| Literature DB >> 36248597 |
Tao Zhang1, Qianyu Zhang1, Rong Jiang2, Tilei Gao1, Ming Yang1.
Abstract
Perceived trust is a key factor affecting the behavior to donate online. In order to further explore the factors and influencing mechanisms that affect the success of medical crowdfunding projects, this paper, combined with the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) theory, introduces the mediating variable of social presence and perceived differences in trust, and constructs a model of online users' donation behavior to medical crowdfunding projects. We collected 437 valid samples through a questionnaire survey, and processed the data with SPSS and Amos software to test and analyze the theoretical model. The research results showed that project description and user participation have a significant positive effect on social presence; project transparency and patient identity have a significant negative effect on perceived differences in trust; social presence has a positive effect on donation behavior, while the perceived difference in trust has a negative effect; social presence and perceived differences in trust play a mediating role respectively; there is no significant effect of patient status on social presence. This study further expands the application of social presence and perceived differences in trust in medical crowdfunding, and provides a theoretical basis for the success of medical crowdfunding projects.Entities:
Keywords: cognition; donation behavior; medical crowdfunding; perceived differences; perceived trust; perception; social presence
Year: 2022 PMID: 36248597 PMCID: PMC9554498 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1008494
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Research model of donation behavior for medical crowdfunding projects.
Measuring items of variables.
| Latent variable name and code | Measurement question item |
|---|---|
| Project description (DE) | DE1 I am very concerned about whether the text description can infect me. |
| DE2 The more pictures and videos, the more it can inspire my sympathy. | |
| DE3 I am more attracted to well-described medical crowdfunding projects. | |
| Project transparency (TR) | TR1 The timely update of the fundraising dynamic enables me to understand the progress of the project. |
| TR2 The timely announcement of funds can make me believe in the authenticity of this project. | |
| TR3 I think the more transparent the project, the more I can trust. | |
| Patient status (ST) | ST1 The more serious the disease of the patient, the more urgent the situation, the more I have the idea of helping. |
| ST2 The fact that the patient discloses his or her financial distress allows me to know what kind of help the patient needs. | |
| ST3 The poorer the area where the patient lives, the more I have the idea of helping. | |
| User participation (US) | US1 Interacting with others can lead me to the idea of joining the donation team. |
| US2 It makes me feel more authentic when I see personal comments from other donors, or descriptions related to their condition provided in the comments. | |
| US3 I will interact on WeChat or Moments by liking, commenting, or forwarding. | |
| Patient identity (ID) | ID1 I’m more willing to trust women than men. |
| ID2 I think younger patients need help more than older ones. | |
| ID3 I think the disabled or incapacitated patients really need help. | |
| Social presence (PR) | PR1 Reading the comments someone has just posted while browsing the donation page makes me perceive the presence of other donors. |
| PR2 I can feel the real situation of the patient through the detailed information. | |
| PR3 When I donate online, I feel like my actions are largely detectable by others. | |
| Perceived differences in trust (PE) | PE1 I do not think that the platform I follow is necessarily trustworthy. |
| PE2 I do not think that the information released by the patient I am concerned about is necessarily worthy of my trust. | |
| PE3 I do not think the information released by the platform I follow is necessarily true. | |
| Donation intention (DO) | DO1 I really want to help those who are in trouble. |
| DO2 I plan to help those who are in trouble. | |
| DO3 I will suggest to my relatives and friends to help the patient I am concerned about. |
Reliability and validity test results.
| Variables | Question item | Standard factor loading | Cronbach’s a | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project description (DE) | DE1 | 0.657 | 0.790 | 0.792 | 0.565 |
| DE2 | 0.790 | ||||
| DE3 | 0.793 | ||||
| Project transparency (TR) | TR1 | 0.708 | 0.811 | 0.817 | 0.600 |
| TR2 | 0.853 | ||||
| TR3 | 0.756 | ||||
| Patient status (ST) | ST1 | 0.689 | 0.752 | 0.788 | 0.554 |
| ST2 | 0.742 | ||||
| ST3 | 0.698 | ||||
| User participation (US) | US1 | 0.639 | 0.764 | 0.772 | 0.532 |
| US2 | 0.795 | ||||
| US3 | 0.745 | ||||
| Patient identity (ID) | ID1 | 0.651 | 0.740 | 0.749 | 0.500 |
| ID2 | 0.781 | ||||
| ID3 | 0.683 | ||||
| Social presence (PR) | PR1 | 0.696 | 0.743 | 0.735 | 0.482 |
| PR2 | 0.743 | ||||
| PR3 | 0.639 | ||||
| Perceived differences in trust (PE) | PE1 | 0.807 | 0.859 | 0.860 | 0.673 |
| PE2 | 0.843 | ||||
| PE3 | 0.810 | ||||
| Donation behavior (DO) | DO1 | 0.664 | 0.830 | 0.795 | 0.565 |
| DO2 | 0.801 | ||||
| DO3 | 0.783 |
Fit index of this model.
| CMIN/DF | RMSEA | GFI | NFI | IFI | AGFI | CFI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acceptable range | <5 | <0.08 | >0.8 | >0.8 | >0.8 | >0.8 | >0.8 |
| Model fitting index | 4.478 | 0.072 | 0.844 | 0.811 | 0.846 | 0.805 | 0.845 |
Test results of the standardized path analysis.
| Hypothesis | Path | Estimate | SE |
| Test result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | DE → PR | 0.194 | 0.082 | 2.555 | 0.011 | Support |
| H2 | ST → PR | 0.040 | 0.118 | 0.337 | 0.736 | Not support |
| H3 | TR → PR | 0.698 | 0.133 | 4.962 |
| Support |
| H4 | PR → DO | 0.472 | 0.079 | 5.682 |
| Support |
| H5 | PE → DO | −0.569 | 0.065 | −7.387 |
| Support |
| H6 | US→PE | −0.509 | 0.06 | −9.045 |
| Support |
| H7 | ID→PE | −0.421 | 0.063 | −7.477 |
| Support |
p < 0.05 and
p < 0.001.
Test Results of the bootstrap mediating effect.
| Path | Effect | Point Estimation | Product of Coefficients | Bootstrap 5,000 Times | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias-corrected | Percentile | |||||||||
| SE | Z | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||
| DE → PR → DO | Indirect effect | 0.416 | 0.108 | 3.852 | 0.248 | 0.685 | 0.000 | 0.242 | 0.666 | 0.000 |
| Direct effect | 0.345 | 0.127 | 2.717 | 0.096 | 0.599 | 0.011 | 0.095 | 0.597 | 0.012 | |
| Total effect | 0.761 | 0.098 | 7.765 | 0.575 | 0.963 | 0.000 | 0.577 | 0.968 | 0.000 | |
| TR → PR → DO | Indirect effect | 0.369 | 0.169 | 2.183 | 0.093 | 0.775 | 0.021 | 0.037 | 0.706 | 0.038 |
| Direct effect | 0.506 | 0.221 | 2.290 | 0.144 | 1.007 | 0.013 | 0.137 | 0.994 | 0.015 | |
| Total effect | 0.875 | 0.116 | 7.543 | 0.673 | 1.133 | 0.000 | 0.666 | 1.120 | 0.000 | |
| US→ PE → DO | Indirect effect | 0.426 | 0.09 | 4.733 | 0.274 | 0.639 | 0.000 | 0.259 | 0.615 | 0.000 |
| Direct effect | 0.308 | 0.15 | 2.053 | 0.07 | 0.611 | 0.011 | 0.068 | 0.658 | 0.012 | |
| Total effect | 0.734 | 0.166 | 4.422 | 0.485 | 1.149 | 0.000 | 0.475 | 1.126 | 0.000 | |
| ID→ PE → DO | Indirect effect | 0.509 | 0.096 | 5.302 | 0.354 | 0.737 | 0.000 | 0.341 | 0.715 | 0.000 |
| Direct effect | 0.256 | 0.11 | 2.327 | 0.051 | 0.489 | 0.017 | 0.045 | 0.483 | 0.019 | |
| Total effect | 0.764 | 0.096 | 7.958 | 0.595 | 0.972 | 0.000 | 0.588 | 0.964 | 0.000 | |