Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Spontaneous and Induced Restoration on the Hydromorphological Conditions and Macrophytes, Example of Flinta River
Previous Article in Journal
Policy Analysis of Low-Carbon Energy Transition in Senegal Using a Multi-Criteria Decision Approach Based on Principal Component Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/su15054301
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Why Do Donors Donate? A Study on Donation-Based Crowdfunding in Malaysia

by
Mohd Khairy Kamarudin
1,*,
Nur Izzati Mohamad Norzilan
1,
Fatin Nur Ainaa Mustaffa
1,
Masyitah Khidzir
1,
Suhaili Alma’amun
2,
Nasrul Hisyam Nor Muhamad
1,
Mohd Fauzi Abu-Hussin
1,
Nurul Izzah Noor Zainan
3,
Abdul Hafiz Abdullah
1 and
Abdul Basit Samat-Darawi
1
1
Academy of Islamic Civilisation, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia
3
Academy of Contemporary Islamic Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Kelantan Branch 18500, Kelantan, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(5), 4301; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054301
Submission received: 28 December 2022 / Revised: 2 February 2023 / Accepted: 7 February 2023 / Published: 28 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Digital Environment Technology for Supporting Regional Sustainable Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study employed the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S-O-R) framework to investigate how social support and quality of the community affect the purpose to donate through donation-based crowdfunding. The online poll generated 359 responses, and the data were statistically analysed using the partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach. Path coefficient analysis is also applied to figure out the outcomes of the relationships between the components. The results showed that service and system quality greatly influenced the donors’ trust towards the donation-based crowdfunding. In addition, statistics showed that trust, quality of services, information value, and emotional support played a substantial role in explaining the donation purposes. The results could help donation-based crowdfunding platforms to enhance their success rate of donation campaigns. This study also provided a management application for each relationship and suggested helpful measures in attracting potential donors and retaining them.

1. Introduction

A recent development shows that donation-based crowdfunding is the most frequent approach to pledge funds for charitable causes such as education projects, healthcare, natural disasters, and volunteerism. This approach collects donations from a large number of people through the Internet using diverse web-based platforms [1]. According to [2], online crowdfunding allows contributors to donate a small amount to help either individuals or small or large organisations. Researchers have argued that Internet and social media crowdfunding (Facebook, Instagram, WeChat, and Twitter) is an effective way to reach a big audience and gain broader support [3,4] and hence increase a project’s success. This allows non-profit organisations to promote their humanitarian activities on social media via crowdfunding [5]. Generally, crowdfunding projects involve three parties: (i) the project initiator, who initiates a financing effort; (ii) supporters, who donate and share cash; and (iii) platforms, which link project initiators with contributors [6].
In Malaysia, donation-based crowdfunding websites were pioneered by Kitafund and Jomdonate. The websites enable anyone to create a cause and pledge for a specific amount of money to be collected within a given time period. Kitafund is a crowdfunding website to raise money for medical and humanitarian emergencies. As reported in April 2019, an estimated amount of RM 1.6 million was donated to people in need [7]. Jomdonate is a platform to channel assistance as a safeguard of welfare and human rights. In the year 2022, JomDonate has a total of around RM 5 million with 220,000 contributors and 257 campaigns [8].
Despite the fact that web-based crowdfunding platforms offer great benefits and ease to raise funding for charitable causes, statistics show that, in Malaysia, there is a declining trend in the donation-based crowdfunding market. According to [9], Malaysia’s donation-based crowdfunding business rose from USD 0.62 million in 2013 to USD 3.13 million in 2015. However, it plummeted to USD 1.68 million in 2016 and USD 0.04 million in 2017.
Due to crowdfunding’s poor track record, a lack of study on the public’s interest to donate raises some problems. Refs. [10,11,12] proposed that study on crowdfunding should concentrate on donors’ intentions, motives, and behaviours, given that the potential donors are important to the success of a crowdfunding project. Recognising the factors that motivate donors to support crowdfunding projects is important to make use of new fundraising and networking opportunities [13]. Given this background, it is interesting to know the donors’ motivations and answers to the following question, “What are the factors that influence the intention of donors to donate through crowdfunding platforms in Malaysia?”
In order to answer the research question, this study experimentally investigated the factors that influence the donors’ intention. This study employed the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S-O-R) framework to identify crowdfunding’s role in motivating the donors’ behaviour, concentrating on the effect of community quality and social support on their intentions. The S-O-R framework is a behavioural study concept that is widely applied to interpret intentions [14]. This study also investigated the impacts of many organisms and behaviours (trust and donors’ intention) in order to verify a new model. This approach introduced was the key driver behind this research, which was to explore the success of crowdfunding projects. It investigates the extended potential factor in the S-O-R framework for donation activities.
In gathering the data from the donors, this research employed a questionnaire survey instrument. The questionnaire was sent to the respective donors that were involved in crowdfunding projects. The data collected were then analysed descriptively and statistically using partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) analysis. The PLS-SEM model permits estimation of a complex model with several concepts, variables, and structural approaches without statistical assumptions on the data. The PLS-SEM is a causal-predictive approach to SEM that emphasises prediction in estimating the statistical models whose structures are intended to offer explanations [15].
Hence, as for this study, it would be able to enhance the interest to donate in donation-based crowdfunding, and the breadth and content of the S-O-R framework are expected to be expanded. Furthermore, this study provided an empirical basis for broader research on online donors’ intentions. This study also offered acceptable and persuasive fundraising campaign methods to boost project success rates in donation-based crowdfunding.
To further investigate the main research question, this paper analyses donation-based crowdfunding literature and the study model’s theoretical foundation in Section 2; Section 3 follows, which presents the hypothesis and framework; Section 4 describes the study’s methodology; Section 5 discusses the data analysis and findings; and finally, the last section provides the conclusion from this research and discusses the limitations as well as suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Donation-Based Crowdfunding

According to the previous studies, there are several ways to identify the effective factors and goal of donation-based crowdfunding. Ref. [2] stated that personal networks and underlying project quality are associated with the success of crowdfunding efforts. One of the roles of donation-based crowdfunding platforms (CFP) is to support humanitarian and artistic projects [16], where the donors on donation-based CFPs can be viewed as philanthropists. The success degree of donation-based CFP depends on the quality relationship between the “tastes” of the donors and the qualities of the project, as donations to a public benefit are the foundation of a donation-based campaign.
Furthermore, [17] believed that the role of trust in increasing donors’ intention was downplayed. Donation-based crowdfunding platforms should include more social cues, such as photos, videos, and phrases, to enhance donors’ trust. True words, photographs, and videos must also be used to urge contributors to check on the project’s progression [18]. Other than trust, [18] demonstrated that social presence, attitude, perceived behavioural control, and personal norms are also connected with intention where similarly, [4] found a connection between attitude and perceived behavioural control. Otherwise, subjective standards have no bearing towards the donation intent. Donors are more likely to support crowdfunding campaigns when donors’ desire to help is for themselves and the environment [13]. Ref. [18] explored extrinsic and intrinsic motivations in crowdfunding. In their study, social effect, generosity, and self-worth drove the crowdfunding contributions.

2.2. S-O-R Framework

The S-O-R framework is a meta-theory for studying user behaviour that has been shown in the fields of science and management information, with the aim of understanding customer loyalty, purchasing intention, behaviour, and engagement [14]. Based on this framework, which is based on environmental psychology, stimuli (S) increase people’s cognitive and/or emotional reactions (O), which subsequently lead to behavioural responses (R) [19]. A person’s underlying state (i.e., emotion) is assumed to be activated when they are subjected to stimuli. As a result, the person’s intrinsic state influences their behavioural choices [20,21,22]. Ref. [10], enhanced the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S-O-R) framework by including empathy, perceived credibility, and relationship quality. Consequently, these three traits increase donors’ intent.
In this framework, organisms respond to environment stimuli emotionally, prompting them to either approach or avoid [23,24]. A stimulus must be present so as to change an organism’s mental and cognitive state or their internal responses to their surroundings [25,26]. According to [27], an organism’s behaviour is dependent on how the environment affects it. “Organism” refers to a bodily reaction, condition, or feeling [28]. It is similar to the processing model, which focuses on how cognitive processes analyse environmental information that results in a choice [29]. It helps to improve a conceptual model to analyse and validate how individuals interact with an online platform (stimulus) that can engage and lead them (organism) with behavioural intention (response) [30,31].
The S-O-R framework is also recommended to evaluate the intention of online donation. Multiple sources of crowdfunding literature have proposed this framework to study project intention [32], funding behaviour [33], charitable crowdfunding intention [6,10,34,35], and fundraising success [36]. Therefore, in this study, the S-O-R framework is used to explain the effects of informational support, informational value, emotional support, service quality, system performance, and trust on crowdfunding donation. Organisms (beliefs) serve as a connection between stimuli (informational support, informational value, emotional support, service quality, and system performance) and the final outcome (donation intention). Based on this framework, human behavioural processes are also explained in order to forecast the online uses’ cognitive judgements, behaviour, or intention.

3. Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development

3.1. Theoretical Framework

In this section, the theoretical framework is derived from the previous relevant literature. The theoretical framework for this study is then used to develop the hypotheses according to the variables suggested from the literature. This study proposed the following variables to be tested in this research, and these include social support, information quality, trust, and donation purposes. The following discussion formulates the hypothesis development based on the theoretical framework before a proposed research model is developed.

3.2. Hypothesis Development

3.2.1. Social Support’s Impact on Trust and Intention to Donate

There are two types of social support: (1) a user perceived to be available to support and (2) a user that really supplies support [37]. Users who receive social assistance are more likely to develop a feeling of mutual duty, which leads them to assist other members of the community [38]. The concept of social support is based on intangible qualities such as informational and emotional elements [39].
Advice, feedback, suggestions, and recommendations from the community or peers that are useful in making any decision are referred to as informational support [40,41]. The informational support provides an exchange of information that affects online users’ commitment [42,43,44]. According to [45] and [46], donors develop trust when informative support is meaningful and useful to helping the online community.
Hence, these findings supported the idea that donors who considered making a donation were more likely to look for the input and advice of other members among the crowdfunding community and to develop a sense of confidence in the platform. A number of recent studies [39,47,48] have shown that the availability of information may influence donors’ purchase decisions or intentions. Therefore, this study argued that informational support has an impact on donors’ willingness to donate. As a result, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. 
Informational support is positively related to trust.
H2. 
Informational support is positively related to donation intention.
Emotional support emphasises the expression of human compassion, which aids the resolution of problems in an indirect way [49]. Caring, trust, encouragement, recognition, and a feeling of community are all forms of emotional support [41]. They also influence decision-making behaviour [40], customer satisfaction [50], well-being [51], and social commerce intention [52,53]. As proposed by [53], emotional support affects trust. At the same time, [52] found that emotional support has a substantial association with social commerce intention. Thus, this study proposes hypotheses for trust in crowdfunding platforms which simultaneously have a major influence on donors’ intention. The hypotheses are listed below.
H3. 
Emotional support is positively related to trust.
H4. 
Emotional support is positively related to donation intention.

3.2.2. Community Quality’s Impact on Trust and Donation Intention

What makes a good community is determined by looking at how its users feel about its infrastructure. Ref. [46] recommended using information quality, system performance, and quality of service as the indicators of the community’s quality. The proposed approach draws inspiration from the information systems success model created by [54].
Quality service means the quality of technical or online services offered to users [55,56]. The gap between what a client experiences and requires and what is given to meet those needs and expectations is measured by the quality of service [57]. High service quality consistently matches with users’ expectation to foster trust among online users with e-services [58], financial information systems [59], online health communities [46], fintech [60], and mobile commerce [61]. In this case, a crowdfunding platform can be considered as an online system, with information and system quality being the key components in increasing the donors’ intention to donate. Quality service also has a substantial impact on e-commerce [62], information systems [63], e-government [64], and mobile phone usage [65]. Hence, it can be concluded that the quality of service given by the crowdfunding platform is the foundation of donation-based crowdfunding. Below are the following hypotheses:
H5. 
Quality service is positively related to trust.
H6. 
Quality service is positively related to donors’ intention to donate.
The quality of the platform’s content is also one of the most essential characteristics [66]. Quality information is used to evaluate the success of online content as it is developed to facilitate its online commerce [67]. Recent studies have showed that the quality of information inspires trust in social commerce platforms [68,69], mobile commerce [61], e-commerce [62,70], and mobile banking [71]. As a result, this study considered that donors are more inclined to examine the quality of information when evaluating their trust in crowdfunding.
Meanwhile, information quality has directly impacted donor behaviour and intention in online platforms [63,72], fintech adoption [60], mobile systems [73,74], social media [75], digital libraries [76], and purchasing intention [56]. Hence, it is possible to hypothesise that information quality influences donation intention. The following hypotheses are shown below:
H7. 
Quality of information is positively related to trust.
H8. 
Quality of information is positively related to donation intention.
First impressions and the efficiency of a system have an influence on how the system is perceived by its user ([77]. The term “system quality” is used to describe the aforementioned qualities in an information system, as well as others such as usability, flexibility, and dependability [63]. Due to issues such as stagnant load times and unclear interfaces, donors may have a poor impression of the system’s dependability [78]. System quality in the context of the platform defines the amount to which a system delivers on the features of its users’ impressions. If the system quality is poor, the anticipated advantages are less likely to materialise [67]. As shown by previous research [1,60,61,77], the quality of the system increases the degree of trustworthiness among users. As a result of its demonstrated beneficial effect on online donors’ satisfaction [55], continued usage [57,59,79], and intention [80,81], system quality is recognised as one of the reasons that contributes to behaviour [82]. Donors are swayed by the quality of a crowdfunding system because of the suggestions that were made in the prior study. Hypotheses were formed as below:
H9. 
Quality of a system is positively related to trust.
H10. 
Quality of a system is positively related to donation intention.
Trust or credibility, as an emotional and cognitive reaction, has the potential to influence people’s judgments and behaviours. In order to increase donors’ trust, platform design aspects (e.g., serviceability, navigation, and virtual/visual design) should be precise, comprehensive, and rationally arranged. It must be shown on the website [83]. It significantly influence purchase intentions [14,84,85], usage of mobile banking [86], and royalties in an online platform [87]. Ref. [49] discovered that donors’ intention in medical crowdfunding is highly influenced by cognition-based and affect-based trust. Therefore, this study suggested trustworthiness as the central system of crowdfunding platforms as it was investigated through the view of potential donors’ intentions to donate. The following hypothesis associated was proposed:
H11. 
Trust is positively related to intention to donate.

4. Research Model

According to the hypotheses generated, the research model is displayed in Figure 1. Based on the S-O-R framework, the model posited that donation intention (response) is favourably linked with trust (organism), social support, and community quality (stimulus), whereas the platform trust is strongly influenced by social and community support.

4.1. Methodology

4.1.1. Data Collection

All of the items in the questionnaire were used to measure the constructions that were developed from the previous study. It was designed with the perspectives of qualified scholars and related practitioners [30], and it was initially in English, translated into Malay, and then back-translated into English as practice by [23,24]. Two linguists assisted with the translation process to guarantee the content of the Malay version matches with the English version.
The questionnaire was separated into nine sections: the first section examined the respondents’ demographic information (gender, age, educational background, and employment). The next eight sections investigated respondents’ informational support, emotional support, information quality, quality of service, system performance, trust, and donors’ intention. The items were obtained from various research and altered to fit with the study. A five-point Likert scale was used to assess the items (1: “Strongly Disagree” to 5: “Strongly Agree”). The item operationalization summary and the related references are presented in Appendix A Table A1.
The study took four months, from May 2022 to August 2022. The Google Form link was shared on the donation-based crowdfunding sites (Facebook and Instagram), and the respondents were based on the principle of voluntary participation as practiced by [14]. According to [22], this strategy saves money and time. A pilot study of 20 donors was undertaken prior to the distribution of the questionnaire. Its purpose was to verify the items in terms of reliability, meaning, and understandability [88]. A total of 359 respondents had taken part in the research by participating in answering the questionnaire. Table 1 exhibits the demographic information of the respondents.
As presented in Table 1, the majority of the respondents from this study were female participants (223, 62.1%). The age range was between 21 and 61, with the majority of the respondents being below 40 years old (78.6%). This tells us that the respondents come from the most active users of Internet services, and they are more familiar with the current use of online platforms. Our data also indicate that the majority of the respondents have at least a bachelor’s degree and above, and only 83 (23.1%) hold a Malaysian Higher School Certificate (STPM), which is equivalent to an A-Level certificate. This shows that the respondents from this research are so-called “educated” persons and working-class people (271; 75.5% of respondents are either with the government, private sector, or are self-employed). From the demographics perspective, this study suggests that the majority of the respondents are highly educated and employed, and only a few of them are students or unemployed with an education at only the school level.

4.1.2. Data Analysis

The data were analysed using Smart PLS 3.2.8. Smart PLS is a component-based structural equation modelling approach that handles both reflecting and formative structures. PLS-SEM provides a flexible and powerful approach for examining relationships between latent variables and indicators. PLS-SEM was chosen as the main objective of this paper to anticipate the crucial constructs and to handle a complicated research model [15].

4.1.3. Model Measurement

The test’s reliability displayed the measuring scale’s dependability, consistency, and stability, which were often verified using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR). Cronbach’s alpha and CR must be more than 0.70 to be considered appropriate [89]. This study found that Cronbach’s alpha and CR values for each construct were more than 0.7, which implies that each item was linked to its associated construct. Since the measurement components in this model were generated from relevant previous studies and validated by the experts, the measuring scale is deemed to have sufficient content validity.
The extracted average variance (AVE) for all constructs should be more than 0.50 to be deemed as acceptable [15,89]. The AVE of each item in this study was varied from 0.725 to 0.860, with factor loadings ranging from 0.798 to 0.940. This showed that a satisfactory degree of convergent validity was achieved. Table 2 presents the reliability and convergent validity of the items.
Furthermore, the correlations between each reflective concept and the constructs are much less than the square root of the AVE, demonstrating the discrimination validity. The heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) criteria were also used to evaluate discriminant validity, with HTMT confidence intervals greater than 0.90 [89]. The findings demonstrated that none of the HTMT confidence intervals were more than 0.90, showing that there is no discrimination between the items. Table 3 demonstrates the test result of discriminant validity.

4.1.4. Structural Model

This research determined the validity and reliability before evaluating the structural model. The collinearity test was used to ensure that there was no issue with multi-collinearity, as indicated in Table 4. There was no indication of multicollinearity in this study since the VIF values were less than 5 [89]. Other than that, this study used the bootstrapping approach to assess the relevance of the path coefficient in order to evaluate the outcomes of the structural model.

5. Result

This study presented four hypotheses for social support (H1, H2, H3, and H4). However, only one hypothesis, H4, is statistically significant. This demonstrates that emotional support has a favourable effect on donor intention through donation-based crowdfunding platforms (β = 0.159, p < 0.05). Furthermore, informational support does not correlate with trust or donor intention, as emotional support is not correlated with trust.
Table 4 shows that the structural model’s findings support four out of the six hypotheses for community quality. Quality service is advocated for by having a favourable influence on its credibility (β = 0.305, p < 0.001) and donation intention (β = 0.117, p < 0.05). Then, information quality that is related to donor intention (β = 0.122, p < 0.05) is not related to trust in crowdfunding. Figure 2 demonstrates that system quality has a substantial influence on trust (β = 0.134, p < 0.05) but not on donor intention. As proposed by H11, trust has a favourable effect on donor intention through the platform (β = 0.461, p < 0.001).
Figure 2 presents how much of the changes in the endogenous variables can be explained by factors outside of the system. It is used to assess the overall predictive capability of the model. Through donation crowdfunding, the model explained about 44.3% percent of the variation in trust and 59.5% percent of the variance in donation intention.

6. Discussion and Implications

PLS-SEM research shows that crowdfunding credibility is linked with service and system quality. Instead of motivation [34] and credibility [10,35], emotional support, quality service, information quality, and trust also influence potential donors’ intentions. They are more inclined to donate if they receive emotional support, quality service, reliable information, and trust. The results attained can boost the success of donation-based crowdfunding campaigns with the application of the S-O-R framework. This statement suggests that the respondents’ cultural background has an impact on their perception of trust and emotional support in crowdfunding. The popularity of crowdfunding among Muslims, through the promotion of Sadaqah, Gift, and Zakat, highlights the importance of these two variables.
Furthermore, the study’s results help funders and service providers by explaining the factors that influence donor’s intentions. Ref. [50] found that community emotional support is important. Community support increases current and potential donors’ intentions [48], whereas social support helps individuals feel better and stay optimistic. Emotional support from others is needed when donors have a negative view of crowdsourcing. They will use social media to collect information, relying more on peer users than corporate content [39]. Contrary to the initial study’s predictions, informational support did not alter their purpose.
Given that service quality is linked with trust and intention, donation-based crowdfunding sites will focus on improving their services and campaigns [90]. Keeping the website updated, well-structured posting, easy-to-navigate content, maintaining online transaction and personal information security, and marketing new services are several other ways to improve the service quality [58]. Crowdfunding platforms must build donors’ confidence in online donation security so they can transact safely through their devices [91].
According to past studies, information quality is correlated with intention [14,77,92]. The crowdfunding platforms should provide relevant, adequate, precise, and up-to-date information about their goods and services. Other studies also demonstrated that information quality does not affect crowdfunding trust [59,61,66]. Ref. [93] suggested donors will trust an organisation if it outlines its full operation.
Moreover, the quality of the platform enhances its credibility but not a person’s desire to donate [57,60,94]. The system’s accessibility and interactive interface can boost donors’ confidence. The organisation must demonstrate user-friendly systems with well-designed navigation and aesthetic appeal to boost its quality [92]. The system’s professionalism and dependability also will enhance donors’ confidence [12]. Ref. [59] established a relationship between system quality and planned behaviour. However, this study differs.
Finally, trust also motivates donations [86,95]. Donors usually evaluate a platform’s campaign to ensure their money will not misused [10]. This study proposes that an easy-to-use donation system will increase platform confidence. Along with consistent communication with donors, high social presence can also strengthen donors’ trust and their perceptions of its legitimacy [10]. The CFP providers can consider the following suggestions for improving their systems and making them more user friendly:
  • Mobile-First Platforms: a user-friendly crowdfunding system should have a mobile-optimized platform, allowing for seamless use and accessibility from any device.
  • Automated Processes: automated processes such as automatic distribution of funds, automatic email notifications, and automatic project updates.
  • Personalized Dashboards: a personalized dashboard for organizers and contributors that displays real-time information about the project and its progress, such as the amount raised and the status of causes.

7. Limitations and Future Research Suggestion

This research has come to the conclusion that several factors influence donors’ motivation to contribute their money to the web-based crowdfunding platforms in Malaysia. Given the factors that were found in this research, as discussed in the previous section, this paper admits that there are several limitations that need to be considered. As this research is limited to respondents in Malaysia, conclusions and findings from this research are not to be generalized. On top of that, the respondents may not represent a typical structure of donors in Malaysia or elsewhere. The over-representation of young adults with tertiary education and government employees in the sample may limit the external validity of the findings, as the results may not be generalizable to other groups of donors. This bias can impact the external validity of the findings, meaning that the results cannot be applied to the general population of donors or to other countries. To increase the external validity, a more diverse sample of donors should be included in future research. On the other hand, for future research, the focus could be on examining rewards-based, debt-based, and international crowdfunding platforms. On top of that, it would be interesting to investigate the influence of cultural variations in determining the intention to donate. The study could also be expanded by looking at donation’s intentions in other cultural contexts as well as analysing how social support and a community’s standards influence the donors’ trust and intentions. It would be interesting to study other stimuli and organism characteristics as well, such as the platform’s attractiveness, visibility, donors’ experiences and contentment, religion, and attitude.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.F.A.-H.; Methodology, M.K.K.; Validation, A.H.A.; Formal analysis, F.N.A.M.; Investigation, M.K. and A.B.S.-D.; Resources, N.I.M.N.; Writing—original draft, N.I.N.Z.; Writing—review & editing, N.H.N.M.; Funding acquisition, S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia under UTM Encouragement Research (PY/2020/04097).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The authors adhered to the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available in a publicly accessible repository.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflict of interest to declare.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Research items.
Table A1. Research items.
ConstructIDMeasureAdapted from
Informational SupportInfoS1When I wish to donate, some people give me the information about crowdfunding.[46,50,96]
InfoS2When I wish to donate, some people will suggest donation-based crowdfunding platform.
InfoS3When I wish to donate, some people will help me to identify potential donation-based crowdfunding platform.
Emotional SupportEmoS1When I wish to donate in crowdfunding, some people around me support me.[46,50,96]
EmoS2When I wish to donate in crowdfunding, people around me encourage me.
EmoS3When I wish to donate in crowdfunding, people around me will concern me.
Service QualityServQ1Crowdfunding platform provides on-time services.[46,92,97]
ServQ2Crowdfunding platform provides prompt responses.
ServQ3Crowdfunding platform provides professional services.
ServQ4Crowdfunding platform provides personalized services.
Information QualityInfoQ1Crowdfunding website provides relevant information.[46,92,97]
InfoQ2Crowdfunding website provides sufficient information.
InfoQ3Crowdfunding website provides accurate information.
InfoQ4Crowdfunding website provides up-to-date information.
System QualitySysQ1I feel that crowdfunding website exhibits nice graphics.[46,92,97]
SysQ2I feel that crowdfunding website is easy to use.
SysQ3I feel that crowdfunding website is easy to navigate.
SysQ4I think crowdfunding website is visually attractive.
TrustTrust1I trust crowdfunding platform to do what they promise.[68,84]
Trust2I trust initiator/project creator to do what they promise.
Trust3I believe crowdfunding platforms are reliable.
Trust4I believe crowdfunding platforms are dependable.
Trust5I believe crowdfunding platforms are genuinely committed to my satisfaction.
Trust6Overall, I can trust crowdfunding platforms for making a donation.
Donation IntentionIntent1Given the chance, I intend to donate in crowdfunding.[12,34]
Intent2I intend to actively donate in crowdfunding.
Intent3I expect to donate in crowdfunding in the future.
Intent4I would use the donation-based crowdfunding platform to help others.
Intent5I am willing to make donations to good projects on the platform.

References

  1. Zhang, Y.; Tan, C.D.; Sun, J.; Yang, Z. Why do people patronize donation-based crowdfunding platforms? An activity perspective of critical success factors. Comput. Human Behav. 2020, 112, 106470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mollick, E. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. J. Bus. Ventur. 2014, 29, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Cecere, G.; Le Guel, F.; Rochelandet, F. Crowdfunding and social influence: An empirical investigation. Appl. Econ. 2017, 49, 5802–5813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liu, Q.; Wang, L.; Zhou, J.; Wu, W.; Li, Y. Factors influencing donation intention to personal medical crowdfunding projects appearing on MSNS. J. Organ. End User Comput. 2022, 34, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhong, Z.J.; Lin, S. The antecedents and consequences of charitable donation heterogeneity on social media. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2018, 23, e1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Liu, L.; Suh, A.; Wagner, C. Empathy or perceived credibility? An empirical study on individual donation behavior in charitable crowdfunding. Internet Res. 2018, 28, 623–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kitafund. About us. 2022. Available online: https://kitafund.com/ms/about-us (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  8. Jomdonate. JomDonate. 2022. Available online: https://www.jomdonate.com/ (accessed on 28 February 2022).
  9. Statista. Market Size of the Donation-Based Crowdfunding Industry in Malaysia. Statista. 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/883470/malaysia-donation-based-crowdfunding-market-size/ (accessed on 28 February 2022).
  10. Kasri, R.A.; Indriani, E. Empathy or perceived credibility? An empirical study of Muslim donating behaviour through online charitable crowdfunding in Indonesia. Int. J. Islam. Middle East. Financ. Manag. 2021, 15, 829–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lee, C.H.; Chen, C.W. Impulse buying behaviors in live streaming commerce based on the stimulus-organism-response framework. Information 2021, 12, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, T.; Li, Y.; Kang, M.; Zheng, H. Exploring individuals’ behavioral intentions toward donation crowdfunding: Evidence from China. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2019, 119, 1515–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cho, M.; Lemon, L.L.; Levenshus, A.B.; Childers, C.C. Current students as university donors?: Determinants in college students’ intentions to donate and share information about university crowdfunding efforts. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2019, 16, 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhu, L.; Li, H.; Wang, F.K.; He, W.; Tian, Z. How online reviews affect purchase intention: A new model based on the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework. Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 72, 463–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Belleflamme, P.; Omrani, N.; Peitz, M. The economics of crowdfunding platforms. Inf. Econ. Policy 2015, 33, 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Zhang, X.; Hu, W.; Xiao, Q. Influences of medical crowdfunding website design features on trust and intention to donate: Controlled laboratory experiment. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e25554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, Y.; Dai, R.; Yao, J.; Li, Y. Donate time or money? The determinants of donation intention in online crowdfunding. Sustain. 2019, 11, 4269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Hwang, J.; Choi, L. Having fun while receiving rewards?: Exploration of gamification in loyalty programs for consumer loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 106, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jung, Y.; Choi, B.; Cho, W. Group satisfaction with group work under surveillance: The stimulus-organism-response (SOR) perspective. Telemat. Inform. 2021, 58, 101530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Su, L.; Hsu, M.K.; Boostrom, R.E. From recreation to responsibility: Increasing environmentally responsible behavior in tourism. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 557–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Suparno, C. Online purchase intention of halal cosmetics: S-O-R framework application. J. Islam. Mark. 2020, 12, 1665–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kucukergin, K.G.; Kucukergin, F.N.; Dedeoglu, B.B. An overview of the destination physical servicescape with SOR paradigm: The importance of prestige sensitivity. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 25, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Bilro, R.G.; Japutra, A. The effect of consumer-generated media stimuli on emotions and consumer brand engagement. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2020, 29, 387–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Choi, H.; Kandampully, J. The effect of atmosphere on customer engagement in upscale hotels: An application of S-O-R paradigm. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 77, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lin, S.W.; Lo, L.Y.S. Evoking online consumer impulse buying through virtual layout schemes. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2016, 35, 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lorenzo-Romero, C.; Alarcón-Del-amo, M.D.C.; Gómez-Borja, M.Á. Analyzing the user behavior toward electronic commerce stimuli. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Shatnawi, T. Development of an integrated conceptual framework for electronic hedonic service quality (e-HSQ): An exploratory study. J. Internet Commer. 2019, 18, 395–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, J.C.; Chang, C.H. How online social ties and product-related risks influence purchase intentions: A Facebook experiment. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2013, 12, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tak, P.; Gupta, M. Examining travel mobile app attributes and its impact on consumer engagement: An application of S-O-R framework. J. Internet Commer. 2021, 20, 293–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yu, Z.; Klongthong, W.; Thavorn, J.; Ngamkroeckjoti, C. Understanding rural Chinese consumers’ behavior: A stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) perspective on Huawei’s brand loyalty in China. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1880679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, Y.; Coyle, J.R.; Chen, A.N.K. Improving intention to back projects with effective designs of progress presentation in crowdfunding campaign sites. Decis. Support Syst. 2021, 147, 113573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yuan, X.; Wang, L.; Yin, X.; Wang, H. How text sentiment moderates the impact of motivational cues on crowdfunding campaigns. Financ. Innov. 2021, 7, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chen, Y.; Dai, R.; Wang, L.; Yang, S.; Li, Y.; Wei, J. Exploring donor’s intention in charitable crowdfunding: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2021, 121, 1664–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kenang, I.H.; Gosal, G. Factors affecting online donation intention in donation-based crowdfunding. Winners 2021, 22, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yuan, X.; Wang, H. How linguistic cues affect the motivation of capital-giving in crowdfunding: A self-determination theory perspective. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimed. 2020, 26, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nadeem, W.; Juntunen, M.; Shirazi, F.; Hajli, N. Consumers’ value co-creation in sharing economy: The role of social support, consumers’ ethical perceptions and relationship quality. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 151, 119786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Molinillo, S.; Anaya-Sánchez, R.; Liébana-Cabanillas, F. Analyzing the effect of social support and community factors on customer engagement and its impact on loyalty behaviors toward social commerce websites. Comput. Human Behav. 2020, 108, 105980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sheikh, Z.; Yezheng, L.; Islam, T.; Hameed, Z.; Khan, I.U. Impact of social commerce constructs and social support on social commerce intentions. Inf. Technol. People 2019, 32, 68–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chegini, Z.; Islam, S.M.S. Shared-decision-making Behavior in Hospitalized Patients: Investigating the Impact of Patient’s Trust in Physicians, Emotional Support, Informational Support, and Tendency to Excuse Using a Structural Equation Modeling Approach. J. Patient Exp. 2021, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rautanen, P.; Soini, T.; Pietarinen, J.; Pyhältö, K. Primary school students’ perceived social support in relation to study engagement. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2021, 36, 653–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, L.; Baird, A.; Straub, D. A linguistic signaling model of social support exchange in online health communities. Decis. Support Syst. 2020, 130, 113233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wagg, A.J.; Callanan, M.M.; Hassett, A. Online social support group use by breastfeeding mothers: A content analysis. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Xing, W.; Goggins, S.; Introne, J. Quantifying the Effect of Informational Support on Membership Retention in Online Communities through Large-Scale Data Analytics. Comput. Human Behav. 2018, 86, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Coulson, N.S. Receiving social support online: An analysis of a computer-mediated support group for individuals living with irritable bowel syndrome. Cyberpsychology Behav. 2005, 8, 580–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zhou, T. Examining users’ knowledge sharing behaviour in online health communities. Data Technol. Appl. 2019, 53, 442–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Antwi, S.; Bei, W.; Ameyaw, M.A. Investigating the Moderating Role of Social Support in Online Shopping Intentions. J. Mark. Consum. Res. 2021, 78, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tuncer, I. The effects of social support, trust and social presence on social commerce intention: A Meta-Analysis. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sos. Bilim. Enstitüsü Derg. 2021, 45, 440–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, X.; Liu, S. Understanding relationship commitment and continuous knowledge sharing in online health communities: A social exchange perspective. J. Knowl. Manag. 2021, 26, 592–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Song, C.; Brown, H.T.; Tameez, R.R. The effectiveness of perceived social support in discount stores in Korea. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2021, 33, 909–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Deetjen, U.; Powell, J.A. Informational and emotional elements in online support groups: A Bayesian approach to large-scale content analysis. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2016, 23, 508–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Al-Tit, A.A.; Omri, A.; Hadj, T.B. The driving factors of the social commerce intention of Saudi Arabia’s online communities. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2020, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Zhao, J.D.; Huang, J.S.; Su, S. The effects of trust on consumers’ continuous purchase intentions in C2C social commerce: A trust transfer perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. Measuring e-commerce success: Applying the DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2004, 9, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Efiloğlu Kurt, Ö. Examining an e-learning system through the lens of the information systems success model: Empirical evidence from Italy. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2019, 24, 1173–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nikbin, D.; Aramo, T.; Iranmanesh, M.; Ghobakhloo, M. Impact of brands’ Facebook page characteristics and followers’ comments on trust building and purchase intention: Alternative attractiveness as moderator. J. Consum. Behav. 2022, 21, 494–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Masri, N.W.; You, J.J.; Ruangkanjanases, A.; Chen, S.C.; Pan, C.I. Assessing the effects of information system quality and relationship quality on continuance intention in e-tourism. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Alkraiji, A.; Ameen, N. The impact of service quality, trust and satisfaction on young citizen loyalty towards government e-services. Inf. Technol. People 2021, 35, 1239–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, Y.; Wang, J. Evaluating the Impact of Information System Quality on Continuance Intention Toward Cloud Financial Information System. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 713353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Roh, T.; Yang, Y.S.; Xiao, S.; Park, B.I. What makes consumers trust and adopt fintech? An empirical investigation in China. Electron. Commer. Res. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sarkar, S.; Chauhan, S.; Khare, A. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in mobile commerce. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 286–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tam, C.; Loureiro, A.; Oliveira, T. The individual performance outcome behind e-commerce: Integrating information systems success and overall trust. Internet Res. 2020, 30, 439–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Çelik, K.; Ayaz, A. Validation of the Delone and McLean information systems success model: A study on student information system. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 27, 4709–4727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Li, Y.; Shang, H. Service quality, perceived value, and citizens’ continuous-use intention regarding e-government: Empirical evidence from China. Inf. Manag. 2020, 57, 103197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yadav, M.K.; Rai, A.K. An assessment of the mediating effect of customer satisfaction on the relationship between service quality and customer loyalty. IUP J. Mark. Manag. 2019, XVIII, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kim, S.; Park, H. Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) on consumers’ trust and trust performance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Teng, S.; Khong, K.W. Examining actual consumer usage of E-wallet: A case study of big data analytics. Comput. Human Behav. 2021, 121, 106778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Busalim, A.H.; Ghabban, F.; Hussin, A.R.C. Customer engagement behaviour on social commerce platforms: An empirical study. Technol. Soc. 2021, 64, 101437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lin, X.; Wang, X.; Hajli, N. Building e-commerce satisfaction and boosting sales: The role of social commerce trust and its antecedents. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2019, 23, 328–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ribadu, M.B.; Wan, W.N. An integrated approach towards Sharia compliance E-commerce trust. Appl. Comput. Informatics 2019, 15, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Damabi, M.; Firoozbakht, M.; Ahmadyan, A. A Model for Customers Satisfaction and Trust for Mobile Banking Using DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success. J. Soft Comput. Decis. Support Syst. 2018, 5, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ullah, F.; Sepasgozar, S.M.E.; Jamaluddin Thaheem, M.; Cynthia Wang, C.; Imran, M. It’s all about perceptions: A DEMATEL approach to exploring user perceptions of real estate online platforms. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 4297–4317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cheak, A.P.C.; Chong, C.W.; Yuen, Y.Y. The role of quality perceptions and perceived ubiquity in adoption intention of mobile knowledge management systems (MKMS) in semiconductor industry. VINE J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst. 2021, 52, 243–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Koghut, M.; Ai-Tabbaa, O. Exploring consumers’ discontinuance intention of remote mobile payments during post-adoption usage: An empirical study. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nguyen, T. Continuance intention in traffic-related social media: A privacy calculus perspective. J. Internet Commer. 2021, 20, 215–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Moorthy, K.; Chun T’ing, L.; Ming, K.S.; Ping, C.C.; Ping, L.Y.; Joe, L.Q.; Jie, W.Y. Behavioral intention to adopt digital library by the undergraduates. Int. Inf. Libr. Rev. 2019, 51, 128–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Silic, M.; Ruf, C. The effects of the elaboration likelihood model on initial trust formation in financial advisory services. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2018, 36, 572–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hsu, C.L.; Chen, M.C.; Kikuchi, K.; Machida, I. Elucidating the determinants of purchase intention toward social shopping sites: A comparative study of Taiwan and Japan. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 326–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wang, Z.; Guan, Z.; Hou, F.; Li, B.; Zhou, W. What determines customers’ continuance intention of FinTech? Evidence from YuEbao. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2019, 119, 1625–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Alkhawaja, M.I.; Abd Halim, M.S.; Abumandil, M.S.S.; Al-Adwan, A.S. System Quality and Student’s Acceptance of the E-learning System: The Serial Mediation of Perceived Usefulness and Intention to Use. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2022, 14, ep350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rui-Hsin, K.; Lin, C.T. The usage intention of e-learning for police education and training. Policing 2018, 41, 98–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lee, M.; Lee, S.A.; Jeong, M.; Oh, H. Quality of virtual reality and its impacts on behavioral intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Nam, C.; Cho, K.; Kim, Y. Do Cross-cultural examination of apparel online purchase intention: S-O-R paradigm. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2021, 12, 62–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kaur, S.; Lal, A.K.; Bedi, S.S. Do vendor cues influence purchase intention of online shoppers? An empirical study using S-O-R framework? J. Internet Commer. 2017, 16, 343–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Makmor, N.; Alam, S.S.; Aziz, N.A. Social support, trust and purchase intention in social commerce era. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018, 7, 572–581. [Google Scholar]
  86. Merhi, M.; Hone, K.; Tarhini, A. A cross-cultural study of the intention to use mobile banking between Lebanese and British consumers: Extending UTAUT2 with security, privacy and trust. Technol. Soc. 2019, 59, 101151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zheng, X.; Lee, M.; Cheung, C.M.K. Examining e-loyalty towards online shopping platforms: The role of coupon proneness and value consciousness. Internet Res. 2017, 27, 709–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nanu, L.; Ali, F.; Berezina, K.; Cobanoglu, C. The effect of hotel lobby design on booking intentions: An intergenerational examination. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 89, 102530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hair, J.F.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Alam, M.M.D.; Noor, N.A.M. The relationship between service quality, corporate image, and customer loyalty of generation Y: An application of S-O-R paradigm in the context of superstores in Bangladesh. SAGE Open 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sharma, S.K.; Sharma, M. Examining the role of trust and quality dimensions in the actual usage of mobile banking services: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 44, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chen, X.; Huang, Q.; Davison, R.M. The role of website quality and social capital in building buyers’ loyalty. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 1563–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kang, J.W.; Namkung, Y. The information quality and source credibility matter in customers’ evaluation toward food O2O commerce. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 78, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gao, L.; Waechter, K.A. Examining the role of initial trust in user adoption of mobile payment services: An empirical investigation. Inf. Syst. Front. 2017, 19, 525–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kim, J.H.; Park, J.W. The effect of airport self-service characteristics on passengers’ perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention: Based on the SOR model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Li, Y.; Wang, X. Seeking health information on social media: A perspective of trust, self-determination, and social support. J. Organ. End User Comput. 2018, 30, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wang, C.; Teo, T.S.H. Online service quality and perceived value in mobile government success: An empirical study of mobile police in China. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 52, 102076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 04301 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model. Source: modified from [46].
Figure 1. Research model. Source: modified from [46].
Sustainability 15 04301 g001
Sustainability 15 04301 g002 550
Figure 2. The research model’s test findings. Note(s): *: p < 0.05; ***: p < 0.001.
Figure 2. The research model’s test findings. Note(s): *: p < 0.05; ***: p < 0.001.
Sustainability 15 04301 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographics of the respondents (N = 359).
Table 1. Demographics of the respondents (N = 359).
Demographic Profile Number (N = 359)Percentage (%)
GenderMale13637.9
Female22362.1
Age21–2510629.5
26–307520.9
31–354813.4
36–405314.8
41–454312.0
46–50185.0
51–55113.1
56–6041.1
61 and above10.01
Educational Level2174.7
Malaysian Higher School Certificate (STPM) and equivalent8323.1
Bachelor’s degree and equivalent20356.5
Master’s degree and equivalent4813.4
Ph.D. and equivalent82.2
Marital StatusSingle15543.2
Married19654.6
Divorced82.2
OccupationGovernment14440.1
Private10228.4
Self-employed257.0
Unemployed102.8
Student7721.4
Retired13
Table
Table 2. Reliability and convergent validity.
Table 2. Reliability and convergent validity.
ConstructMeasurementMeanFactor LoadingsCronbach’s αCRAVE
Informational SupportInfoS13.830.9150.9190.9490.860
InfoS23.840.940
InfoS33.840.928
Emotional SupportEmoS13.910.9210.8890.9310.818
EmoS23.940.917
EmoS33.690.876
Service QualityServQ13.870.8490.8730.9130.725
ServQ23.790.855
ServQ33.860.900
ServQ43.680.798
Information QualityInfoQ13.960.8640.9180.9420.803
InfoQ23.870.906
InfoQ33.880.902
InfoQ43.920.913
System QualitySysQ13.890.8750.9140.9390.794
SysQ23.990.887
SysQ34.020.917
SysQ43.910.886
TrustTrust13.900.8250.9440.9550.781
Trust24.010.902
Trust33.890.895
Trust43.960.908
Trust53.870.906
Trust3.960.863
Donation IntentionIntent14.040.8910.9270.9450.774
Intent23.840.855
Intent34.090.890
Intent44.130.884
Intent54.140.879
Note(s): at the 0.001 level, factor loadings are significant.
Table
Table 3. Test results of discriminant validity.
Table 3. Test results of discriminant validity.
Informational SupportEmotional SupportService QualityInformation QualitySystem QualityTrustDonation Intention
Informational Support
Emotional Support0.789
Service Quality0.6690.684
Information Quality0.6760.7150.855
System Quality0.6810.7000.7210.824
Trust0.5560.5630.6720.6380.597
Donation Intention0.5860.6370.6830.6720.6050.760
Table
Table 4. Test results of all hypotheses.
Table 4. Test results of all hypotheses.
HypothesesPathPath Coefficientt-Statisticp-ValueConclusionVIF
H1Informational Support → Trust0.1041.5040.066Not supported2.371
H2Informational Support → Donation Intention0.0340.5570.289Not supported2.390
H3Emotional Support → Trust0.0801.1460.126Not supported2.445
H4Emotional Support → Donation Intention0.1592.5750.005Supported2.456
H5Service Quality → Trust0.3053.9930.000Supported2.647
H6Service Quality → Donation Intention0.1171.8200.034Supported2.813
H7Information Quality → Trust0.1451.5960.056Not supported3.499
H8Information Quality → Donation Intention0.1221.7920.037Supported3.537
H9System Quality → Trust0.1341.7840.037Supported2.625
H10System Quality → Donation Intention0.0120.1910.424Not supported2.657
H11Trust → Donation Intention0.4618.0700.000Supported1.796
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kamarudin, M.K.; Mohamad Norzilan, N.I.; Mustaffa, F.N.A.; Khidzir, M.; Alma’amun, S.; Nor Muhamad, N.H.; Abu-Hussin, M.F.; Noor Zainan, N.I.; Abdullah, A.H.; Samat-Darawi, A.B. Why Do Donors Donate? A Study on Donation-Based Crowdfunding in Malaysia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054301

AMA Style

Kamarudin MK, Mohamad Norzilan NI, Mustaffa FNA, Khidzir M, Alma’amun S, Nor Muhamad NH, Abu-Hussin MF, Noor Zainan NI, Abdullah AH, Samat-Darawi AB. Why Do Donors Donate? A Study on Donation-Based Crowdfunding in Malaysia. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):4301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054301

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kamarudin, Mohd Khairy, Nur Izzati Mohamad Norzilan, Fatin Nur Ainaa Mustaffa, Masyitah Khidzir, Suhaili Alma’amun, Nasrul Hisyam Nor Muhamad, Mohd Fauzi Abu-Hussin, Nurul Izzah Noor Zainan, Abdul Hafiz Abdullah, and Abdul Basit Samat-Darawi. 2023. "Why Do Donors Donate? A Study on Donation-Based Crowdfunding in Malaysia" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 4301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054301

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop