| Literature DB >> 35992461 |
Zhaoxiang Wu1, Shaojun Yan1, Jilin Dai2.
Abstract
As an innovative financing activity, online crowdfunding is characterized by extremely high information asymmetry. To reduce this information asymmetry, crowdfunding companies typically use information presentation, feedback, and other means to convey more information about the fundraising project to investors. Whether the information presentation and feedback affect the investment behavior of nonprofessional ordinary investors is yet to be determined. Moreover, the method by which the information presentation and feedback influence the investment behavior and consequently, the financing performance of crowdfunding companies, has to be identified as well. Currently, research on this subject remains deficient. Therefore, with signal theory and the difference in the cost of information transmission considered, this study classifies the information released by fundraisers on the crowdfunding platform into two categories: low-quality signal and high-quality signal. Projects on the JD.com Crowdfunding website are then used as research samples to explore how the difference in signal quality in the information presentation and feedback of crowdfunding projects influences financing performance from the perspective of investors. The results show that low-quality signals such as video duration, the number of updates, and the number of comments on projects positively affect the success of crowdfunding; meanwhile, crowdfunding experience, which represents high-quality signals, positively moderates the relationship between project video duration, project updates, and crowdfunding success.Entities:
Keywords: crowdfunding experience; financing performance; information feedback; information presentation; signal theory
Year: 2022 PMID: 35992461 PMCID: PMC9390869 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.831333
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Conceptual model of the study.
Descriptive statistical analysis of key variables.
| Variables | Mean | SD | Min | Max | Categorical | Freq. | % of Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crowdfunding performance | 1.955 | 1.515 | 0.010 | 11.620 | Technology | 461 | 20.190 |
| Video | 32.997 | 68.776 | 0.000 | 745 | Home appliance | 440 | 19.270 |
| Updates | 6.528 | 7.252 | 0.000 | 38 | Delicious food | 431 | 18.880 |
| Review | 58.489 | 78.567 | 0.000 | 1,332 | Art | 456 | 19.970 |
| Crowdfunding experience | 19.071 | 145.982 | 1.000 | 840 | Culture | 495 | 21.680 |
| Focus | 495.475 | 2037.237 | 0.000 | 80,000 | |||
| Attention | 512.913 | 1084.993 | 0.000 | 3,000 | |||
| Goal | 72370.910 | 142493 | 231 | 5,000,000 |
Correlation matrix analysis of key variable; Pearson’s r.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Crowdfunding performance | 1 | |||||||
| 2. Video | 0.076 | 1 | ||||||
| 3. Updates | 0.152 | 0.017 | 1 | |||||
| 4. Review | 0.246 | 0.048 | 0.362 | 1 | ||||
| 5. Crowdfunding experience | 0.085 | –0.019 | –0.009 | 0.078 | 1 | |||
| 6. Focus | 0.086 | –0.024 | 0.161 | 0.204 | –0.002 | 1 | ||
| 7. Goal | –0.036 | –0.034 | 0.099 | 0.184 | 0.092 | 0.096 | 1 | |
| 8. Attention | 0.122 | –0.013 | 0.225 | 0.274 | 0.021 | 0.504 | 0.120 | 1 |
p < 0.01,
p < 0.05, and
p < 0.1.
N = 2283.
Analysis of regression results for the effect of high and low signals on financing.
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β,t | VIF | β,t | VIF | β,t | VIF | β,t | |
| Focus | 0.026 | 1.35 | 0.011 | 1.42 | 0.012 (0.56) | 1.42 | 0.012 (0.51) |
| Goal | –5.594 | 1.34 | –9.372 | 1.35 | –1.003 | 1.35 | –9.923 |
| Attention | 0.015 | 1.02 | 0.007 (1.17) | 1.24 | 0.007 (1.16) | 1.24 | 0.069 (1.98) |
| Video | 0.001 | 1.18 | 0.001 | 1.18 | 0.001 | ||
| Updates | 0.014 | 1.04 | 0.014 | 1.05 | 0.020 | ||
| Review | 0.004 | 1.01 | 0.004 | 1.01 | 0.004 | ||
| Crowdfunding experience | 0.008 | 1.01 | 0.002 | ||||
| Video*crowdfunding experience | 0.003 | ||||||
| Updates*crowdfunding experience | 0.001 | ||||||
| Review*crowdfunding experience | –0.001 (–0.45) | ||||||
|
| 1.903 | 1.597 | 1.589 | –0.203 | |||
|
| 3.04 | 21.23 | 19.91 | 13.46 | |||
| Adj- | 0.018 | 0.079 | 0.085 | 0.094 | |||
p < 0.01,
p < 0.05, and
p < 0.1.
Figure 2Moderating effect of crowdfunding experience on video duration and crowdfunding success.
Figure 3Moderating effect of crowdfunding experience on update quantity and crowdfunding success.
Regression analysis of the effect of differences in project types on crowdfunding.
| Variable | Technology | Home appliance | Delicious food | Art | Cultural |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | –0.022 (–1.05) | –0.030 (–0.84) | 0.033 (0.70) | –0.086 | 0.012 (1.24) |
| Goal | –2.368 | –9.536 (–1.09) | –9.045 | –2.469 | –5.779 |
| Attention | 0.095 | 0.010 | –0.024 (–0.78) | 0.011 | 0.027 (1.35) |
| Video | 0.003 | 0.280 | 0.008 (1.03) | –0.004 (–0.29) | 0.841 (1.25) |
| Updates | 0.020 | 0.012 | 0.040 | 0.006 (0.29) | 0.052 |
| Review | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.010 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Crowdfunding experience | 0.004 | 0.007 | 0.001 (–0.85) | 0.005 (0.60) | 0.006 |
| Video*crowdfunding experience | 0.020 | 0.029 | 0.011 | –0.002 (–0.56) | –0.012 (–0.32) |
| Updates*crowdfunding experience | –0.005 (–0.81) | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.003 (0.51) | 0.006 (1.01) |
| Review*crowdfunding experience | –0.001 (–0.28) | –2.689 (–1.34) | –0.005 | –1.528 (–0.17) | 0.002 |
|
| –0.214 (–1.61) | 0.004 (0.06) | 0.167 (1.28) | –0.106 (–0.81) | 0.162 (1.58) |
| Adj- | 0.291 | 0.151 | 0.179 | 0.165 | 0.227 |
|
| 461 | 440 | 431 | 456 | 495 |
p < 0.01,
p < 0.05, and
p < 0.1.
Comparative analysis of empirical results of gross sample and sub-sample.
| Variables | Success of crowdfunding | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross sample | Technology | Home appliance | Cate | Art | Cultural | |
| Video | H1 valid | H1 valid | H1 valid | H1 invalid | H1 invalid | H1 invalid |
| Updates | H2 valid | H2 valid | H2 valid | H2 valid | H2 invalid | H2 valid |
| Review | H3 valid | H3 valid | H3 valid | H3 valid | H3 valid | H3 valid |
| Video*crowdfunding experience | H4a valid | H4a valid | H4a valid | H4a valid | H4a invalid | H4a invalid |
| Updates*crowdfunding experience | H4b valid | H4b invalid | H4b valid | H4b valid | H4b invalid | H4b invalid |
| Review*crowdfunding experience | H4c invalid | H4c invalid | H4c invalid | H4c invalid | H4c invalid | H4c valid |
Analysis of regression results of tobit model.
| Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Goal | –5.590 | –9.379 | –1.003 | –9.924 |
| Attention | 0.015 | 0.071 | 0.070 | 0.069 |
| Video | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | |
| Updates | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.020 | |
| Review | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 | |
| crowdfunding experience | 0.008 | 0.002 | ||
| Video*crowdfunding experience | 0.003 | |||
| Updates*crowdfunding experience | 0.001 | |||
| Review*crowdfunding experience | –0.001 | |||
|
| 0.005 | 0.022 | 0.024 | 0.027 |
|
| –4165.673 | –4092.377 | –4084.967 | –4073.183 |
|
| 2,283 | 2,283 | 2,283 | 2,283 |
p < 0.01 and
p < 0.05.