An Experimental Evaluation of Gender Differences in Responses to Major-Donor Funding Schemes for Crowdfunded Social Ventures

References

• Adena M, Huck S (2017) Matching donations without crowding out? Some theoretical considerations, a field, and a laboratory experiment. J. Public Econom. 148:32–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adena M, Huck S (2022) Personalized fundraising: A field experiment on threshold matching of donations. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 200:1–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adena M, Hakimov R, Huck S (2024) Charitable giving by the poor: A field experiment in Kyrgyzstan. Management Sci. 70(1):633–646.Link, Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Goldfarb A (2008) Restructuring research: Communication costs and the democratization of university innovation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(4):1578–1590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Catalini C, Goldfarb A (2014) Some simple economics of crowdfunding. Innovation Policy Econom. 14(1):63–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ai C, Norton EC (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econom. Lett. 80(1):123–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1989) Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. J. Political Econom. 97(6):1447–1458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Econom. J. 100(401):464–477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1998) Toward a theory of charitable fund-raising. J. Political Econom. 106(6):1186–1213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Vesterlund L (2001) Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):293–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anik L, Norton MI, Ariely D (2014) Contingent match incentives increase donations. J. Marketing Res. 51(6):790–801.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bapna S (2019) Complementarity of signals in early-stage equity investment decisions: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Management Sci. 65(2):933–952.Link, Google Scholar
• Bapna S, Ganco M (2021) Gender gaps in equity crowdfunding: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Management Sci. 67(5):2679–2710.Link, Google Scholar
• Bapna S, Ganco M (2023) Equity crowdfunding and access to capital for user entrepreneurs: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. MIS Quart. 47(2):585–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein S, Korteweg A, Laws K (2017) Attracting early‐stage investors: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. J. Finance 72(2):509–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bleier A, Eisenbeiss M (2015) Personalized online advertising effectiveness: The interplay of what, when, and where. Marketing Sci. 34(5):669–688.Link, Google Scholar
• Burtch G, Gupta D, Martin P (2021) Referral timing and fundraising success in crowdfunding. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 23(3):676–694.Link, Google Scholar
• Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD (1999) Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 125(3):367–383.Google Scholar
• Charness G, Holder P (2019) Charity in the laboratory: Matching, competition, and group identity. Management Sci. 65(3):1398–1407.Link, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Yan X, Fan W, Gordon M (2015) The joint moderating role of trust propensity and gender on consumers’ online shopping behavior. Comput. Human Behav. 43:272–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conlin M, O’Donoghue T, Lynn M (1999) The economics of tipping: Implicit contract, repeated game and behavioral responses. Working paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
• Craswell N, Zoeter O, Taylor M, Ramsey B (2008) An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. Proc. 2008 Internat. Conf. Web Search Data Mining (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 87–94.Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):448–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crush Crowdfunding (2021) How to use email marketing in crowdfunding. Accessed May 20, 2022, https://crushcrowdfunding.com/how-to-use-email-marketing-in-crowdfunding/.Google Scholar
• Dacin MT, Dacin PA, Tracey P (2011) Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1203–1213.Link, Google Scholar
• De Crescenzo V, Bonfanti A, Castellani P, Vargas-Sánchez A (2022) Effective entrepreneurial narrative design in reward crowdfunding campaigns for social ventures. Internat. Entrepreneurship Management J. 18(2):773–800.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deutsch J, Epstein GS, Nir A (2017) Mind the gap: Crowdfunding and the role of seed money. Management Decision Econom. 38(1):53–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2003) Rebate vs. matching: Does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? J. Public Econom. 87(3–4):681–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008) Subsidizing charitable contributions: A natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies. Experiment. Econom. 11:234–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fang Z, Tan XJ, Xiao S, Tan Y (2021) More than double your impact: An empirical study of match offers on charitable crowdfunding platforms. Kelley School of Business Research Paper No. 2021-36, Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Bloomington.Google Scholar
• Gee LK, Schreck MJ (2018) Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory. Games Econom. Behav. 107:282–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gefen D, Straub DW (1997) Gender differences in the perception and use of email: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quart. 21(4):389–400.Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Stern H (2006) The difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. Amer. Statist. 60(4):328–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geva H, Barzilay O, Oestreicher-Singer G (2019) A potato salad with a lemon twist: Using a supply-side shock to study the impact of opportunistic behavior on crowdfunding platforms. MIS Quart. 43(4):1227–1248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghose A, Ipeirotis PG, Li B (2014) Examining the impact of ranking on consumer behavior and search engine revenue. Management Sci. 60(7):1632–1654.Link, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Keenan EA, Gneezy A (2014) Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science 346(6209):632–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gong J, Pavlou PA, Zheng Z (2020) On the use of probabilistic uncertain rewards on crowdfunding platforms: The case of the lottery. Inform. Systems Res. 32(1):115–129.Link, Google Scholar
• Greenberg J, Mollick E (2017) Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Admin. Sci. Quart. 62(2):341–374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haines W (2012) IndieGoGo insight: Average contribution through email is higher than other referral sources. IndieGogo—Tips & Insights (March 22), https://go.indiegogo.com/blog/2012/03/indiegogo-insight-average-contribution-amount-through-email-is-higher-than-other-referral-sources.html.Google Scholar
• Hassna G, Burtch G, Zhao JL (2024) Understanding the role of lead donor types in civic crowdfunding. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 25(4):990–1036.Google Scholar
• Hibbert AM, Lawrence ER, Prakash AJ (2013) Does knowledge of finance mitigate the gender difference in financial risk-aversion? Global Finance J. 24(2):140–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong Y, Hu Y, Burtch G (2018) Embeddedness, pro-sociality, and social influence: Evidence from online crowdfunding. MIS Quart. 42(4):1211–1224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huck S, Rasul I (2011) Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Public Econom. 95(5–6):351–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huck S, Rasul I, Shephard A (2015) Comparing charitable fundraising schemes: Evidence from a natural field experiment and a structural model. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 7(2):326–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karahanna E, Benbasat I, Bapna R, Rai A (2018) Editor’s comments: Opportunities and challenges for different types of online experiments. MIS Quart. 42(4):iii–xi.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D, List JA (2007) Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(5):1774–1793.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D, List JA (2020) How can Bill and Melinda Gates increase other people’s donations to fund public goods? J. Public Econom. 191:104296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D, List JA, Shafir E (2011) Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Public Econom. 95(5–6):344–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim K, Hann IH (2019) Crowdfunding and the democratization of access to capital—An illusion? Evidence from housing prices. Inform. Systems Res. 30(1):276–290.Link, Google Scholar
• Kim K, Viswanathan S (2019) The experts in the crowd: The role of experienced investors in a crowdfunding market. MIS Quart. 43(2):347–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA, Lucking-Reiley D (2002) The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. J. Political Econom. 110(1):215–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu J, Toubia O, Hill S (2021) Content-based model of web search behavior: An application to tv show search. Management Sci. 67(10):6378–6398.Link, Google Scholar
• Marinelli N, Mazzoli C, Palmucci F (2017) How does gender really affect investment behavior? Econom. Lett. 151:58–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J (2017) Does fundraising create new giving? J. Public Econom. 145:82–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meier S (2007) Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in a field experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 5(6):1203–1222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mesch D, Osili U, Ackerman J, Dale E (2015) Where do men and women give? Gender differences in the motivations and purposes for charitable giving. Report, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
• Mohammadi A, Shafi K (2018) Gender differences in the contribution patterns of equity-crowdfunding investors. Small Bus. Econom. 50(2):275–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mollick E (2014) The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. J. Bus. Venturing 29(1):1–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nichols JE (1994) Pinpointing Affluence: Increasing Your Share of Major Donor Dollars (Precept Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Nichols JE (1995) Growing from Good to Great: Positioning Your Fund-Raising Efforts for BIG Gains (Bonus Books, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Yestrumskas AH (2008) Gender differences in seeking challenges: The role of institutions. NBER Working Paper No. 13922, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Nissen A, Krampe C (2021) Why he buys it and she doesn’t—Exploring self-reported and neural gender differences in the perception of eCommerce websites. Comput. Human Behav. 121:106809.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riedl R, Hubert M, Kenning P (2010) Are there neural gender differences in online trust? An fMRI study on the perceived trustworthiness of eBay offers. MIS Quart. 34(2):397–428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rondeau D, List JA (2008) Matching and challenge gifts to charity: Evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments. Experiment. Econom. 11(3):253–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sassenberg K, Brazy PC, Jonas KJ, Shah JY (2013) When gender fits self-regulatory preferences. Soc. Psych. 44(1):4–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shi SW, Trusov M (2021) The path to click: Are you on it? Marketing Sci. 40(2):344–365.Link, Google Scholar
• Solomon J, Ma W, Wash R (2015) Don’t wait! How timing affects coordination of crowdfunding donations. Proc. 18th ACM Conf. Comput. Supported Cooperative Work Soc. Comput. (CSCW ‘15) (ACM, New York), 547–556.Google Scholar
• Van Slyke C, Comunale CL, Belanger F (2002) Gender differences in perceptions of web-based shopping. Comm. ACM 45(8):82–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Veselovsky V, Ribeiro MH, Cozzolino P, Gordon A, Rothschild D, West R (2023) Prevalence and prevention of large language model use in crowd work. Preprint, submitted October 24, https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.15683.Google Scholar
• Vesterlund L (2003) The informational value of sequential fundraising. J. Public Econom. 87(3–4):627–657.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Bieberstein F, Jaussi S, Vogel C (2020) Challenge-seeking and the gender wage gap: A laboratory-in-the-field experiment with cleaning personnel. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 175:251–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Young A (2019) Channeling Fisher: Randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results. Quart. J. Econom. 134(2):557–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao Y (2021) Germany | current state of crowdfunding 2021. CrowdfundingHub. Accessed September 21, 2023, https://www.crowdfundinghub.eu/germany-current-state-of-crowdfunding-2021/.Google Scholar