, Y. K. (2007), The five-factor gambling motivation model,
Psychiatry Research, 150 (1), p. 21-32.
Ligas, M. (2000), People, products, and pursuits: Exploring the relationship between consumer goals
and product meanings, Psychologie & Marketing, 17(11), p. 983-1003.

50

Luecke, R., Katz, R. (2003), Managing Creativity and Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Mansfield, E. (1968), Industrial research an technological innovation: An econometric analysis, New
York: W.W: Norton.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., Rigdon, E. (2001), Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement
and application in the catalog and internet shopping environment, Journal of Retailing, 77 (1), p. 3956.
Maula, M., Autio, E., Arenius, P. (2005), What drives micro-angel investments?, Small Business
Economics, 25(5), p. 459 457.
Morrison, P.D., Roberts, J.H., Midgley, D.F. (2003), The nature of lead users and measurement of
leading edge status, Research Policy, 33, p. 351-362.
Noble, C.H. (1997), Exploring the relationships among liminal transitions, symbolic consumption, and
the extended self, Psychology & Marketing, 14(1), p. 29-47.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E., Thorbjornsen, H. (2005), Intention to use mobile services: Antencedents
and cross-service comparisons, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (3), p. 330-346.
Rosen, B.N., Sandler, D.M., Shani, D. (1991), Social Issues and Socially Responsible Investment
Behavior: A Preliminary Empirical Investigation, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 25(2), p. 221-234.
Sahlman, W.A. (1997), How to write a great business plan, Harvard Business Review, 75, p. 98 108.
Sawhney, M.S., Eliashberg, J. (1996), A parsimonious model for forecasting gross box-office revenues
of motion pictures, Marketing Science, 15(2), p. 113-131.
Schau, H.J., Gilly, M.C. (2003), We are what we post? self-presentation in personal web space,
Journal of Consumer Research, 30, p. 385-404.
Unger, L.S., Kernan, J.B. (1983), On the meaning of leisure: Am investigation of some determinants of
the subjective experience, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, p. 381-391.
Varian, H.R. (2005), Copying and copyright, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2), pp. 121-138.
Venkatraman, M. P. (1991), The impact of innovativeness and innovation type on adaption, Journal of
Retailing, 67(1), p. 51-67.
Walker, C. (2004), A charitable view of altruism: Commentary on 'What is altruism?' by Elias Khalil,
Journal of Economic Psychology, 25 (1), p. 129-134.
Zeithaml, V. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value - a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, 52(3), p. 2-22.

51

7. APPENDICES
Appendix 1:

Questionnaire English Version .. 53

Appendix 2:

Questionnaire German Version . 61

Appendix 3:

Demographics Sample 69

Appendix 4:

Testing for Normality .. 70

Appendix 5:

Analysis of Standardized Residuals . 71

Appendix 6:

Plot: Unstandardized residuals vs. intention to invest ... 72

Appendix 7:

Normal Distribution of error terms 73

Appendix 8:

Multicollinearity VIF 74

Appendix 9:

Correlation Matrix 75

Appendix 10:

Test of mediating effects of economic value 76

Appendix 11:

Test of mediating effects of supportiveness . 78

Appendix 12:

Test of moderating effect of lead user characteristics .. 80

52

Appendix 1 : Questionnaire English Version

Dear respondent,
For my Masterthesis at the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam I am conducting a research.
Please read carefully the following project proposal. It would really help me, if you could fill
out this questionnaire as honestly as possible. All the data will be handled anonymously.
It will take about 10-15 minutes.
Thank you very much for your help!
Michel Harms

53

54

1.

Evaluate your intention to support the project by investing 10 EUR.

Explanatory note: In every row you can set your mark freely to the 7-point scale. The middle point
is a neutral point. The closer you set your mark to one of the outer ends of the scale, the more you
agree with the statement to that end

Unlikely
Uncertain
Definitely would not invest

2.

Likely
Certain
Definitely would invest

What would be a reason for you to invest?

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

I take a chance and might win big

money with small money

I make money easily

There is a chance to win big money

I heard others hit the jackpot by

investing in such a project

I like to receive a tangible product (e.g.

a DVD) that results from such a
crowdfunding project

I do not mind about a material copy of

the outcome

Receiving a guaranteed product as an

outcome of such a project is important
to me

To invest in the project is of good

economic value

Overall I am happy with the

investment conditions

The price you have to pay to support

the project is too high, given what you
receive in return

55

3.

What do you think about the project initiator Robert?

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

I have confidence in his ability

He appears to be not competent for the

project

If I wanted to get things done, I could

depend on him

Robert and I probably have similar

values and beliefs

Robert is quite a bit like me

It is likely that Robert and I have

similar tastes and preferences

4.

Please rate the following statements

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

I would talk to others about the project

I would mention in my online profile

(e.g. MySpace, Hyves) that I support
the project

Supporting the project would be part of

how I express my personality

I like to be involved with other people

that participate in such projects

I enjoy being around other supporters

that take part in crowdfunding projects

Taking part in communities related to

such crowdfunding projects and
activities is important to me

56

5.

How do you perceive the project?

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

There is novelty in it

It satisfies my sense of curiosity

It offers novel experiences

I feel like I am exploring new worlds

6.

How do you perceive the project (markings, lockers, website) for your PERSONAL use?

useless
harmful
foolish

7.

usefull
beneficial
wise

How do you perceive the utility of the project (markings, lockers, website) for PEOPLE IN YOUR
CITY?

useless
harmful
foolish

8.

usefull
beneficial
wise

Please rate the following statements

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

I enjoy supporting crowdfunding

projects, not just for the things I
receive in return

I invest in crowdfunding projects for

the pure enjoyment of it

I think it is important to support people

with new ideas like Robert
I like to contribute to things which
seem right to me

57

If I would never give to a

crowdfunding project, I would feel a
bit bad about myself

I appreciate receiving exclusive up-todate information about recent

developments of the project

Supporting such a project would make

me feel, that it is also my project

I am very interested in what others

think about the project

9.

Please rate the following statements

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

I feel very knowledgeable about the

realisation of such a project

If someone asks where to run in my

city, I could give him advice

I feel very confident about my ability

to judge the quality of the proposed
project

When things get boring I like to find

some new and unfamiliar experiences

I prefer a routine way of life to an

unpredictable one full of change
I like to experience novelty and change
in my daily routine

I am an active runner

In the field of running I usually find

out about new products, solutions and
services earlier than others

In the circle of my friends I am

regarded as being on the "cutting edge"
in the field of running

58

I have benefited significantly by the

early adaption and use of new
products, solutions and services in the
field of running

Concerning running I have needs

which are not satisfied by existing
products and services

Finally a few questions to your person

10.

Occupation

Student
Employee
Self-Employed
Unemployed
Other

11.

In case you study/studies: which faculty?

None
Business/Economics
Social Science
Natural Science
Law
Design/Art/Music

12.

Age

<21
21-30
31-40
41-50
>50

59

13.

Gender

Female
Male

14.

Do you hold shares?

Yes
No

15.

Where are you from?

Netherlands
Germany
Other

16.

Are you already involved in a crowdfunding project?

No
Sell a Band
Fundable

60

Appendix 2 : Questionnaire German Version

Hallo!
Fr meine Masterarbeit an der Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam fhre ich eine Untersuchung
durch.
Ziel meiner Arbeit ist es, anhand einer fiktiven Projektidee "Lauf-Projekt" herauszufinden,
welche Motivationen bei der Entscheidung sich an einem Crowdfunding-Projekt beteiligen
von Bedeutung sind. Beim Crowdfunding geht es darum, dass eine Gruppe von Menschen
gemeinsam Geld zusammenlegt um die Realisation eines Projektes zu finanzieren.
Ich wrde dich bitten, dir folgenden Projektvorschlag durchzulesen und anschlieend den
Fragebogen ehrlich zu beantworten. Deine Angaben werden anonym gespeichert.
Das Ganze dauert ca. 10 Minuten
Vielen Dank
Michel Harms

61

62

1.

Wrdest du das Projekt mit einem Investment von 10 Euro untersttzen?

Hinweis zum Ankreuzen: Ihr knnt in jeder Zeile euer Kreuz frei auf der 7-teiligen Skala setzen. In
der Mitte ist ein neutraler Punkt. Je weiter ihr euer Kreuz in Richtung einer der ueren Punkte
setzt, desto mehr stimmt ihr diesem Statement zu
Unwahrscheinlich
Ungewiss
Definitiv nicht investieren

2.

Wahrscheinlich
Bestimmt
Definitiv investieren

Was wre fr dich ein Grund, zu investieren?

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Ich versuche mein Glck und gewinne

vielleicht viel Geld mit kleinem
Einsatz
Ich mache auf einfache Weise Geld
Es existiert die Chance, viel Geld zu
machen
Ich habe von anderen gehrt, die durch
ein solches Investment viel Geld
gemacht haben

Ich mag es, ein greifbares Produkt (wie

z.B. die DVD) aus einem solchen
Crowdfunding Projekt zu erhalten

Eine materielle Kopie von dem, was

bei einem Crowdfunding-Projekt
rauskommt, ist mir egal

Es ist mir wichtig, garantiert ein

konkretes Produkt als Ergebnis eines
solchen Projektes zu erhalten
Ein Investment in dieses Projekt ist
wirtschaftlich sinnvoll

Insgesamt bin ich zufrieden mit den

Investment Bedingungen des Projektes

Der Preis, der zu zahlen ist, um das

Projekt zu untersttzen, ist zu hoch
verglichen mit dem, was man im
Gegenzug erhlt

63

3.

Was denkst Du ber den Projekt-Initiator Robert?

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Ich habe Vertrauen in seine

Fhigkeiten

Er erscheint mir nicht kompetent fr

das Projekt

Wenn es darauf ankommt, knnte ich

mich auf ihn verlassen

Robert und ich haben wahrscheinlich

hnliche Werte und Ideale
Robert ist ein wenig wie ich
Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass Robert und
ich einen hnlichen Geschmack und
dieselben Vorlieben haben

4.

Bitte bewerte die folgenden Statements

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Ich wrde anderen von dem Projekt

erzhlen
Ich wrde in meinem Onlineprofil (zB.
MySpace, StudiVZ) erwhnen, dass
ich das Projekt untersttze

Das Projekt zu untersttzen wre Teil

davon, wie ich meine Persnlichkeit
ausdrcke

Ich wre gerne mit anderen Menschen

verbunden, die an solchen Projekten
teilnehmen

Ich wrde es genieen von anderen

Untersttzern solcher Projekte
umgeben zu sein

Mich in Gruppen zu Crowdfunding zu

beteiligen, ist wichtig fr mich

64

5.

Wie nimmst Du das Projekt wahr?

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Da steckt etwas Neues drin

Es befriedigt meine Neugier

Es bietet neue Erlebnisse

Ich fhle mich, als wrde ich neue

Welten erkunden

6.

Wie beurteilst du deinen PERSNLICHEN Nutzen aus dem Projekt (Streckenkennzeichnungen,

Schliefcher, Website)?
Nutzlos
Schdlich
Albern

7.

Ntzlich
Vorteilhaft
Sinnvoll

Wie beurteilst Du den Nutzen fr die MENSCHEN IN DEINER STADT aus dem Projekt
(Gekennzeichnete Strecken, Schliefcher, Internetseite)?
Nutzlos
Schdlich
Albern

8.

Ntzlich
Vorteilhaft
Sinnvoll

Bitte bewerte die folgenden Statements

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Mir macht es Spa, solche

Crowdfunding-Projekte zu
untersttzen, nicht nur wegen der
Dinge, die ich im Gegenzug erhalte

Ich wrde aus purer Freude in solche

Crowdfunding-Projekte investieren

Ich halte es fr wichtig, Menschen mit

neuen Ideen wie Robert zu
untersttzen

65

Ich trage gerne zu Dingen bei, die ich

fr richtig erachte
Wenn ich niemals etwas zu einem
Crowdfunding Projekt dazugeben
wrde, wrde ich mich ein wenig
schlecht fhlen

Ich schtze es, exklusiv aktuelle

Informationen ber die neuesten
Entwicklungen des Projektes zu
erhalten

Ein solches Projekt zu untersttzen,

gibt mir das Gefhl, dass es auch mein
Projekt ist

Ich bin daran interessiert, was andere

ber das Projekt denken

9.

Bitte bewerte die folgenden Statements

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Ich fhle mich sehr sachkundig ber

die Realisation eines solchen LaufProjektes

Wenn mich jemand fragt, wo man in

meiner Stadt gut laufen kann, knnte
ich Rat geben

Ich fhle mich sehr sicher in meiner

Fhigkeit, die Qualitt des Projektes zu
beurteilen

Wenn Dinge langweilig werden, mag

ich es, neue und unbekannte Erlebnisse
zu suchen

Ich bevorzuge ein Leben voller

Routine im Gegensatz zu einem
unvorhersehbaren Leben mit vielen
Wechseln

Ich mag es, Neues zu erleben und die

Routine in meinem Leben zu ndern

66

Ich bin aktiver Lufer (Jogger)

ber neue Produkte, Lsungen,

Services zum Thema Laufen erfahre
ich gewhnlicherweise eher als andere

Im Kreis meiner Freunde bin ich als

Vorreiter im Thema Laufen angesehen

Ich habe hohen Nutzen aus dem frhen

Gebrauch neuer Produkte, Lsungen
und Services zum Thema Laufen
gezogen

Beim Thema Laufen habe ich

Bedrfnisse, die durch bestehende
Produkte, Lsungen und Services nicht
befriedigt werden.

Zum Abschluss ein paar kurze Fragen zu deiner Person

10.

Beschftigung

Student/in
Angestellte/r
Selbststndig
Arbeitslos
sonstiges

11.

Ausbildung? Bei Studium welcher Fachbereich?

Kein Studium
Wirtschaft
Sozialwissenschaften
Naturwissenschaften
Rechtswissenschaften
Design/Kunst/Musik

67

12.

Alter

<21
21-30
31-40
41-50
>50

13.

Geschlecht

Frau
Mann

14.

Besitzt du Aktien?

Ja
Nein

15.

Wo lebst du?

Deutschland
Holland

16.

Nimmst du bereits an Crowdfunding Projekten teil?

No
Sell a Band
Fundable

68

Appendix 3: Demographics of the Sample

Demographic
Variable

Respondents Valid
N=196
Percent

Gender
Female
Male
Missing Values

46,5%
51,5%
2,0%

47,4%
52,6%

Age
<21 y.
21-30 y.
31-40 y.
41-50 y.
50< y.
Missing Values

3,0%
65,3%
14,8%
10,7%
5,1%
1,0%

3,1%
66,0%
14,9%
10,8%
5,2%

Place of residence
Germany
Netherland
Other
Missing Values

79,6%
9,2%
9,7%
1,5%

80,8%
9,3%
9,8%

Holder of shares
Yes
No
Missing values

24,0%
74,0%
2,0%

24,5%
75,5%

Academic Background
Non-Academic
Academic
Missing values

10,7%
78,6%
9,6%

12,0%
88,0%

Demographic
Variable

Respondents Valid
N=196
Percent

Field of studies
No studies
Economics/Business
Social Science
Natural Science
Law
Design/Art/Music
Other
Missing value

10,7%
18,9%
13,3%
13,3%
5,6%
10,2%
17,3%
10,7%

12,0%
21,2%
14,9%
14,9%
6,3%
11,4%
19,4%

Occupation
Student
Employee
Self-Employed
Unemployed
Others status
Missing values

50,0%
29,1%
9,2%
2,0%
8,7%
1,0%

50,5%
29,4%
9,3%
2,1%
8,8%

Crowdfunding
Experience
Yes
No
Missing values

1,5%
96,5%
3,0%

1,6%
98,4%

69

Appendix 4: Testing for Normality

Descriptive Statistics

Intention
Lottery
Certainty
Economic
Ability
Similarity
Express
Community
Epistemic
PersUtility
SocUtility
Involvement
Novelty
LeadUser
Support
Enjoy
Valid N (listwise)

N
Statistic
196
196
195
196
195
195
195
195
193
190
192
193
195
193
194
193
182

Minimum
Statistic
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00

Maximum
Statistic
7,00
6,50
7,00
7,00
6,67
6,00
7,00
6,33
7,00
7,00
7,00
6,67
7,00
7,00
7,00
7,00

Mean
Statistic
3,9507
2,8852
3,8154
4,5085
4,2239
3,5043
3,9949
3,3521
4,3381
4,8596
5,3247
4,0466
5,1846
2,7202
5,4124
3,8705

Std.
Deviation
Statistic
2,01146
1,32538
1,57273
1,31891
1,22988
1,49047
1,50808
1,45776
1,32140
1,67042
1,48502
1,39344
1,15276
1,61256
1,27147
1,73695

Skewness
Statistic
Std. Error
,022
,174
,428
,174
,023
,174
-,550
,174
-,456
,174
-,175
,174
-,195
,174
-,078
,174
-,240
,175
-,500
,176
-,892
,175
-,312
,175
-,618
,174
,606
,175
-1,154
,175
-,109
,175

Kurtosis
Statistic
Std. Error
-1,347
,346
-,682
,346
-,637
,346
,112
,346
,008
,346
-1,081
,346
-,849
,346
-1,049
,346
-,351
,348
-,762
,351
,113
,349
-,465
,348
,274
,346
-,739
,348
1,679
,347
-,980
,348

Test for Normality of variables

Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistic Std. Error z value*
Statistic Std. Error z value
-3,893 p<0.01
Intention
0,022
0,174
0,126
-1,347
0,346
2,459 p<0.05
-0,682
0,346
-1,971
Lottery
0,428
0,174
Certainty
0,023
0,174
0,132
-0,637
0,346
-1,841
-3,161 p<0.01
Economic
-0,55
0,174
0,112
0,346
0,323
-2,62 p<0.01
0,008
0,346
0,023
Ability
-0,456
0,174
-3,124 p<0.01
Similarity
-0,175
0,174
-1,005
-1,081
0,346
-2,453 p<0.05
Express
-0,195
0,174
-1,12
-0,849
0,346
-3,031 p<0.01
Community
-0,078
0,174
-0,448
-1,049
0,346
Epistemic
-0,24
0,175
-1,371
-0,351
0,348
-1,008
-2,84 p<0.01
-2,17 p<0.05
PersUtility
-0,5
0,176
-0,762
0,351
-5,097 p<0.01
SocUtility
-0,892
0,175
0,113
0,349
0,323
Involvement
-0,312
0,175
-1,782
-0,465
0,348
-1,336
3,462 p<0.01
-2,123 p<0.05
LeadUser
0,606
0,175
-0,739
0,348
-6,594 p<0.01
4,838 p<0.01
1,679
0,347
Support
-1,154
0,175
-2,816 p<0.01
Enjoy
-0,109
0,175
-0,622
-0,98
0,348
*The z value were derived by dividing the statistic by the standard error
critical values: +/-2,58 (0,01 significance level), +/-1,96 (0,05 significance level) Source: Hair et al. (1998)

Intention
Lottery
Economic
Ability
Similarity
Express
Community
PersUtility
SocUtility
LeadUser
Support
Enjoy

Tranformation Square Root

Skewness
Statistic Std. Error z value*
-0,283
0,174
-1,626
0,041
0,174
0,236
0,012
0,174
0,069
0,029
0,174
0,167
-0,074
0,174
-0,425
-0,158
0,174
-0,908
-0,189
0,174
-1,086
0,111
0,176
0,631
2,366 p<0,05
0,414
0,175
0,272
0,175
1,554
2,829 p<0,01
0,495
0,175
-0,323
0,175
-1,846

Kurtosis
Statistic Std. Error z value
-3,514 p<0,01
-1,216
0,346
-2,630
-0,91
0,346
-0,068
0,346
-0,197
-0,258
0,346
-0,746
-2,882
-0,997
0,346
-2,185
-0,756
0,346
-2,387
-0,826
0,346
-2,977 p<0,01
-1,045
0,351
-0,632
0,346
-1,827
-3,486 p<0,01
-1,213
0,348
0,112
0,347
0,323
-0,569
0,348
-1,635

70

Appendix 5: Analysis of Standardized Residuals

Scatterplot

Dependent Variable: Intention

Regression Studentized Residual

-1

-2

-3
-2,5

0,0

2,5

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

71

Appendix 6: Unstandardized residuals vs. intention to invest

Unstandardized Residual

2,50000

0,00000

-2,50000

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

Intention

72

Appendix 7: Normal Distribution of error terms

Normal P-P Plot of Unstandardized Residual

1,0

Expected Cum Prob

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0
0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

Observed Cum Prob

73

Appendix 8: Multicollinearity VIF

Coefficientsa

Model
1

(Constant)
Lottery
Certainty
Economic
Express
Community
Epistemic
PersUtility
Involvement
LeadUser
Support
Enjoy
Lead_PersUt
Ability
Similarity
SocUtility

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
-1,961
,537
-,038
,081
,164
,075
,467
,110
,184
,100
-,106
,102
,133
,100
,335
,112
-,153
,093
,014
,084
-,093
,102
,177
,076
,132
,048
,088
,110
-,022
,106
,125
,116

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
-,025
,127
,305
,139
-,074
,087
,273
-,106
,011
-,059
,152
,158
,053
-,016
,088

t
-3,649
-,469
2,190
4,252
1,848
-1,037
1,324
2,991
-1,647
,163
-,911
2,335
2,783
,802
-,204
1,074

Sig.
,000
,640
,030
,000
,066
,301
,187
,003
,102
,871
,364
,021
,006
,424
,838
,284

Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance
VIF
,810
,706
,458
,416
,457
,549
,284
,574
,533
,554
,559
,735
,536
,379
,348

1,235
1,416
2,182
2,402
2,187
1,822
3,518
1,742
1,877
1,806
1,790
1,360
1,866
2,642
2,871

a. Dependent Variable: Intention

74

Appendix 9: Correlation Matrix

Correlatio
Intentio
n
Lotter
y
Certaint
y
Economi
c
Abilit
y
Similarit
y
Expre
ss
Communi
ty
Epistem
ic
PersUtili
ty
SocUtilit
y
Involveme
nt
LeadUs
er
Suppo
rt
Enjo
y

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N

Intentio
n
1
196
,19 **
7
,00
6196
,38 **
0
,00
0195
,64 **
7
,00
0196
,46 **
4
,00
0195
,48 **
9
,00
0195
,57 **
0
,00
0195
,36 **
3
,00
0195

Lotter
Certaint
Economi
y ,19 ** y
,38 ** c
,64 **
7
0
7
,00
,00
,00
6196
0195
0196
1
,10
,32 **
6
8
,14
,00
1
0196
196
195
,10
1
,35 **
6
3
,14
,00
1195
0195
195
,32 **
,35 **
1
8
3
,00
,00
0196
0195
196
,17 *
,23 **
,49 **
2
9
4
,01
,00
,00
6195
1194
0195
,04
,34 **
,43 **
4
1
4
,53
,00
,00
8195
0194
0195
,13
,39 **
,54 **
8
6
0
,05
,00
,00
5195
0194
0195
,11
,40 **
,42 **
7
4
0
,10
,00
,00
3195
0194
0195

Abilit
Similarit
y ,46 ** y
,48 **
4
9
,00
,00
0195
0195
,17 *
,04
2
4
,01
,53
6195
8195
,23 **
9
,00
1194
,49 **
4
,00
0195
1
195
,52 **
0
,00
0195
,41 **
6
,00
0194
,34 **
7
,00
0194

,34 **
1
,00
0194
,43 **
4
,00
0195
,52 **
0
,00
0195
1
195
,59 **
6
,00
0194
,53 **
8
,00
0194

Expre
Communi
Epistem
PersUtili
SocUtilit
Involveme
LeadUs
ss ,57 ** ty
,36 ** ic ,49 ** ty ,62 ** y
,58 ** nt
,32 ** er ,34 **
0
3
0
9
8
4
4
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
0195
0195
0193
0190
0192
0193
0193
,13
,11
,17 *
,14 *
,21 **
,07
,02
8
7
9
3
7
4
4
,05
,10
,01
,04
,00
,30
,73
5195
3195
3193
9190
3192
3193
7193
,39 **
,40 **
,28 **
,40 **
,32 **
,41 **
,17 *
6
4
6
5
3
0
8
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,01
0194
0194
0192
0189
0191
0192
4192
,54 **
,42 **
,49 **
,52 **
,60 **
,36 **
,18 **
0
0
4
8
2
3
7
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
0195
0195
0193
0190
0192
0193
9193
,41 **
,34 **
,35 **
,44 **
,55 **
,28 **
,17 *
6
7
8
5
5
4
4
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,01
0194
0194
0193
0189
0191
0192
5193
,59 **
,53 **
,46 **
,60 **
,41 **
,32 **
,45 **
6
8
1
4
4
0
7
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
0194
0194
0193
0189
0191
0192
0193
1
,62 **
,51 **
,54 **
,51 **
,43 **
,34 **
9
7
0
0
0
2
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
0195
0193
0189
0191
0193
0193
195
,62 **
1
,45 **
,38 **
,40 **
,50 **
,22 **
9
9
5
6
1
9
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
0195
0193
0189
0191
0193
1193
195
,51 **
,45 **
1
,52 **
,50 **
,39 **
,26 **
7
9
2
8
8
9
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
0193
0193
0187
0189
0191
0192
193
,54 **
,38 **
,52 **
1
,68 **
,44 **
,45 **
0
5
2
2
1
8
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
0189
0189
0187
0189
0187
0187
190
,51 **
,40 **
,50 **
,68 **
1
,43 **
,20 **
0
6
8
2
0
9
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
0191
0191
0189
0189
0189
4189
192
,43 **
,50 **
,39 **
,44 **
,43 **
1
,29 **
0
1
8
1
0
1
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
0193
0193
0191
0187
0189
0191
193

,49 **
0
,00
0193

,17 *
9
,01
3193

,28 **
6
,00
0192

,49 **
4
,00
0193

,35 **
8
,00
0193

,46 **
1
,00
0193

,62 **
9
,00
0190

,14 *
3
,04
9190

,40 **
5
,00
0189

,52 **
8
,00
0190

,44 **
5
,00
0189

,60 **
4
,00
0189

,58 **
8
,00
0192

,21 **
7
,00
3192

,32 **
3
,00
0191

,60 **
2
,00
0192

,55 **
5
,00
0191

,41 **
4
,00
0191

,32 **
4
,00
0193

,07
4
,30
3193

,41 **
0
,00
0192

,36 **
3
,00
0193

,28 **
4
,00
0192

,32 **
0
,00
0192

,34 **
4
,00
0193

,02
4
,73
7193

,17 *
8
,01
4192

,18 **
7
,00
9193

,17 *
4
,01
5193

,45 **
7
,00
0193

,34 **
2
,00
0193

,22 **
9
,00
1193

,26 **
9
,00
0192

,45 **
8
,00
0187

,20 **
9
,00
4189

,29 **
1
,00
0191

,40 **
5
,00
0194

,007
,92
8194
,08
4
,24
4193

,28 **
3
,00
0193

,44 **
9
,00
0194

,42 **
6
,00
0193

,37 **
3
,00
0193

,44 **
7
,00
0194

,37 **
1
,00
0194

,48 **
3
,00
0192

,45 **
2
,00
0188

,50 **
5
,00
0190

,40 **
8
,00
0193

193
,14 *
7
,04
1192

,31 **
1
,00
0192

,47 **
4
,00
0193

,40 **
1
,00
0193

,45 **
5
,00
0193

,53 **
7
,00
0193

,50 **
2
,00
0193

,42 **
8
,00
0192

,41 **
9
,00
0187

,42 **
9
,00
0189

,38 **
3
,00
0192

,27 **
8
,00
0192

,51 **
1
,00
0193

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

(2-tailed).
*. Correlation
is significant at the 0.05 level
(2-tailed).

75

Suppo
rt ,40 **
5
,00
0194

Enjo
y ,51 **
1
,00
0193

,007
,92
8194
,28 **
3
,00
0193
,44 **
9
,00
0194
,42 **
6
,00
0193
,37 **
3
,00
0193
,44 **
7
,00
0194
,37 **
1
,00
0194

,08
4
,24
4193

,48 **
3
,00
0192

,42 **
8
,00
0192

,45 **
2
,00
0188

,41 **
9
,00
0187

,50 **
5
,00
0190

,42 **
9
,00
0189

,40 **
8
,00
0193

,38 **
3
,00
0192

,14 *
7
,04
1192

,27 **
8
,00
0192

,52 **
1
,00
0193

194
,52 **
1
,00
0193

,31 **
1
,00
0192
,47 **
4
,00
0193
,40 **
1
,00
0193
,45 **
5
,00
0193
,53 **
7
,00
0193
,50 **
2
,00
0193

1
193

Appendix 10: Test of mediating effects of economic value

Economic value as dependent variable of society utility and abilites initiator
Model Summary
Model
1

R
,641a

R Square
,410

Adjusted
R Square
,404

Std. Error of
the Estimate
1,02174

a. Predictors: (Constant), Ability, SocUtility

ANOVAb
Model
1

Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
136,588
196,261
332,849

df
2
188
190

Mean Square
68,294
1,044

F
65,419

Sig.
,000a

t
3,687
6,715
3,972

Sig.
,000
,000
,000

a. Predictors: (Constant), Ability, SocUtility

b. Dependent Variable: Economic
Coefficientsa

Model
1

(Constant)
SocUtility
Ability

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
1,129
,306
,402
,060
,290
,073

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,452
,267

a. Dependent Variable: Economic

Intention to invest as dependent variable of society utility and abilites initiator

Model Summary
Model
1

R
R Square
,616a
,379

Adjusted
R Square
,373

Std. Error of
the Estimate
1,60521

a. Predictors: (Constant), Ability, SocUtility

ANOVAb
Model
1

Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
296,020
484,420
780,441

df
2
188
190

Mean Square
148,010
2,577

F
57,442

Sig.
,000a

t
-2,053
6,785
3,132

Sig.
,041
,000
,002

a. Predictors: (Constant), Ability, SocUtility

b. Dependent Variable: Intention

Coefficientsa

Model
1

(Constant)
SocUtility
Ability

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
-,988
,481
,639
,094
,360
,115

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,469
,216

a. Dependent Variable: Intention

76

Intention to invest as dependent variable of society utility and abilites initiator and the other predictor
variables
Model Summary
Model
1

R
R Square
,765a
,585

Adjusted
R Square
,556

Std. Error of
the Estimate
1,33925

a. Predictors: (Constant), Enjoy, Lottery, Certainty, Ability,

Involvement, Epistemic, Community, Support,
PersUtility, Economic, Express, SocUtility
ANOVAb
Model
1

Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
430,017
304,910
734,927

df
12
170
182

Mean Square
35,835
1,794

F
19,979

Sig.
,000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Enjoy, Lottery, Certainty, Ability, Involvement, Epistemic,

Community, Support, PersUtility, Economic, Express, SocUtility
b. Dependent Variable: Intention
Coefficientsa

Model
1

(Constant)
SocUtility
Ability
Lottery
Certainty
Economic
Express
Community
Epistemic
PersUtility
Involvement
Support
Enjoy

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
-1,723
,536
,163
,111
,090
,105
-,039
,080
,119
,075
,458
,111
,193
,099
-,093
,098
,138
,101
,281
,094
-,115
,090
-,121
,103
,186
,076

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,116
,054
-,026
,093
,300
,146
-,066
,091
,229
-,079
-,077
,161

t
-3,212
1,471
,859
-,481
1,596
4,123
1,949
-,948
1,364
3,003
-1,269
-1,174
2,447

Sig.
,002
,143
,391
,631
,112
,000
,053
,344
,174
,003
,206
,242
,015

a. Dependent Variable: Intention

77

Appendix 11: Test of mediating effects of supportiveness on society utility and similarity initiator

Supportiveness as dependent variable of society utility and similarity initiator

Model Summary
Model
1

R
R Square
,540a
,291

Adjusted
R Square
,284

Std. Error of
the Estimate
1,08841

a. Predictors: (Constant), Similarity, SocUtility

ANOVAb
Model
1

Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
90,628
220,343
310,971

df
2
186
188

Mean Square
45,314
1,185

F
38,251

Sig.
,000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Similarity, SocUtility

b. Dependent Variable: Support

Coefficientsa

Model
1

(Constant)
SocUtility
Similarity

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
2,757
,315
,379
,060
,175
,058

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,426
,204

t
8,754
6,337
3,042

Sig.
,000
,000
,003

a. Dependent Variable: Support

Intention to invest as dependent variable of society utility and abilites initiator

Model Summary
Model
1

R
R Square
,648a
,420

Adjusted
R Square
,414

Std. Error of
the Estimate
1,55150

a. Predictors: (Constant), Similarity, SocUtility

ANOVAb
Model
1

Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
327,897
452,544
780,441

df
2
188
190

Mean Square
163,948
2,407

F
68,109

Sig.
,000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Similarity, SocUtility

b. Dependent Variable: Intention

Coefficientsa

Model
1

(Constant)
SocUtility
Similarity

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
-,842
,432
,635
,083
,400
,082

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,466
,297

t
-1,951
7,640
4,873

Sig.
,053
,000
,000

a. Dependent Variable: Intention

78

Intention to invest as dependent variable of society utility and similarity initiator and the other
predictor variables
Model Summary
Model
1

R
R Square
,764a
,584

Adjusted
R Square
,555

Std. Error of
the Estimate
1,34072

a. Predictors: (Constant), Enjoy, Lottery, Certainty,

Epistemic, Involvement, Similarity, SocUtility, Support,
Community, Economic, Express, PersUtility

ANOVAb
Model
1

Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
429,345
305,581
734,927

df
12
170
182

Mean Square
35,779
1,798

F
19,904

Sig.
,000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Enjoy, Lottery, Certainty, Epistemic, Involvement, Similarity,

SocUtility, Support, Community, Economic, Express, PersUtility
b. Dependent Variable: Intention

Coefficientsa

Model
1

(Constant)
SocUtility
Similarity
Lottery
Certainty
Economic
Express
Community
Epistemic
PersUtility
Involvement
Support
Enjoy

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
-1,661
,528
,197
,109
,058
,096
-,032
,081
,117
,075
,469
,110
,181
,101
-,107
,101
,133
,102
,262
,102
-,110
,091
-,110
,102
,190
,076

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,139
,043
-,022
,091
,307
,136
-,076
,088
,213
-,076
-,071
,164

t
-3,143
1,805
,603
-,396
1,564
4,271
1,786
-1,059
1,312
2,571
-1,208
-1,078
2,501

Sig.
,002
,073
,547
,692
,120
,000
,076
,291
,191
,011
,229
,283
,013

a. Dependent Variable: Intention

79

Appendix 12: Test of moderating effect of lead user characteristics

10 predictor variables on intention to invest Without moderating effects
Model Summary
Model
1

R
R Square
,758a
,574

Adjusted
R Square
,550

Std. Error of
the Estimate
1,34494

a. Predictors: (Constant), Enjoy, Lottery, Certainty,

Epistemic, Involvement, Support, Community,
PersUtility, Economic, Express

ANOVAb
Model
1

Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
422,090
312,934
735,024

df
10
173
183

Mean Square
42,209
1,809

F
23,334

Sig.
,000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Enjoy, Lottery, Certainty, Epistemic, Involvement, Support,

Community, PersUtility, Economic, Express
b. Dependent Variable: Intention

Coefficientsa

Model
1

(Constant)
Lottery
Certainty
Economic
Express
Community
Epistemic
PersUtility
Involvement
Support
Enjoy

Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
-1,476
,517
-,020
,080
,107
,074
,517
,105
,207
,099
-,082
,098
,135
,101
,350
,083
-,102
,090
-,073
,101
,188
,075

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
-,013
,083
,339
,157
-,059
,089
,286
-,070
-,047
,163

t
-2,857
-,245
1,442
4,930
2,100
-,835
1,330
4,241
-1,127
-,726
2,496

Sig.
,005
,807
,151
,000
,037
,405
,185
,000
,261
,469
,014

a. Dependent Variable: Intention

80