Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Women backing women: The role of crowdfunding in empowering female T

consumer-investors and entrepreneurs
Mya Pronschinske Grozaa, Mark D. Grozaa,⁎, Luis Miguel Barralb
a
Department of Marketing, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, United States
b
TWO MUCH Research Studio, Calle Puerto de Navacerrada, 17, 28440, Guadarrama, Madrid, Spain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Compared with their male counterparts, female entrepreneurs receive a disproportionately small amount of
Crowdfunding funding. One frequently cited reason for this disparity is the lack of female representation in the entrepreneurial
Entrepreneurship funding decision-making process. Today, crowdfunding offers an innovative avenue for both male and female
Innovation entrepreneurs and democratizes the funding decision-making process. Individual consumers (i.e., consumer-
Startups
investors or backers) can now unite to influence funding outcomes. Yet, questions remain as to the motivations
Social capital
Female empowerment
and behaviors of these backers supporting entrepreneurial projects through crowdfunding. This study integrates
social capital theory along with the theory of choice homophily to examine the motivating factors of both male
and female backers. It tests the conceptual model by analyzing empirical data collected from more than 2,000
Spanish crowdfunding backers. The findings confirm that compared with male backers, female backers support
internal and external social ties to a greater extent when deciding on what projects to support.

1. Introduction in decision-making roles in venture capital firms and other financing

institutions (Weisul, 2019). This dependence on a relatively small
When girls lead on a playground, they're called bossy. When women lead number of predominantly male decision makers, however, was funda-
at the workforce, they're called too aggressive. mentally altered in the United States on April 5, 2012, when President
—Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer1, Facebook Barack Obama signed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act into law
(Stemler, 2013). Tittle III of the act, Regulation Crowdfunding, created
Researchers have long examined the role of women in the global
important exceptions to regulations of the Securities Act of 1933, as it
economy (e.g., Crittenden, Crittenden, & Ajjan, 2019; Hein et al., 2016;
allows entrepreneurs to raise capital through crowdfunding (to a limit)
Nair, 2019). Studies consistently indicate that gender inequalities exist
and permits non-accredited individuals (those who do not meet a
in both the consumption and production sides of marketing exchange
minimum income and net-worth threshold) to invest in equity-based
relationships (Hill & Dhanda, 1999; Sexton & Bowman-Upton, 1990).
crowdfunding. Other countries have established similar public policies
Such work confirms that on the production side, female entrepreneurial
(Gajda, 2017), and as a result, crowdfunding today is a mainstream
activity is under-represented largely because of inequalities related to
instrument for raising capital.
access to capital (Brush, Greene, Balachandra, & Davis, 2014). For ex-
Entrepreneurs are no longer limited to seeking financing from fa-
ample, between 2011 and 2013, only 2.7% of the companies receiving
mily and friends, banks, angel investors, and/or venture capitalists;
venture capital funding had a woman CEO and companies that had one
rather, entrepreneurs (also known as “creators” in the context of
(or more) women on the executive team received only approximately
crowdfunding) can now use crowdfunding to draw relatively small
21% of all venture capital (Brush et al., 2014). Such inequalities be-
contributions from a large number of consumers (Mollick, 2014). In
tween men and women in the receipt of capital support have important
contrast with traditional sources of entrepreneurial funding in which a
implications for quality of life (Hill & Dhanda, 1999), and working to
small group of “guardians” makes funding decisions (Sexton &
reduce the gap should be an important goal for policy makers (Brush
Bowman-Upton, 1990), crowdfunding transfers the gatekeeping role to
et al., 2014).
the crowd. Ordinary consumers, both men and women, who would
An often-cited culprit for the gender-funding gap is a lack of women
otherwise have limited power in the world of venture capital can now

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.P. Groza), [email protected] (M.D. Groza), [email protected] (L.M. Barral).
1
Transcript from TED RADIOHOUR with Sheryl Sandberg on January 17, 2014. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/261090111.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.013
Received 4 November 2019; Received in revised form 4 June 2020; Accepted 5 June 2020
Available online 23 June 2020
0148-2963/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.
M.P. Groza, et al. Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442

coalesce and make an impact on entrepreneurial decision making. In gathered from a Spanish crowdfunding platform.
turn, the increase in participation of women in the funding decision-
making process may give female entrepreneurs greater access to funds, 2. Background on crowdfunding
as women tend to support other women to a greater extent than men
support men (Rudman & Goodwin, 2004). The purpose of the current We adopt Mollick (2014, p. 2) definition of crowdfunding as “the
research, then, is to address the supply side of crowdfunding financing efforts by entrepreneurial individuals and groups – cultural, social and
by examining the factors that lead male and female consumers to for-profit – to fund their ventures by drawing on relatively small con-
support individual projects created through crowdfunding. Insights into tributions from a relatively large number of individuals using the in-
the motivating factors of crowdfunding backers can provide guidance to ternet, without standard financial intermediaries.” While much of the
entrepreneurs on creating individual projects and to platform admin- research on the topic uses samples drawn from North American popu-
istrators when implementing crowdfunding policy. lations (e.g., Frydrych, Bock, Kinder, & Koeck, 2014; Greenberg &
Drawing primarily on social capital theory and the theory of choice Mollick, 2017; Mollick, 2014), crowdfunding is now a global phe-
homophily, we develop a research model that predicts consumer fi- nomenon with active backers hailing from more than 100 countries
nancial support for individual crowdfunding projects. More specifically, (Thorpe, 2014). Crowdfunding has experienced tremendous growth
we assess how their own involvement in crowdfunding as creators and since its inception in the early 2000s. For example, estimates suggest
how their social networks external to the crowdfunding platform affect that the crowdfunding market in 2014 increased 167% year-over-year
backers (i.e., consumer-investors) themselves. We also test the theory to reach US$16 billion and doubled again in 2015 to reach US$34
that women are more likely than men to engage in choice homophily billion (crowsourcing.org, 2015). The widespread adoption of crowd-
and support projects promoted by individuals who share social ties. We funding by entrepreneurs from an array of socio-economic backgrounds
test the theoretical predictions by analyzing a rich set of survey data has made it an important tool to increase quality of life and reduce
collected from a sample (n = 2,357) of backers from the Spanish poverty across the globe. Yet, to realize such positive effects, a clear
crowdfunding site Lanzanos. understanding of the factors that drive individuals to back crowd-
This paper helps fill important voids in the literature and con- funding projects is necessary.
tributes to the research stream on crowdfunding. First, it presents and The four types of crowdfunding models acknowledged in practice
empirically tests a model of the behavior of crowdfunding backers. and the literature are lending-, equity-, reward-, and donation-based
Research addressing crowdfunding has mainly used secondary data (Cholakova & Clarysse, 2015; Martínez-Climent, Costa-Climent, &
collected from platforms in an effort to uncover the project and creator Oghazi, 2019). In lending-based crowdfunding, individuals (i.e., len-
factors that lead to success. Crowdfunding, however, cannot exist ders) provide a loan with the expectation of receiving their investment
without the willingness of consumers to invest their personal financial back with interest. In equity-based crowdfunding, individuals (i.e., in-
resources in created projects. Thus, understanding the motivating fac- vestors) contribute funds in exchange for an ownership stake—and
tors of these consumer-investors is essential. The research we present rights to future profits—in the enterprise. Lenders and investors are
and our empirical analysis are at the backer unit of analysis, which both extrinsically motivated and hope for an economic reward in the
helps fill this gap in the literature. form of a financial return (Martínez-Climent et al., 2019; Martínez-
Second, our study builds on prior research that addresses the im- Climent, Zorio-Grima, & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2018). Reward-based
portance of internal and external social capital (e.g., Agrawal, Catalini, crowdfunding involves an exchange between the creator of the project
& Goldfarb, 2015; Barrios & Blocker, 2015; Chan, Moy, Schaffner, & and the individuals who support the project (i.e., backers) (Thürridl &
Torgler, 2019; Mollick, 2014), by considering the supply side of the Kamleitner, 2016). Rewards can range from symbolic items, such as
social capital equation. That is, we examine an individual’s contribu- tokens and gifts (e.g., a signed thank-you note from the creator, a T-
tions to fellow social network members. Counter to the prediction of shirt with the company’s name and logo), to a pre-order of some yet-to-
social capital theory and prior research, our analysis shows that backers be-developed product or service (e.g., family calendar mobile applica-
actually offer less financial support to projects created by individuals tion, music album, comic book, novel). Finally, donation-based
within their social network than to projects by individuals they do not crowdfunding allows individuals (i.e., donors) to contribute money to
know. We discuss possible explanations for this unexpected finding at charitable causes. While backers in reward-based crowdfunding are
the end of the paper. extrinsically motivated and expect some material gain, donors are in-
Third, we uncover gender as an important factor moderating the trinsically motivated purely by philanthropy (Martínez-Climent et al.,
relationship between social capital factors and the amount funded for a 2018, 2019).
crowdfunding project. Gender moderates the effect of both internal and The individual contributions of backers are often much smaller than
external social capital on contribution levels. Specifically, women tend those of investors in equity-based crowdfunding. In addition, investors
to support creators who are also backers (i.e., part of the internal social typically decide to support after financial evaluation of a project’s ex-
network) to a greater extent than men. The results also suggest that pected profitability and how much assumed risk they are willing to
female backers tend to support projects of creators who share external accept (Ahlers, Cumming, Günther, & Schweizer, 2015). By contrast,
social networks (i.e., friends & family) more than projects of those backers, who support reward-based crowdfunding, are often not fo-
outside their social network (i.e., whom they do not personally know). cused solely on the financial returns but rather want to support a
This effect is reversed among male backers, who tend to support pro- creator and/or gain first access to an innovative product (Belleflamme,
jects created by individuals outside their social network more than Lambert, & Schwienbacher, 2014). Thus, the behavior of individual
projects by those who are part of their network. This result suggests that backers is largely driven by social considerations. As our focus is on
female backers prefer supporting network members with tight-knit reward-based crowdfunding, we use the following terms for the dif-
connections (bonding social capital) while male backers prefer sup- ferent parties involved in crowdfunding: “creator” (an entrepreneur
porting individuals to whom they have weak ties (bridging social ca- who creates a project on a crowdfunding platform) and “backer” (a
pital) (Putnam, 2000). consumer who supports the project financially and receives a symbolic
Finally, this research adds to the literature on crowdfunding by reward or pre-order opportunity).
using a dataset collected from a non-North-American sample of Reward-based crowdfunding as a tool to fund entrepreneurial ac-
crowdfunding backers. While crowdfunding is an international phe- tivity has attracted increased attention from the research community. In
nomenon with hundreds of crowdfunding platforms worldwide, much general, research on the topic addresses three broad areas. First,
of the academic work on the subject has used data collected from U.S.- scholars have tried to understand when and why entrepreneurs use
based platforms. This work helps fill this void by including data crowdfunding platforms and their motivations to engage in

433
 M.P. Groza, et al.

Table 1
Research on reward-based crowdfunding.
Key studies Level of analysis Role of social capital Role of gender Platform

Creators’ motivations
Belleflamme et al., Creator’s preference for different reward types N/A N/A (Mathematical modeling)
2014
Gerber & Hui, 2013 Qualitative data gathered from creators N/A N/A Kickstarter, RocketHub, IndieGoGo
Project success factors
Ordanini et al., 2011 Qualitative data gathered from platform Generating early funds from external social capital N/A SellaBand, Trampoline, Kapipal
managers (friends & family) essential for success
Mollick, 2014 Funding success (yes/no) Social network size influences probability of project N/A Kickstarter
success
Frydrych et al., 2014 Funding success (Yes/no) Projects with multiple creators (i.e., diverse human Female creators more successful than men Kickstarter
and social capital) more successful than individuals
Colombo et al., 2015 Funding success (yes/no) & % goal Creator’s involvement as a backer positively Gender of creator used as control: projects of male creators Kickstarter
influences early contributions and the likelihood of less likely to succeed
project success
Chan et al., 2019 Amount raised & number of backers Number of projects backed by creator positively N/A Kickstarter

434
influences amount raised and number of backers
Sahaym et al., 2019 Funding success – perception of creator Creator’s social media (external social capital) Gender of creator used as control: no significant differences (survey of creators who used any platform)
positively effects funding success
Backers’ motivations
Greenberg & Mollick, % female backers, funding Success (yes/no) Social network size included as a control variable, but Female backers tend to support other women in categories in Kickstarter
2017 no effect which women are under-represented
Xu et al., 2016 Backer satisfaction N/A No differences between men and women in terms of backer Demohour
satisfaction.
Shneor & Munim, 2019 Backer lifetime contribution amount N/A Female (vs. male) backers reported a higher lifetime Mesenaatti.me
contribution amount
Simon et al., 2019 (1) Compliance (did backer contribute [yes/ Social closeness positively related to compliance but N/A StartSomeGood
no]), (2) amount funded not to contribution amount
Gap filled by this Prior research has focused on whether the Research has examined how a creator’s social capital Findings show women are relatively more successful in Research in area has largely used
study project achieves its funding goals or the affects project success. How a backer contributes to crowdfunding. They tend to support other women, but Kickstarter and other platforms founded in
factors influencing the project success. social ties has yet to be adequately researched. research has not yet considered gender’s influence on other English-speaking countries.
backer motivating factors.
Contributions of this Contribution 1: Uses survey data collected Contribution 2: Investigates how individual backers Contribution 3: Investigates interactive effect of gender on Contribution 4: Uses primary data from
study from crowdfunding backers. Unit of analysis is support their internal and external social ties. the effects of social capital in crowdfunding. the Spanish reward-based platform
at the backer level. Lanzanos.
Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442
M.P. Groza, et al. Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442

Fig. 1. Research model of backer, project reward, and social distance factors on crowdfunding contribution levels.

crowdfunding over other funding approaches (e.g., Belleflamme et al., internal crowdfunding network and their external social network is
2014; Gerber & Hui, 2013). Second, studies have addressed the factors unclear.
related to both the project and its creator that influence the success of As discussed previously, the role of gender in entrepreneurship has
individual crowdfunding projects (e.g., Colombo, Franzoni, & Rossi- received considerable attention in the literature. Research specifically
Lamastra, 2015; Mollick, 2014). Third, a far less researched area per- examining gender in crowdfunding offers some novel findings. This
tains to the motivations of backers to participate in crowdfunding (e.g., literature indicates that, in contrast with the traditional paradigm of
Greenberg & Mollick, 2017; Ordanini, Miceli, Pizzetti, & Parasuraman, entrepreneurship, female creators tend to garner relatively more sup-
2011). This third steam of research is just beginning to address topics port than male creators (Colombo et al., 2015). Researchers have of-
such as the factors that influence backer satisfaction (Xu, Zheng, Xu, & fered at least two explanations for this finding. First, Gorbatai and
Wang, 2016), lifetime contribution amounts (Shneor & Munim, 2019), Nelson (2015) conclude that female creators are better at marketing
and intentions to contribute to specific projects (Simon, Stanton, their projects through their choice of linguistics on the platform, which
Townsend, & Kim, 2019). Researchers, however, have not yet con- in turn allows them to solicit more funds. More recently, Greenberg and
sidered the effect of backer gender on contributions to an individual Mollick (2017) addressed this and concluded that the success of female
crowdfunding project. We aim to fill this and other voids in the lit- creators is mainly due to the support of female backers. In other words,
erature. Table 1 summarizes the research gaps and our contributions. they found that female backers tend to support female creators. This is
The literature examining the phenomenon of reward-based crowd- especially true in categories in which women are traditionally under-
funding is often grounded in social capital theory (Davidsson & Honig, represented (e.g., technology projects). Female backers then engage in
2003). Social capital is “the sum of the actual and potential resources activist choice homophily; that is, they use their power in an activist
embedded within, available through, and derived from the social con- way to help advance female representation in entrepreneurial activities
tacts of an individual or an organization” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p. related to technology (Greenberg & Mollick, 2017). We aim to extend
243). Scholars have criticized the lack of civic engagement and have these findings by examining the role of gender in activating social ca-
argued that social capital is playing a diminishing role in people’s lives pital support. That is, we propose that female backers support members
(Putnam, 2000). Recent work, however, suggests that the growth of of their social network in an activist way and thus will provide greater
digital networks is supplementing and often surpassing the size and support to their projects than their male counterparts will. We develop
subsequent social capital value of physical networks (Smith, Smith, & our theoretically grounded hypotheses next; Fig. 1 depicts our con-
Shaw, 2017). The digital nature of crowdfunding is well positioned to ceptual model.
take advantage of these changes in society and subsequent changes in
the source of social capital.
3. Research hypotheses
Crowdfunding research conceptualizes two general forms of social
capital. First, internal social capital is a creator’s ties to fellow creators
3.1. Internal social capital
and backers and forms from the relationships built within the crowd-
funding community (Chan et al., 2019; Colombo et al., 2015; Zheng, Li,
Internal social capital in the context of crowdfunding refers to the
Wu, & Xu, 2014). Individuals amass social capital from their involve-
actual and potential resources embedded within the network of
ment as creators or backers in the crowdfunding network. At the project
crowdfunding creators and backers. Research indicates that from the
level, Chan et al. (2019) and Zheng et al. (2014) conclude that a
perspective of a creator, internal social capital is strengthened when he
creator’s prior involvement as a crowdfunding backer positively influ-
or she has previously engaged as a backer (Chan et al., 2019). That is,
ences funding levels and the likelihood that the project will reach its
creators garner greater financial support when backers realize the
funding goal. Colombo et al. (2015) further evaluate this effect and
creators have previously contributed funds to other crowdfunding
conclude that it is the timing of this internal support that leads to
campaigns. In addition, from the perspective of an individual project,
project success. That is, the crowdfunding network tends to support a
internal social capital leads to funding success (Colombo et al., 2015).
campaign early, which is critical for the project’s ultimate success.
The strength and embeddedness of creators’ crowdfunding networks are
External social capital in the context of crowdfunding refers to any
positively related to their ability to garner funding for their projects
social capital a creator has access to outside the crowdfunding network.
(Zheng et al., 2014). Research, however, has not yet considered how
The resources available to creators from their traditional social net-
backers’ internal network position affects their contribution levels.
works are part of their external social capital (Sahaym, Datta, & Brooks,
Crowdfunding is unique in the world of entrepreneurial financing,
2019); this includes their friends, family members, and other social
as backers often participate as creators and thus can put themselves “in
network members. Research confirms that the success of a crowd-
the shoes” of other creators. By helping create a project, backers be-
funding project is based largely on a creator’s ability to garner funds
come part of the network of crowdfunding creators. This network and
from friends and family (Agrawal et al., 2015; Ordanini et al., 2011).
associated internal social capital develop because of the comradery,
While ample research has examined the role of both internal and ex-
struggles, and challenges shared among creators (Colombo et al., 2015).
ternal sources of social capital on the demand side of crowdfunding,
Often, however, backers never participate as creators and thus remain
researchers have yet to consider the supply side. Thus, why and how
peripheral to the network. We suggest that backers who have experi-
exactly individual backers are motivated to support members of their
ence as creators have an understanding of the struggles and challenges

435
M.P. Groza, et al. Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442

confronted throughout a crowdfunding project. This results in a sense of may be due to this homophilic tendency. Thus:
obligation that leads backers to contribute more to a project than others
who have never taken on the role of a creator (Zheng et al., 2014). H3. A backer’s contribution level will be higher when the project is
Thus: created by a creator who shares the same nationality.

H1. Backers who have created a crowdfunding project in the past 3.3. Gender as a moderator
will contribute more financially to a project than backers who have
never created a project. People tend to associate with and support other people who are
similar to them on some dimension. This phenomenon, known as
3.2. External social capital homophily (McPherson et al., 2001), indeed occurs in crowdfunding.
For example, Galak, Small, and Stephen (2011) find that crowdfunding
3.2.1. Friends and family backers prefer contributing to projects created by individuals who are
In addition to the resources available to creators from their social more (vs. less) like themselves. Specifically, they show that male
networks internal to the crowdfunding network, creators have social backers prefer supporting male creators and female backers prefer
capital external to the platform. One of the strongest and most valuable supporting female creators. Ascribed demographic variables such as
types of social capital is a creator’s network of friends and family. gender, ethnicity, and age typically play into one’s assessment of status
Research on crowdfunding indicates that a project’s success largely homophily. Greenberg and Mollick (2017) delve deeper into the gender
depends on a creator’s ability to garner financial support from friends homophily phenomenon in crowdfunding and empirically identify an
and family. Ordanini et al. (2011) highlight the “friend-funding phase” increased likelihood of funding success when female creators propose
in which known individuals (i.e., friends and family) join a crowd- technology projects, a category in which women are traditionally
funding platform for the sole purpose of helping support a creator’s under-represented. They conclude that this success is largely because
project. This friend-funding phase is followed by “getting-the-crowd” female backers’ support of female creators is particularly strong when
phase and, finally, the “race-to-be-in” phase (Ordanini et al., 2011). The the creators are working in a historically male-dominated field
friend-funding phase typically accounts for about half the project’s (Greenberg & Mollick, 2017).
target funding through a quick initial flow of investments. Colombo Greenberg and Mollick (2015; 2017) develop the concept of activist
et al. (2015) offer a competing model to this proposed funding life choice homophily to describe the tendency of female backers to use their
cycle. They argue that because many friends and family do not actively influence within crowdfunding in an activist way. Specifically, female
participate in crowdfunding, a creator’s internal social capital may be backers use their power to support female creators because they “can
the first backers. Regardless of the order of funding, they still ac- either sympathize or empathize with the entrepreneur’s position and,
knowledge that the external social capital of friends and family is in- thus, challenges” (Greenberg & Mollick, 2015, p. 11). We extend this
deed a critical component to a project’s funding success. concept and propose that female backers will support their internal and
We propose that backers will provide greater financial support to external social network members more than male backers will. While
projects created by friends and family than to those created by non- crowdfunding may help shrink the gender gap in entrepreneurship,
friends and family. This prediction is based on the idea that friends and women remain under-represented in both the supply and demand side
family have a perceived social obligation to help a family member or a of the capital equation (Thébaud, 2015). Thus, given their minority
friend (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001), while the sense of position, female backers will be more attuned to the difficulties internal
obligation to help a stranger is significantly reduced (Shapiro, 1980). and external social network ties face. As such, they will feel more
The social capital (i.e., knowledge and reciprocity) established between compelled to help their fellow network members. By contrast, male
a backer and a personally known creator should drive higher con- backers are likely less attuned to such struggles and less inclined to back
tribution levels. Thus, we expect a project created by a known (vs. an simply to achieve activist outcomes. Thus:
unknown) creator to garner a higher level of financial support.
H4. Gender will moderate the effect of internal and external social
H2. A backer’s contribution level will be higher when the project is capital factors—that is, (a) participation as a creator, (b) friends and
created by someone with whom he or she has a personal connection family, and (c) shared nationality—on contribution levels, such that
(i.e., friends and family). these factors will have a greater effect on female backers than male
backers.
3.2.2. Shared nationality
Mirroring broader commercial trends, crowdfunding is cross-cul- 4. Methods
tural, spans across a wide variety of socio-economic strata, and is global
(Mollick, 2014). That is, anyone with Internet access, with minimal 4.1. Sample and data collection
technical ability, and with minimal financial resources can create,
promote, or back a project. This means that the physical and social The dataset consists of survey responses from registered users of the
distance between creators and backers is not a constraint. Thus, ex- Spanish crowdfunding platform Lanzanos. Founded by three in-
ternal social capital, in the context of crowdfunding, stretches beyond dependent Spanish entrepreneurs in December 2010, Lanzanos is a
the personal relationships between creators and backers. reward-based crowdfunding platform. The development of Lanzanos
Researchers have identified geographic clustering in crowdfunding, was inspired by the successful launch of Kickstarter in the United States
in which a large number of backers of a project come from a similar (founded in April 2009) and, similar to Kickstarter, is an all-or-nothing
geographic location (Agrawal, Catalini, & Goldfarb, 2013; Burtch, crowdfunding platform. That is, if a specific project does not reach the
Ghose, & Wattal, 2015). The wave of local backers (i.e., friends and minimum requested amount, the creator receives none of the pledged
family) a creator relies on early in a crowdfunding campaign may partly funding. The platform retains a 5% commission on the total amount
explain this finding (Agrawal et al., 2015). There may, however, be funded for successful projects and receives no commission if a project
another explanation to geographic clustering. Sociologists regard geo- fails to achieve its minimum requested amount. The most common
graphic proximity as one of the most basic sources of homophily. In- rewards creators offer on Lanzanos are symbolic items and pre-orders.
dividuals who live in proximity and/or share nationalities tend to like Lanzanos does not focus on a particular sector or industry but rather
and support one another compared with those who do not share the welcomes projects from a large variety of categories (e.g., music, film,
same nationality (McPherson et al., 2001). This geographic clustering books, software, games). While backers from around the world can

436
M.P. Groza, et al. Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables (selection model n = 4,705).
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Funded (1 = Yes) 1
2. Age −0.15** 1
3. Gender (1 = Female) 0.11** 0.02 1
4. Education 0.09** 0.06** 0.13** 1
5. Employment status 0.12** 0.02 −0.04** 0.17** 1
6. Economic condition 0.06** −0.20** −0.05** 0.08** 0.27** 1
7. Attitude toward crowdfunding 0.36** −0.13** −0.18** 0.15** 0.09** 0.06** 1
8. Participation as a creator 0.01 0.04** −0.01 0.04** −0.01 −0.03** 0.17** 1
Descriptive statistics
M 0.50 38.08 0.31 4.25 0.74 2.60 5.22 0.09
SD 0.50 10.15 0.46 1.34 0.44 1.02 2.04 0.29

* p < .05; ** p < .01.

make contributions, the vast majority (80%–90%) come from Spain. we also asked backers, “Did you personally know (i.e., a relative, friend,
From its inception to October 2019, 1,348 projects were successfully or other acquaintance) the project creator?” Forty percent of backers
funded via Lanzanos. During that time, 289,000 different backers made personally knew the creator. We created the interaction terms partici-
520,000 individual contributions totaling €11.8 million. pation as a creator × gender, friends & family × gender, and shared na-
Bilingual members of the research team created the survey in tionality × gender by multiplying each respective independent variable
Spanish, and several bilingual scholars not associated with the research by gender.
team reviewed the English translation and confirmed its accuracy. In
cooperation with the leadership team at Lanzanos, we distributed a link 4.2.3. Control variables
to the electronic survey via email to a sample of registered users. Of the We collected and controlled for several demographic factors in both
35,335 invitations successfully delivered, we received 4,705 (13.3%) the selection (first-stage probit) model and the linear equation (second-
completed surveys. The survey consisted of three main parts. First, it stage) model. In addition to gender, we controlled for age, educational
asked all respondents about their attitudes toward and involvement in attainment (on a 6-point scale; from “did not attend high school” to
crowdfunding. Second, only the respondents who indicated they had “postgraduate degree”), employment status, and personal economic
backed at least one project could move on to answer a series of ques- condition (on a 5-point scale; from “it has gotten considerably worse
tions about a project they had backed and its creator. Third, the survey over the last two years” to “it has gotten considerably better over the
concluded with a series of demographic questions the whole sample last two years”). We also controlled for respondents’ attitude toward
answered. crowdfunding. To assess this, first we asked respondents, “To what ex-
In total, 2,357 respondents indicated they had backed at least one tent do you agree with the following statement: Crowdfunding is a
project. Our primary research interest is in the individual-level factors subject that I am very interested in” (on a 5-point scale; “strongly dis-
that influence the amount contributed to crowdfunding projects; thus, agree/strongly agree”). Second, respondents answered on an 11-point
we primary focused on this group of active backers. As this non-random semantic differential scale (“very unattractive/very attractive”), “To
selection sample can bias the estimation, we used Heckman (1979) two- what extent is crowdfunding attractive to you?” W summed the average
stage model to analyze the data. In line with the population on Lan- of these two scale questions (r = 0.63) to create a measure on attitude
zanos, the sample contains 91% Spanish citizens; of these, 26% are toward crowdfunding.
women, and the average age is 36.6 years. We included two additional control variables in the second-stage
linear equation model. First, we include the total number of projects
4.2. Variables backed by the respondent as a control. Second, we control for the
nature of the reward offered by the specific project. The variable pre-
4.2.1. Dependent variable order reward takes the value of 1 if the project had a pre-order reward
The dependent variable in the first stage of the Heckman (1979) structure and 0 if not. The variable symbolic reward takes the value of 1
two-stage model is binary (0/1); it takes the value of 1 if the respondent if the project involved a tangible symbolic reward and 0 if not. In total,
had ever backed a project and 0 if not. The respondents who indicated 68% of projects involved a pre-order, 22% involved a tangible reward
they had backed at least one crowdfunding project noted the amount with symbolic value (e.g., T-shirt, certificate/plaque), and 10% had
they contributed to the last project they had funded. Contribution levels some non-tangible symbolic reward (e.g., name mention in book or
ranged from €1 to €500, with an average contribution level of €57. This movie credits).
amount funded outcome is the variable of interest in the theoretical Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations
model and empirical analysis. among the variables used in the selection model (n = 4,705). Table 3
lists the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the vari-
4.2.2. Independent variables ables used in the linear model (n = 2,357).
We have six key independent variables—three directly measured
and three created by calculating interaction terms. All respondents in- 4.3. Analytic approach
dicated whether they had ever participated as a crowdfunding creator
(participation as a creator). Of the backer sample, 10% indicated they Again, we used the Heckman two-stage model to analyze the data.
had created at least one project (9.5% of the total sample created at We employed SAS’s PROC QLIM HECKIT to execute the analysis. In the
least one project). We then asked respondents who had backed at least first step, a probit selection equation is estimated; the binary dependent
one project, “What was the nationality of the creator?” In total, 83% of variable fundedi takes the value of 1 if the respondent has participated
these projects had a creator from Spain. We than created a variable, as a crowdfunding backer and 0 otherwise. We specify the selection
shared nationality, that takes the value of 1 if the backer and creator equation as
share the same nationality and 0 if not. Of the backer–creator dyads,
78% share the same nationality. To create the friends & family variable, fundedi = i + i ~N (0, 1),

437
M.P. Groza, et al. Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442

where ω is a vector of explanatory variables and ε is normally dis-

0.69
0.22
17
tributed with a mean of 0, a standard deviation of σ, and a correlation

1
of ρ. We estimate the selection equation with maximum likelihood as an
independent probit model. We obtain the inverse Mills ratio (λ) from

0.24**

0.16
0.36
16

the results of this first-stage model and include it in the second-stage

1
linear equation to correct for any possible section bias (Greene, 2003;

0.69**
0.25**
Heckman, 1979). We specify the second-stage linear equation as

0.22
0.41
15

1
amount fundedi = Xi + ( i ) + i,

0.28**
0.27**
0.11**

0.03
0.17
where x is a vector of explanatory variables and the estimates of β are
14

1
obtained from the selected sample.

0.11**
0.25**
0.53**
0.19**

0.40
0.49
13

5. Results
0.10**

0.28**
0.10**
0.15**

0.78
0.41
.04b

To limit any concerns about multicollinearity biasing the results, we

12

examined the variance inflation factors of the independent variables.

The factors for all the explanatory variables in all the models are less
0.11**
0.53**

0.09**
0.00

0.04

0.10
0.30
.05b

than 10, suggesting that multicollinearity is not an issue in the analysis

11

(Kleinbaum, Kupper, Muller, & Nizam, 1998).

Table 4 presents the regression results of the analysis. The first
0.17**
0.05**
0.12**
0.13**
0.07**
0.04*

0.22
0.42
.05b

column reports the results of the first-stage probit model. The sub-
10

sequent models reported in Table 4 are the estimates of the second-

stage linear equations. The linear equation model 1 includes the control
−0.79**
−0.07**

−0.21**
−0.07**
−0.17**
−0.17**
−0.14**
−0.02

variables, and in model 2, we add the main-effects variables. We add

0.68
0.46

the interaction variables in models 3, 4, and 5 individually. Finally,

9

model 6 represents the full model, including all main effects and
−0.13**
−0.11**

−0.09**
−0.11**
−0.82**

moderator variables.
0.14**
0.04
0.00

5.96
1.03
.04b

H1 proposes that backers who have experience as creators will

8

contribute more to a crowdfunding project than those who have no

experience as creators. The analysis fails to support this main-effect
−0.06**

−0.19**
−0.12**

−0.09**
−0.09**
−0.21**
−0.02
0.23**
0.08**

hypothesis, as the estimate in model 2 for the variable participation as a

0.01

3.03
4.54

creator is non-significant (b = −10.25, p > .10). The results are also

7

counter to the prediction made in H2, as backers contribute less to

−0.19**
−0.06**
−0.06**
−0.08**

−0.14**

projects created by friends and family (b = −12.39, p < .01). The

−0.05*
−0.04

−.05b
0.05*
0.02
0.03

2.66
1.00

analysis also fails to support H3, which proposes that a shared na-
6

tionality will lead to higher contribution levels (b = −0.19, p > .10).

For the moderation hypothesis, model 3 supports H4a, as gender
−0.33**
−0.01

−0.02
−0.01
−0.04

positively moderates the effect of participation as a creator on con-

−.05b

−.05b
0.27**
Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables (linear model n = 2,357).

0.05*
0.04

0.03
0.01

0.79
0.41

tribution levels (b = 20.74, p < .01). Model 4 supports H4b

5

(b = 24.40, p < .01), as gender has a significant and positive moder-

ating impact on the relationship between friends and family and con-
−0.06**

−0.15**
−0.02
0.14**
0.10**

0.10**
0.05**
0.14**
0.13**
0.05*

tribution levels. Finally, model 5 fails to support H4c, as gender does

0.01
0.00

0.02

4.36
1.29

not significantly moderate the relationship between shared nationality

4

and contribution level (b = −9.56, p > .05).

−0.06**
−0.10**
−0.08**
−0.20**
−0.05*

To test the robustness of the results, specifically the interaction ef-

0.17**

0.14**

0.10**
0.26**
0.29**
0.90**
0.74**
0.25**
0.03

0.26
0.44

fects, we used the PROCESS MACRO (Hayes, 2013), which specifies a

3

lower-limit (LLCI) and upper-limit (ULCI) confidence interval for a

conditional effect. The MACRO also uses the Johnson–Neman technique
−0.19**

−0.08**
−0.17**
−0.03
0.08**
0.11**

0.09**

0.09**
0.12**

0.42**

to provide estimates to plot conditional effects. This analysis confirms

0.05*
0.02

0.02

0.03

36.6
9.11
.05b

the significant moderating effect of gender on the participation as a

2

creator–amount funded (H4a) relationship (LLCI: 3.82, ULCI: 37.32;

−0.20**
−0.08**

−0.15**
−0.07**

−0.17**

−0.19**
−0.13**

b = 20.57, p < .01). As Fig. 2 shows, female backers who are also
−0.05*
−0.04

−0.03

−0.01

−0.04
−.05b
0.21**
0.05*
0.02

57.1
58.1

creators contribute more than female backers who are not creators. This
1

effect is reversed among male backers; male backers who are also
creators contribute less than male backers who are not creators.
15. Shared nationality × Gender
8. Attitude toward crowdfunding

14. Part. as a creator × Gender

16. Friends & family × Gender

1. Contribution amount (euros)

The robustness check also confirms support for H4b, as the inter-
7. Number of projects backed

11. Participation as a creator

action term friends & family × female is significant (LLCI: 13.76, ULCI:
3. Gender (1 = Female)

35.12; b = 24.44, p < .01). As Fig. 3 indicates, female backers con-

* p < .05; ** p < .01.
6. Economic condition

12. Shared nationality

Descriptive statistics
17. Inverse Mills ratio
5. Employment status

10. Symbolic reward

13. Friends & family

tribute more to projects created by friends and family than to projects

9. Pre-order reward

created by individuals they do not know. Again, however, this effect is

reversed among male backers, who contribute substantially less to
4. Education
Variables

projects created by friends and family than to projects created by in-

Table 3

2. Age

dividuals they do not know.

SD
M

438
M.P. Groza, et al. Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442

Table 4
Regression results.
Dependent variable Probability of backing Amount funded

First-stage Second-stage model 1 Second-stage model 2

**
Controls Intercept −1.07 (8.19) 131.87 (3.06) 26.11 (0.31)
Age −0.02 (0.01) 0.49 (1.54) -0.19 (0.35)
Female −0.15 (3.51)** −16.59 (4.12)** −20.61 (3.50)**
Education 0.04 (2.68)** −3.21 (2.59)** −1.06 (0.62)
Employment status 0.29 (6.22)** −7.75 (1.27) 5.65 (0.53)
Economic condition −0.03 (1.38) 3.05 (2.12)* 1.54 (0.95)
Attitude toward crowdfunding 0.27 (21.54)** −9.48 (2.01)* 2.52 (0.27)
Number of projects backed −0.89 (3.32)** −1.03 (3.84)**
Pre-order reward 23.56 (5.77)** 22.31 (5.43)**
Symbolic reward 2.74 (0.61) 3.32 (0.74)
Main effects
Participation as a creator (H1) −0.22 (3.36)** −10.25 (1.21)
Friends & family (F&F) (H2) −12.39 (4.95)**
Shared nationality (H3) -0.19 (0.06)
Interactions
Participation × female (H4a)
F&F × female (H4b)
Shared nation. × female (H4c)
Inverse Mills ratio −49.20 (1.75) 25.60 (0.46)
Akaike information criterion 5705 23,501 23,481
Schwarz Bayesian criterion 5757 23,586 23,590
Log-likelihood −2845
McFadden's R2 or Adj. R2 0.13 0.07 0.08

Dependent variable Amount funded

Second-stage model 3 Second-stage model 4 Second-stage model 5 Second-stage model 6

Controls Intercept 31.46 (0.37) 35.52 (0.42) 23.98 (0.29) 37.23 (0.44)
Age −0.15 (0.27) −0.12 (0.21) -0.19 (0.34) -0.08 (0.14)
Female −22.53 (3.80)** −33.19 (5.12)** −12.63 (1.52) −24.37 (2.83)**
Education −1.15 (0.68) −1.14 (0.68) −1.07 (0.63) −1.23 (0.73)
Employment status 4.97 (0.47) 4.71 (0.45) 5.86 (0.55) 4.40 (0.42)
Economic condition 1.67 (1.04) 1.59 (1.00) 1.54 (0.96) 1.71 (1.08)
Attitude toward crowdfunding 1.98 (0.21) 1.73 (0.19) 2.55 (0.27) 1.32 (0.14)
Number of projects backed −1.03 (3.86)** −1.07 (4.03)** −1.00 (3.73)** −1.04 (3.90)**
Pre-order reward 22.14 (5.39)** 21.86 (5.34)** 22.35 (5.44)** 21.77 (5.32)**
Symbolic reward 3.22 (0.72) 3.51 (0.79) 3.23 (0.72) 3.30 (0.74)
Main effects
Participation as a creator (H1) −15.92 (1.82) −9.32 (1.11) −10.18 (1.20) −14.09 (1.62)
Friends & family (F&F) (H2) −12.27 (4.91)** −19.18 (6.58)** −12.32 (4.93)** −18.92 (6.49)**
Shared nationality (H3) −0.32 (0.11) −0.27 (0.09) 1.70 (0.52) 2.06 (0.64)
Interactions
Participation × female (H4a) 20.74 (2.45)** 17.71 (2.09)*
F&F × female (H4b) 24.40 (4.50)** 24.17 (4.43)**
Shared nat. × female (H4c) −9.56 (1.35) −12.40 (1.75)
Inverse Mills ratio 22.16 (0.40) 19.49 (0.35) 25.87 (0.46) 16.97 (0.31)
Akaike information criterion 23,477 23,463 23,481 23,459
Schwarz Bayesian criterion 23,593 23,579 23,579 23,591
Log-likelihood
McFadden's R2 or Adj. R2 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.093

Note: Unstandardized coefficients reported; t-values are in parentheses.

Heckman two-step methodology. The first stage is a probit model, and the second stage is a linear model. The inverse Mills ratio is introduced in the second stage to
correct for sample selection bias.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.

6. Discussion developed a series of theoretically grounded hypotheses, undertook

large-scale data collection of Spanish crowdfunding users, and analyzed
Although crowdfunding platforms have emerged as an important the data to test the predictions.
source of funding for entrepreneurs across the globe, research addres- This study offers several theoretical and substantive findings. First,
sing potential public policy implications of crowdfunding has not kept the significant and negative coefficient of the control variable female in
pace. While the term “crowdfunding” has been in existence since 2006, both the selection and linear models has important implications. As
scant empirical research has examined the factors that motivate con- indicated in the first-stage probit model, women are less likely to back a
sumer-investors to support individual crowdfunding projects. project than men. In addition, as indicated in model 1 of the second-
Furthermore, while researchers have argued that crowdfunding may stage linear model, women contribute €16.60 less than male backers.
help alleviate gender discrepancies in terms of women receiving en- This effect size is substantial, considering that the average contribution
trepreneurial funding (e.g., Colombo et al., 2015; Frydrych et al., across the whole dataset is €57. Thus, while crowdfunding may help
2014), the role of backer gender in influencing contribution levels re- reduce the gender gap in terms of entrepreneurs receiving funding, our
mains unclear. To address these and other gaps in the literature, we empirical analysis suggests that crowdfunding is not reducing the

439
M.P. Groza, et al. Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442

and crowdfunding as a whole is predicated on bridging social capital

and attracting contributions from individuals beyond creators’ personal
networks (see Ordanini et al., 2011). Creators then should work to
create projects that will generate contributions from strangers rather
than merely soliciting backing from friends and family. To achieve this
objective, creators must work to build their reputation by garnering the
support of backers external to their social network.
A possible explanation for this surprising finding is the social
pressure backers face to support creators who share internal and ex-
ternal social ties. An individual may feel pressure to back a project
created by friends and family members but will make a smaller con-
tribution to minimize the financial risk. Thus, while backers may be
more likely to fund projects of friends and family (Ordanini et al.,
2011), they also give lower contribution amounts than backers who do
not have social ties with the creator. Examining the findings of the
moderating hypotheses may provide additional support for this idea.
H4 predicts that gender will moderate the effect of the social capital
variables on contribution levels. We argue that women (vs. men) are
more likely to engage in choice homophily and will support, to a greater
Fig. 2. Interaction effects of gender and participation as a creator on con-
extent, creators who are part of their internal and external social net-
tribution levels.
works. The results of the moderation analysis largely confirm this
prediction, as gender significantly moderates the effect of the status of
the backer as a creator (H4a) (i.e., internal social capital) and the re-
lationship between the backer and creator (H4c) (i.e., external social
capital) on contribution levels. In both cases, women contribute more to
creators in their social networks, while men contribute more to creators
outside their social networks.
Women may indeed be more prone than men to support others who
are like them and more attuned to homophily (Greenberg & Mollick,
2017). As Figs. 2 and 3 indicate, the gender-funding gap is greatly re-
duced when we examine only backers who have previously been
creators and contribute to projects of friends and family. This finding
suggests that female backers are more concerned with the social con-
sequences of participating in crowdfunding. That is, female backers
may have a greater sense of reciprocal obligation to help social ties
(Westermann, Ashby, & Pretty, 2005). Thus, creators should consider
offering different appeals that resonate with both female and male
backers (Gorbatai & Nelson, 2015). Appeals targeted to female backers
should highlight the homophily or shared struggles between the creator
Fig. 3. Interaction effects of gender–backer-creator relationship on contribution and the backer, while appeals targeted to male backers should highlight
levels. the efficacy of the creator and the merits of the project. In addition,
creators should work to attract female backers who share network ties
supply-side gender gap. Both creators and crowdfunding platforms (i.e., fellow creators and friends and family) and male backers who are
should heed this finding and work to attract more female backers to external to their social network (i.e., non-creators and non-friends/-
garner larger financial contributions from them for projects. Women family). In summary, the findings indicate different aspects of a
represent a vast but untapped segment of the crowdfunding backer crowdfunding campaign that influence female and male backers dif-
population. Thus, focusing on attracting female support should be a ferently, and crowdfunding creators should not ignore these differences
priority for proponents of crowdfunding. We offer suggestions on how (Mohammadi & Shafi, 2018).
best to attract such support subsequently.
The findings regarding the importance of social capital factors and 6.1. Implications
the moderating effect of gender in these relationships offer important
insights into the motivations of crowdfunding backers. First, while The crowdfunding marketplace helps fuel the entrepreneurial im-
neither participation as a creator (H1) nor shared nationality with the pulse at the macro level. Reward-based crowdfunding consists of three
creator (H3) had a direct effect on the contribution level, personally key players: platforms, creators, and backers (see Fig. 4). In equity- and
knowing a creator (H2) had a significant and negative effect on con- lending-based crowdfunding, regulators provide outside oversight,
tribution levels. That is, individual backers provided less money to keeping watch over the whole ecosystem. Platforms operate at the meso
projects created by friends and family than projects by unknown level, as an intermediary connecting creators and backers. Platforms
creators. This finding is a contrast with the theory of social capital and need to ensure that they provide value for both creators and backers
offers additional insight to researchers who question the importance of and are not viewed as simply commission agents capitalizing on en-
bonding social capital in entrepreneurship (e.g., Ahlers et al., 2015; trepreneurs’ successes. Creators develop innovative projects, which
Barrios & Blocker, 2015). Conversely, it is in line with Zaggl and Block they can test in the marketplace through crowdfunding. Backers are
(2019, p. 6) suggestion that in reverse herding, “it is very likely that simply consumers who, through the medium of crowdfunding, are
they [friends and family] contribute despite the low quality, but their empowered to provide financial support through a pledge with the
contributions are smaller than under normal campaign quality.” Sub- possibility to receive some type of reward. In this research, we focused
stantively, our findings suggest that the success of individual projects on a reward-based crowdfunding platform on which backers supported
projects by creators.

440
M.P. Groza, et al. Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442

Fig. 4. Crowdfunding ecosystem.

Crowdfunding platforms are the intermediaries that, through in- creation, innovation, and new product development. Furthermore, the
formation technology, connect creators who have innovative ideas with findings suggest that crowdfunding is a feasible fix to help mitigate the
backers who have capital to invest in such ideas. An important role of resource divide.
platforms is their filtering capacity, to ensure only quality projects with Creative freedom drives crowdfunding, and thus being too re-
reputable creators are promoted on the medium. This initial screening strictive might alter the definition of crowdfunding itself. However,
is a critical step in the crowdfunding process but can be fraught with backers may have concerns or skepticisms about crowdfunding. Backers
agency conflicts. If backers perceive projects to be of low quality, they have perceptions of the project itself and the creator of the project. Our
may begin to doubt crowdfunding as a legitimate entrepreneurial fi- research reveals that their relationship with creators influences their
nancing tool. If many bad projects are able to proceed through the backing financial level. The results indicate that backers support pro-
crowdfunding process, backers may begin to question the medium and jects created by individuals outside their personal network to a greater
to reduce or eliminate their investment activities. Fraud can occur on degree than projects created by friends and family. This indicates that
the part of creators (Baucus & Mitteness, 2016), leading to doubts in the backers are likely evaluating projects on the efficacy of the project and
minds of backers. Allowing questionable creators to participate in not just their relationship with the creator.
crowdfunding sites can threaten public opinion about the medium.
Thus, to mitigate these backer concerns, platform administrators often 6.2. Limitations and future research directions
install filters to assess creator reliability. Doing so, however, presents an
important issue, as setting stringent screening criteria may hinder the Internal and external social capital are important factors influencing
innovativeness and spontaneity associated with the phenomenon. It backer contribution levels. While we included three specific compo-
may also diminish the power of the crowd and offer platform admin- nents of social capital, we omitted other possibly important compo-
istrators the opportunity to participate in a new form of “crony capit- nents. For example, social capital based on age cohorts, socio-economic
alism.” status, and education level may all affect the level of financial support a
As mentioned previously, women are under-represented both in backer provides to a creator (McPherson et al., 2001). Future research
receiving financing for their entrepreneurial activities and in the deci- should continue to examine the vital role of social capital factors in
sion-making process for providing entrepreneurial capital (Brush et al., affecting backer behavior.
2014). The findings herein suggest that female backers are more willing We uncovered gender as an important factor moderating the effect
to support friends and family than men and provide higher investment of social capital ties on contribution levels. Gender may also moderate
levels if they themselves were crowdfunding creators in the past. Thus, other factors, including project-level variables, such as the project’s
women are more prone to bonding social capital and provide more category, funding goal, and quality of the appeal video. Although data
support to their social network. This highlights the esprit de corps limitations prevented us from including these factors, future research
among and between female entrepreneurs. Crowdfunding allows in- should consider examining these (and other) individual- and project-
dividual female consumers, who may otherwise have little influence in level variables.
the creation of new ventures and the new product development process, The dependent variable in this study is the level of a backer’s con-
to leverage the power of the crowd to make substantive changes. Thus, tribution to a specific crowdfunding project. In addition, the first-stage
while traditionally women have been under-represented in the supply probit selection model examines the probability of an individual sup-
side of entrepreneurship, through platforms that bridge creators and porting at least one project. While this is undoubtedly an important
backers, female backers can support creators who they believe have outcome variable, other outcome variables are also of interest to
developed innovative and vital campaigns for the marketplace. crowdfunding proponents. For example, future research could examine
Thus, crowdfunding is a financing tool that can provide female whether the factors uncovered herein influence the frequency of backer
entrepreneurs much-needed access to female investors and, ultimately, support or the cumulative (i.e., lifetime-value) support provided by
capital. The societal benefits of more thoroughly engaging the “third backers. The independent variables included indeed may or may not
billion” (i.e., women) in the entrepreneurial process cannot be over- influence these alternative outcome variables. Future researchers would
stated (Hein et al., 2016; Nair, 2019). Such benefits include wealth be well served to verify this.

441
M.P. Groza, et al. Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 432–442

Finally, while we used a non-North-American sample (Spanish- McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in
speaking backers from the Spanish crowdfunding site Lanzanos), the social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Mohammadi, A., & Shafi, K. (2018). Gender differences in the contribution patterns of
sample still lacked diversity in national origin. As discussed previously, equity-crowdfunding investors. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 275–287.
crowdfunding today is truly a global phenomenon, and research needs Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of
Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.
to continue to consider cross-cultural and cross-platform differences Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organiza-
among backers. Thus, future research should attempt to draw more- tional advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
diverse samples of crowdfunding backers to test the predictions made Nair, S. R. (2019). The link between women entrepreneurship, innovation and stake-
holder engagement: A review. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/
herein and to extend this research. j.jbusres.2019.06.038.
Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Crowd-funding:
Transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal
Acknowledgment
of Service Management, 22(4), 443–470.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse of revival of American community. New
The authors would like to thank ENAE Business School and York: Simon & Schuster.
Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias:
Northern Illinois University College of Business for their support of this Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social
research. Psychology, 87(4), 494–509.
Sahaym, A., Datta, A. A., & Brooks, S. (2019). Crowdfunding success through social
media: Going beyond entrepreneurial orientation in the context of small and
References medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.09.026.
Sexton, D. L., & Bowman-Upton, N. (1990). Female and male entrepreneurs:
Agrawal, A. K., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2013). Some simple economics of crowd-
Psychological characteristics and their role in gender-related discrimination. Journal
funding. National Bureau of Economic Research No. w19133.
of Business Venturing, 5(1), 29–36.
Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, social net-
Shapiro, E. G. (1980). Is seeking help from a friend like seeking help from a stranger?
works, and the timing of investment decisions. Journal of Economics & Management
Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(2), 259–263.
Strategy, 24(2), 253–274.
Shneor, R., & Munim, Z. H. (2019). Reward crowdfunding contribution as planned be-
Ahlers, G. K., Cumming, D., Günther, C., & Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in equity
haviour: An extended framework. Journal of Business Research, 103, 56–70.
crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955–980.
Simon, M., Stanton, S. J., Townsend, J. D., & Kim, J. (2019). A multi-method study of
Barrios, A., & Blocker, C. P. (2015). The contextual value of social capital for subsistence
social ties and crowdfunding success: Opening the black box to get the cash inside.
entrepreneur mobility. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(2), 272–286.
Journal of Business Research, 104, 206–214.
Baucus, M. S., & Mitteness, C. R. (2016). Crowdfrauding: Avoiding Ponzi entrepreneurs
Smith, C., Smith, J. B., & Shaw, E. (2017). Embracing digital networks: Entrepreneurs'
when investing in new ventures. Business Horizons, 59(1), 37–50.
social capital online. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 18–34.
Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the
Stemler, A. R. (2013). The JOBS Act and crowdfunding: Harnessing the power—and
right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609.
money—of the masses. Business Horizons, 56(3), 271–275.
Brush, C. G., Greene, P. G., Balachandra, L., & Davis, A. E. (2014). Diana report women
Thébaud, S. (2015). Business as plan B Institutional foundations of gender inequality in
entrepreneurs 2014: Bridging the gender gap in venture capital. The Diana Project,
entrepreneurship across 24 industrialized countries. Administrative Science Quarterly,
Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
60(4), 671–711.
Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2015). The hidden cost of accommodating crowd-
Thorpe, D. (2014). Crowdfunding becomes global phenomenon. Forbes. Retrieved from
funder privacy preferences: A randomized field experiment. Management Science,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/devinthorpe/2014/09/29/crowdfunding-becomes-
61(5), 949–962.
global-phenomenon/.
Chan, H. F., Moy, N., Schaffner, M., & Torgler, B. (2019). The effects of money saliency
Thürridl, C., & Kamleitner, B. (2016). What goes around comes around? Rewards as
and sustainability orientation on reward based crowdfunding success. Journal of
strategic assets in crowdfunding. California Management Review, 58(2), 88–110.
Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.037.
Weisul, K. (2019). A New breed of funds has raised $2 billion for women founders. It’s a
Cholakova, M., & Clarysse, B. (2015). Does the possibility to make equity investments in
start. Inc. Magazine, October. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/magazine/
crowdfunding projects crowd out reward-based investments? Entrepreneurship Theory
201611/kimberly-weisul/new-face-of-funding.html.
and Practice, 39(1), 145–172.
Westermann, O., Ashby, J., & Pretty, J. (2005). Gender and social capital: The importance
Colombo, M. G., Franzoni, C., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). Internal social capital and the
of gender differences for the maturity and effectiveness of natural resource man-
attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and
agement groups. World Development, 33(11), 1783–1799.
Practice, 39(1), 75–100.
Xu, B., Zheng, H., Xu, Y., & Wang, T. (2016). Configurational paths to sponsor satisfaction
Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., & Ajjan, H. (2019). Empowering women micro-en-
in crowdfunding. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 915–927.
trepreneurs in emerging economies: The role of information communications tech-
Zaggl, M., & Block, J. H. (2019). Do small funding amounts lead to reverse herding? A
nology. Journal of Business Research, 98, 191–203.
field experiment in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing Insights,
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent
12, 1–8.
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
Zheng, H., Li, D., Wu, J., & Xu, Y. (2014). The role of multidimensional social capital in
Frydrych, D., Bock, A. J., Kinder, T., & Koeck, B. (2014). Exploring entrepreneurial le-
crowdfunding: A comparative study in China and US. Information & Management,
gitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding. Venture Capital, 16(3), 247–269.
51(4), 488–496.
Gajda, O. (2017). Review of Crowdfunding Regulation (2017): Interpretations of existing
regulation concerning crowdfunding in Europe, North America and Israel. European
Crowdfunding Network. European Crowdfunding Network AISBL. Mya P. Groza (PhD, University of Wyoming) is an Associate Professor of Marketing at
Galak, J., Small, D., & Stephen, A. T. (2011). Microfinance decision making: A field study Northern Illinois University. Her research interests include branding, digital marketing,
of prosocial lending. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, S130–S137. the interplay of online and television advertising, and social media. She enjoys employing
Gerber, E. M., & Hui, J. S. (2013). Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for parti- both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Mya’s work has appeared in aca-
cipation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(6), 34. demic journals such as the Journal of Business Ethics, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Journal
Gorbatai, A. D., & Nelson, L. (2015). Gender and the language of crowdfunding. In of Business Research and Marketing Management Journal. She currently teaches mar-
Academy of Management Proceedings (No. 1, p. 15785). Briarcliff Manor, NY: keting research at the undergraduate and graduate level and teaches the masters of digital
Academy of Management. marketing capstone course.
Greenberg, J., & Mollick, E. (2015). Leaning in or leaning on? Gender, homophily, and
activism in crowdfunding. Academy of Management Proceedings (pp. 1–58). .
Greenberg, J., & Mollick, E. (2017). Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of Mark D. Groza (PhD, University of Massachusetts Amherst) is the Enterprise Holdings
female founders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), 341–374. Professor of Sales and an Associate Professor of Marketing at Northern Illinois University.
Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Mark teaches a variety of courses in the Professional Sales Program including Business to
Hall International. Business Sales, Strategic Negotiations and Principles of Selling. Mark has published nu-
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: merous academic articles at various outlets on topics ranging from sales management to
A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press. corporate sponsorship and corporate social responsibility. His research has appeared in
Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, the Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Advertising
153–161. Research, and the Journal of Global Marketing among others.
Hein, W., Steinfield, L., Ourahmoune, N., Coleman, C. A., Zayer, L. T., & Littlefield, J.
(2016). Gender justice and the market: A transformative consumer research per-
Luis Miguel Barral is cofounder of Two Much research studio a market research firm
spective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 223–236.
Hill, R. P., & Dhanda, K. K. (1999). Gender inequity and quality of life: A macromarketing focused on improving the relationship between brands and citizens. Since its founding in
perspective. Journal of Macromarketing, 19(2), 140–152. October 1990, Luis and his Madid, Spain based company has conducted more than 400
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., & Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression research projects for clients such as Real Madrid, Spotify, Government of Costa Rica,
analysis and multivariate methods. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Movistar, Repsol, Hewlett Packard, Greenpeace, Ford, Red Cross, Naturgy, Ecoalf,
Martínez-Climent, C., Costa-Climent, R., & Oghazi, P. (2019). Sustainable financing Mapfre, Coca Cola, Case IH, Schweppes, Iberdrola or Aldeas Infantiles SOS. A geographer
through crowdfunding. Sustainability, 11(3), 934–949. trained in communication, social sciences, humanities, environment and sustainable de-
Martínez-Climent, C., Zorio-Grima, A., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2018). Financial return velopment, Luis also serves as a professor of market research at ENAE Business School in
crowdfunding: Literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Murcia, Spain.
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(3), 527–553.

442