Developing and Validating a Theory-Based Model of Crowdfunding Investment Intention—Perspectives from Social Exchange Theory and Customer Value Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
3. Methodology
3.1. Theoretical Model
3.2. Sample Collection
3.3. Variable Measures and Scale Development
3.3.1. Independent Variables
3.3.2. Dependent Variable
4. Empirical Analysis
4.1. Reliability and Validity of the Variables
4.2. Hypotheses Testing
5. Conclusions
5.1. Theoretical Contribution
5.2. Managerial Contribution
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pekmezovic, A.; Walker, G. The global significance of crowdfunding: Solving the SME funding problem and democratizing access to capital. Wm. Mary Bus. L. Rev. 2016, 7, 347. [Google Scholar]
- Valanciene, L.; Jegeleviciute, S. Valuation of crowdfunding: Benefits and drawbacks. Econ. Manag. 2013, 18, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Q.; Chen, C.D.; Wang, J.L.; Chen, P.C. Determinants of backers’ funding intention in crowdfunding: Social exchange theory and regulatory focus. Telemat. Inf. 2017, 34, 370–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehner, O.M. Crowdfunding social ventures: A model and research agenda. Ventur. Cap. 2013, 15, 289–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyskens, M.; Bird, L. Crowdfunding and value creation. Entrep. Res. J. 2015, 5, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Crowdfunding’s Potential for the Developing World; Info Dev; Finance and Private Sector Development Department: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, B.; Wardrop, R.; Rau, R.; Gray, M. Moving mainstream: Benchmarking the European alternative finance market. J. Financ. Perspect. 2015, 3, 60–76. [Google Scholar]
- Massolution. Global Crowdfunding Market to Reach $34. 4B in 2015. Available online: http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/global-crowdfunding-market-to-reach-344b-in-2015-predicts-massolutions-2015cf-industry-report/45376 (accessed on 22 June 2018).
- Yuan, Y.; Chen, L. China Crowdfunding Industry Development Research; Shanghai Jiaotong University Press: Shanghai, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Xuefeng, L.; Zhao, W. Using crowdfunding in an innovative way: A case study from a Chinese crowdfunding platform. In Proceedings of the 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Honolulu, HI, USA, 19–23 August 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, C.; Zhang, W.; Yan, X. The life-cycle influence mechanism of the determinants of financing performance: An empirical study of a Chinese crowdfunding platform. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2018, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y. Regulation and supervision of internet finance and consumer protection in China. In Consumer Law and Socioeconomic Development; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, S. Exploration on the crowdfunding mode of rural memory project. J. Landsc. Res. 2016, 8, 114–117. [Google Scholar]
- Gerber, E.M.; Hui, J. Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for participation. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2016, 20, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A.; Catalini, C.; Goldfarb, A. The Geography of crowdfunding. SSRN Electron. J. 2011, 16820. Available online: https://www.nber.org/papers/w16820 (accessed on 21 February 2019). [CrossRef]
- Hazen, T.L. Crowdfunding or fraudfunding? Social networks and the securities laws—Why the specially tailored exemption must be conditioned on meaningful disclosure. N. C. Law Rev. 2012, 90, 1735. [Google Scholar]
- Ming, H.; Xi, L.; Shi, M. Product and pricing decisions in crowdfunding. Mark. Sci. 2015, 34, 331–345. [Google Scholar]
- Belleflamme, P.; Lambert, T.; Schwienbacher, A. Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. J. Bus. Ventur. 2014, 29, 585–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mollick, E. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. J. Business Venturing. 2014, 29, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moss, T.W.; Neubaum, D.O.; Meyskens, M. The effect of virtuous and entrepreneurial orientations on microfinance lending and repayment: A signaling theory perspective. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 39, 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, Y.; Hwang, J. Crowdfunding as an alternative means for funding sustainable appropriate technology: Acceptance determinants of backers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, M.W.; Christensen, C.M.; Kagermann, H. Reinventing your business model. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, C.-M.; Liang, T.-P.; Turban, E. Introduction to the special issue on crowdsourcing and social networks analysis. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 65, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colgren, D. The rise of crowdfunding: Social media, big data, cloud technologies. Strateg. Financ. 2014, 95, 56–57. [Google Scholar]
- Yadav, M.S.; de Valck, K.; Hennig-Thurau, T.; Hoffman, D.L.; Spann, M. Social commerce: A contingency framework for assessing marketing potential. J. Interac. Mark. 2013, 27, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Rosario, M.; Busary, A.; Raval, K. The permissibility of crowd funding within South Asia: A comparative analysis of South Asian jurisdictions. In Financial Market Regulations and Legal Challenges in South Asia; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 81–95. [Google Scholar]
- Ferro, C.; Padin, C.; Svensson, G.; Payan, J. Trust and commitment as mediators between economic and non-economic satisfaction in manufacturer-supplier relationships. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2016, 31, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 20–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.H.; Tsai, Y.-C.; Chen, S.-H.; Huang, G.-H.; Tseng, Y.H. Building Long-term partnerships by certificate implementation: A social exchange theory perspective. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2015, 30, 867–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, S.-W.; Hsu, C.-S. Understanding online repurchase intention: Social exchange theory and shopping habit. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 2016, 14, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lioukas, C.S.; Reuer, J.J. Isolating Trust outcomes from exchange relationships: Social exchange and learning benefits of prior ties in alliances. Acad. Manag. J. 2015, 58, 1826–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, L.E.; Dion, P.A. The Determinants of commitment in the distributor–manufacturer relationship. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2001, 30, 287–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W. Trust and tam in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 51–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldsby, M.G.; Kreiser, P.M.; Kuratko, D.F.; Bishop, J.W.; Hornsby, J.S. Social proactiveness and innovation: The impact of stakeholder salience on corporate entrepreneurship. J. Small Bus. Strateg. 2018, 28, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- MacMillan, K.; Money, K.; Money, A.; Downing, S. Relationship marketing in the not-for-profit sector: An extension and application of the commitment–trust theory. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 806–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zehir, C.; Sahin, A.; Kitapçı, H.; Özşahin, M. The effects of brand communication and service quality in building brand loyalty through brand trust; the empirical research on global brands. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 24, 1218–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chao, C.-M.; Yu, C.-T.; Cheng, B.-W.; Chuang, P.-C. Trust and commitment in relationships among medical equipment suppliers: Transaction cost and social exchange theories. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2013, 41, 1057–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonidou, L.C.; Samiee, S.; Aykol, B.; Talias, M.A. Antecedents and outcomes of exporter–importer relationship quality: Synthesis, meta-analysis, and directions for further research. J. Int. Mark. 2014, 22, 21–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, T.-S.; Hsiao, W.-H. Factors influencing intentions to use social recommender systems: A social exchange perspective. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2013, 16, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, Y.F.; Feng, L.H. Relationships among community interaction characteristics, perceived benefits, community commitment, and oppositional brand loyalty in online brand communities. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 948–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhar, R.L. Service quality and the training of employees: The mediating role of organizational commitment. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 419–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angerer, M.; Niemand, T.; Kraus, S.; Thies, F. Risk-reducing options in crowdinvesting: An experimental study. J. Small Bus. Strateg. 2018, 28, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, I.B.; Cha, H.S. The mediating role of consumer trust in an online merchant in predicting purchase intention. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 927–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, M.; Bonn, M.A.; Kang, S. Wine attributes, perceived risk and online wine repurchase intention: The cross-level interaction effects of website quality. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 43, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, M.C.; Mai, Q.; Tsai, S.B.; Dai, Y. An empirical study on the organizational trust, employee-organization relationship and innovative behavior from the integrated perspective of social exchange and organizational sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cullen, B.; Johnson, L.; Sakano, T. Success through commitment and trust: The soft side of strategic alliance management. J. World Bus. 2000, 35, 223–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- See-To, E.W.K.; Ho, K.K.W. Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: The role of electronic word-of-mouth and trust–A theoretical analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 31, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponte, E.; Carvajal-Trujillo, E.; Escobar-Rodríguez, T.; Bonsón Ponte, E.; Carvajal-Trujillo, E.; Escobar-Rodríguez, T.; Ponte, E.; Carvajal-Trujillo, E.; Escobar-Rodríguez, T. Influence of trust and perceived value on the intention to purchase travel online: Integrating the effects of assurance on trust antecedents. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 286–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moorman, C.; Deshpande, R.; Zaltman, G. Factors Affecting trust in market research relationships. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 81–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, J.I.; Chung, K.H.; Oh, J.S.; Lee, C.W. The effect of site quality on repurchase intention in internet shopping through mediating variables: The case of university students in South Korea. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zopiatis, A.; Constanti, P.; Theocharous, A.L. Job involvement, commitment, satisfaction and turnover: Evidence from hotel employees in Cyprus. Tour. Manag. 2014, 41, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Featherman, M.S.; Pavlou, P.A. Predicting E-Services Adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2003, 59, 451–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohr, J.J.; Spekman, R.E. Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strateg. Manag. J. 1994, 15, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cummings, T.G. Transorganizational development. Res. Organ. Behav. 1984, 6, 367–422. [Google Scholar]
- Bauer, R.A. Consumer behavior as risk taking. In Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior; Cox, D.F., Ed.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960; pp. 389–398. [Google Scholar]
- Bhukya, R.; Singh, S. The effect of perceived risk dimensions on purchase intention. Am. J. Bus. 2015, 30, 218–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavlou, A.P. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 7, 69–103. [Google Scholar]
- Jaros, S.; Jermier, J.; Koehler, J.; Sincich, T. Effects of Continuance, Affective, and Moral Commitment on the Withdrawal Process: An Evaluation of Eight Structural Equation Models. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 951–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tobias, S.; Carlson, J.E. Bartlett’s Test of sphericity and chance findings in factor analysis. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1969, 4, 375–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wood, J.M.; Tataryn, D.J.; Gorsuch, R.L. Effects of under- and over- extraction on principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Psychol. Methods 1996, 1, 354–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambert, T.; Schwienbacher, A. An empirical analysis of crowdfunding. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. 2010, 1578175, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Ordanini, A.; Miceli, L.; Pizzetti, M. Crowdfunding: Transforming Customers into investors through innovative service platforms. J. Serv. Manag. 2010, 22, 443–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, S.; Chen, M.; Chen, Y.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Y. Consumer trust in organic milk of different brands: The role of Chinese organic label. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 1769–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solomonson, W.L. Trust and the client-consultant relationship. Perform. Improv. Q. 2012, 25, 53–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valančienė, L.; Jegelevičiūtė, S. Crowdfunding for creating value: Stakeholder approach. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 156, 599–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sargeant, A.; Ford, J.B.; West, D.C. Perceptual determinants of non-profit giving behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Latent Variables | Measurement Item | Mean | S.D. | Skewness | Kurtosis | Standardized Factor Loading | S.E. | t-Value | CR-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Communication | 1. Immediate communication with the fundraiser | 5.30 | 1.42 | −0.75 | 3.00 | 0.88 | 0.03 | 32.17 *** | |
2. Accurate communication with the fundraiser | 5.37 | 1.41 | −0.82 | 3.25 | 0.9 | 0.03 | 33.50 *** | ||
3. Sufficient communication with the fundraiser | 5.24 | 1.49 | −0.71 | 2.94 | 0.91 | 0.03 | 33.98 *** | 0.948 | |
4. Complete communication with the fundraiser | 5.23 | 1.45 | −0.78 | 3.10 | 0.89 | 0.03 | 33.15 *** | ||
5. Reliable communication with the fundraiser | 5.40 | 1.43 | −0.91 | 3.46 | 0.85 | ||||
Shared Values | 1. Shared similar viewpoints and values with the fundraiser | 5.41 | 1.30 | −0.98 | 4.16 | 0.86 | 0.05 | 23.58 *** | |
2. Like and respect the fundraiser’s values | 5.63 | 1.30 | −1.01 | 3.93 | 0.85 | 0.05 | 23.24 *** | 0.858 | |
3. Shared nearly the same values with the fundraiser | 5.44 | 1.31 | −0.93 | 3.93 | 0.74 | ||||
Perceived Benefits | 1. Increases knowledge and understanding of the products by participating in the crowdfunding | 5.62 | 1.21 | −1.01 | 4.36 | 0.88 | 0.03 | 36.12 *** | |
2. Helps to solve a series of usage problems about the product by participating in the crowdfunding | 5.48 | 1.24 | −0.77 | 3.63 | 0.91 | 0.03 | 38.90 *** | 0.93 | |
3. Improve the understanding of the development or technology of the product in the future | 5.58 | 1.24 | −1.00 | 4.25 | 0.92 | ||||
4. Expands social networking | 5.16 | 1.51 | −0.70 | 2.95 | - | - | - | - | |
5. Intensifies relationship with other members | 5.29 | 1.37 | −0.81 | 3.48 | - | - | - | - | |
6. Gets acquainted with other individuals who have common benefits | 5.39 | 1.39 | −0.82 | 3.41 | - | - | - | - | |
7. Becomes famous and enhances social status | 4.94 | 1.55 | −0.58 | 2.77 | - | - | - | - | |
8. Improves reputation and authority | 5.13 | 1.51 | −0.67 | 2.99 | - | - | - | - | |
9. Feel satisfied while influencing other people on participation | 5.42 | 1.33 | −0.82 | 3.44 | - | - | - | - | |
10. Feel satisfied while influencing the design and development of the project | 5.54 | 1.28 | −0.88 | 3.69 | - | - | - | - | |
11. Feel relaxed about the project | 5.56 | 1.18 | −0.79 | 3.72 | - | - | - | - | |
12. Feel delighted about the project | 5.59 | 1.29 | −0.96 | 3.94 | - | - | - | - | |
13. Feel excited about the project | 5.53 | 1.23 | −0.79 | 3.59 | - | - | - | - | |
Perceived Risk | 1. Worried that the quality of the crowdfunding product cannot meet the expectations | 4.01 | 1.73 | 0.04 | 2.06 | 0.79 | 0.04 | 26.50 *** | |
2. Worried there will be a financial loss, as they cannot receive the crowdfunding products | 4.06 | 1.76 | −0.09 | 2.06 | 0.87 | 0.04 | 30.73 *** | ||
3. Worried it will take a long time to receive the crowdfunding products | 4.38 | 1.75 | −0.36 | 2.19 | 0.84 | 0.04 | 29.29 *** | 0.943 | |
4. Worried self-esteem will be wounded as they cannot achieve the goal of the crowdfunding product | 3.98 | 1.75 | −0.07 | 2.10 | 0.86 | 0.04 | 30.44 *** | ||
5. Worried about family members or friends disagreeing with the participation of the crowdfunding project | 3.97 | 1.80 | −0.02 | 2.03 | 0.85 | 0.04 | 29.87 *** | ||
6. Worried personal information could be embezzled if participating the crowdfunding | 4.30 | 1.81 | −0.17 | 2.04 | 0.81 | 0.04 | 27.56 *** | ||
7. Perceived there is a risk when investing in the crowdfunding project | 4.36 | 1.71 | −0.28 | 2.22 | 0.84 | ||||
Trust | 1. Trust in the fundraiser in general | 5.41 | 1.20 | −0.67 | 3.58 | 0.8 | 0.03 | 25.52 *** | |
2. The fundraiser is trustworthy | 5.47 | 1.25 | −0.77 | 3.61 | 0.89 | 0.03 | 28.73 *** | 0.884 | |
3. The fundraiser can keep the promise and commitment to the investor | 5.43 | 1.23 | −0.79 | 3.83 | 0.85 | ||||
Commitment | 1. Worried there will be a loss if they give up the investment | 5.35 | 1.31 | −0.82 | 3.73 | 0.89 | 0.03 | 36.67 *** | |
2. There will be a considerable self-sacrifice if they give up investing in the fundraiser or the crowdfunding project | 5.29 | 1.32 | −0.85 | 3.78 | 0.86 | 0.03 | 33.95 *** | 0.914 | |
3. Personal life will be affected somehow if they give up investing in the fundraiser or the crowdfunding project | 5.43 | 1.23 | −0.70 | 3.45 | 0.9 | ||||
4. Enjoy discussing the advantages of the crowdfunding project and fundraisers | 4.75 | 1.55 | −0.49 | 2.69 | - | - | - | - | |
5. Feel a sense of belonging with the crowdfunding project and fundraisers | 4.57 | 1.61 | −0.40 | 2.49 | - | - | - | - | |
6. Be attracted by crowd funding project and fundraisers | 4.51 | 1.71 | −0.41 | 2.38 | - | - | - | - | |
Investment Intention | 1. High probability to consider the investment of the crowdfunding project | 5.41 | 1.19 | −0.82 | 4.09 | 0.85 | 0.03 | 30.84 *** | |
2. Definitely will invest in a crowdfunding project once they have made a decision | 5.47 | 1.25 | −0.83 | 3.75 | 0.84 | 0.03 | 30.01 *** | ||
3. High probability of investing in the crowdfunding project | 5.48 | 1.19 | −0.74 | 3.63 | 0.87 | 0.03 | 31.86 *** | 0.916 | |
4. Willing to invest in the crowdfunding project | 5.47 | 1.25 | −0.80 | 3.65 | 0.86 |
Latent Variables | Mean | S.D. | AVE | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) Communication | 5.26 | 1.32 | 0.785 | 0.886 | ||||||
(2) Shared Values | 5.42 | 1.18 | 0.670 | 0.710 ** | 0.819 | |||||
(3) Perceived Benefits | 5.11 | 1.44 | 0.816 | 0.163 ** | 0.215 ** | 0.903 | ||||
(4) Perceived Risk | 4.20 | 1.50 | 0.702 | 0.045 | 0.099 ** | 0.250 ** | 0.838 | |||
(5) Trust | 4.61 | 1.44 | 0.718 | 0.424 ** | 0.411 ** | 0.097 ** | 0.326 ** | 0.847 | ||
(6) Commitment | 5.40 | 1.14 | 0.781 | 0.703 ** | 0.743 ** | 0.153 ** | 0.009 | 0.419 ** | 0.884 | |
(7) Investment intention | 5.42 | 1.09 | 0.731 | 0.700 ** | 0.729 ** | 0.190 ** | 0.068 | 0.425 ** | 0.814 ** | 0.855 |
Variables | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | Total Effects |
---|---|---|---|
(1) Communication | 0.077 | 0.007 | 0.084 |
(2) Shared Value | 0.820 | 0.014 | 0.834 |
(3) Perceived Benefits | −0.034 | −0.004 | −0.038 |
(4) Perceived Risk | −0.083 | 0.014 | −0.069 |
Variables | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | Total Effects |
---|---|---|---|
(1) Communication | 0.088 | 0.035 | 0.123 |
(2) Shared Values | 0.156 | 0.378 | 0.534 |
(3) Perceived Benefits | 0.026 | −0.015 | 0.011 |
(4) Perceived Risk | 0.018 | −0.040 | −0.022 |
(5) Trust | −0.022 | 0.019 | −0.003 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yang, X.; Zhao, K.; Tao, X.; Shiu, E. Developing and Validating a Theory-Based Model of Crowdfunding Investment Intention—Perspectives from Social Exchange Theory and Customer Value Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092525
Yang X, Zhao K, Tao X, Shiu E. Developing and Validating a Theory-Based Model of Crowdfunding Investment Intention—Perspectives from Social Exchange Theory and Customer Value Perspective. Sustainability. 2019; 11(9):2525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092525
Chicago/Turabian StyleYang, Xiaocong, Kai Zhao, Xiaobo Tao, and Eric Shiu. 2019. "Developing and Validating a Theory-Based Model of Crowdfunding Investment Intention—Perspectives from Social Exchange Theory and Customer Value Perspective" Sustainability 11, no. 9: 2525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092525