Sven Johan Dekker (10968989) Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science Supervisor: Gert-Jan de Bruijn
February 2, 2017
donation behaviour
The effects of framing and rewards on emotions and
donation intention to patronage crowdfunding projects
Abstract
Crowdfunding is developing with a tremendous speed. The total amount of money raised globally is increasing each year, the amount of crowdfunding platforms and the amount of projects do so as well. Much as crowdfunding as an industry has been increasingly successful, individual projects struggle to raise the amount of funding in order to succeed. This study examines different advertising strategies and their applicability in a crowdfunding context. In particular, this study researches emotions, framing and their effects on donating to either donation-based crowdfunding or reward-based crowdfunding. A total number of 188
participants were included in the experiment and were faced with one of four crowdfunding pages, differentiating in message frame (positive / negative) and crowdfunding type (reward-based / donation-(reward-based). The pages were constructed with the help of and according to the designs of crowdfunding platform 1%Club (www.onepercentclub.com). The results show that feelings of anticipated guilt have a significant effect on donation intention, whereas higher perceived feelings of guilt lead to a higher donation intention. Interestingly, the different frames did not lead to differences in anticipated feelings of guilt, but a positive frame did lead to higher feelings of anticipated happiness. In addition, neither framing nor crowdfunding type had a significant effect on donation behaviour. No mediation effect has been found for anticipated guilt between framing and donation intention. Lastly, having an intention to donate to the crowdfunding project did increase feelings of happiness and reduced feelings of guilt. It can be concluded that not all examined message strategies are applicable in a
crowdfunding context.
Influencing crowdfunding donation behaviour:
The effects of framing and rewards on emotions and donation intention to patronage crowdfunding projects
Introduction
Crowdfunding is the attempt of individuals or groups to gain funds for a project by requesting relative small amounts of donations from a relative big number of people through the Internet, crowdfunding projects can be cultural, social and commercial of nature (Mollick, 2014). Crowdfunding is developing with a tremendous speed, the total amount of money raised globally through crowdfunding has doubled from $16.2 billion in 2014 to $34.4 billion in 2015 (Massolutions, 2015). The advancement of crowdfunding can also be discovered by the number of crowdfunding platforms that have emerged worldwide in recent years, from 450 in 2013 to 1,250 in 2015 (Massolutions, 2013; DealIndex, 2015). Much as crowdfunding as an industry has been increasingly successful over the last few years, individual projects struggle to succeed. The chances of success of most crowdfunding projects is less than 50%, and the success rate has been dropping in recent years (Massolutions, 2015; Zhao et al., 2016). Learning what drives individuals to donate (or not to donate) to a crowdfunding
project and how this decision could be influenced by stakeholders is therefore essential for the future of this industry.
1%Club is one of the above mentioned 1,250 crowdfunding platforms, and founded in 2008 (before the term crowdfunding existed) as an online marketplace where people can share 1% of their money, time and/or knowledge to projects with social impact (1%Club, 2017). 1%Club only accepts humanitarian-like projects, and follows a patronage model: “placing the funders in the position of philanthropists, who expect no direct return for their
donation” (Mollick, 2014, p. 3). Since crowdfunding is a relatively new concept, there is only a limited amount of research available. Most studies about crowdfunding focus on projects’ success driving characteristics (Cordova et al., 2015; Lukkarinen et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2016), crowdfunding in general (Mollick, 2014) or proposed crowdfunding research models (Kuo & Wu, 2014; Kuo & Liu, 2014), but less on individual’s donation behaviour and how one could influence this behaviour. Charities and non-profits have been studied intensively over the last few decades and similarities between donating to a humanitarian crowdfunding project and donating to a charity can easily be identified (Gerber & Hui, 2013).Therefore, valuable information can be drawn from research about influencing individual’s donation behaviour towards charities. In addition, similarities can be found between reward-based crowdfunding and online purchase behaviour (Kuo & Liu, 2014). Reward-based
crowdfunding is currently the most popular type of crowdfunding (Mollick, 2014). In reward-based crowdfunding, supporters of a project receive a reward for their donation (Mollick, 2014). Appearing in the credits of a crowdfunded movie, meeting the team behind the crowdfunded project or receiving the crowdfunded product earlier and/or cheaper are examples of rewards supporters can receive (Mollick, 2014). When rewards are given, the crowdfunding resembles online purchase behaviour (Gerber & Hui, 2013; Kuo & Liu, 2014) and could therefore learn from research in this field as well.
This research will elaborate to what extent different message strategies - found in research about donation and online purchasing behaviour - can be applicable in a
crowdfunding context. In particular, this study will research emotions, framing and their effects on both donation-based crowdfunding and reward-based crowdfunding. Different outcomes between donation-based and reward-based crowdfunding are expected, since the benefits of both types of crowdfunding differ. Whereas supporting a reward-based
crowdfunding project rewards supporters with a tangible product or a service and supporting a donation-based crowdfunding project only leaves the supporter with a resulting emotion (Gerber & Hui, 2013). In a broader sense, this research elaborates on the difference between the actions of people when they do or do not receive a reward for their behaviour. The following research question has been developed for further exploration.
To what extent do message framing, emotional appeals and receiving rewards influence individual’s emotional state and consequently their donation behaviour towards crowdfunding projects?
This research contributes both academically and professionally. First of all, this study offers insights in people’s philanthropic behaviour and to what extent rewards influence egocentric or altruistic actions. Furthermore, this study investigates whether known strategies from the field of charitable and e-commerce advertising are applicable in a new Internet-based funding medium. This study is the first - to the best of the researcher’s knowledge - that applies framing and emotional appeals in the context of crowdfunding. In addition, this study is the first to research emotional reactions to patronage crowdfunding projects before and after (not) intending to make a donation. Second, as mentioned earlier, the crowdfunding industry is increasingly suffering from unsuccessful projects. The insights of this study can offer support to both crowdfunding organisations and their projects’ initiators, whereas the different advertising strategies might be able to help increasing donation intentions. The results of this study could help crowdfunding organisations and the market as a whole to develop and mature further towards a healthy and sustained industry that benefits millions of people.
Theoretical framework
The success of a crowdfunding project depends on its received donations (Mollick, 2014). But why do people donate to a crowdfunding project? To answer this question, donation motivations towards charities will be examined first. A link can be made between charitable and crowdfunding donations, since the crowdfunding platform that is central in this study follows a patronage model. Because philanthropic crowdfunding projects have a lot in common with charitable projects, similar donation behaviour is expected (Gerber & Hui, 2013). Demographics, like age, gender, ethnicity, religion, education and income, play an important role in charitable donation behaviour - experiences, information and the ability to give, do so as well (van Slyke & Brooks, 2004). Mount (1996) conducted interviews and a literature review to determine fifteen different motivations for people to donate to non-profits. These motivations include believing in the purpose of the charity, the resulting psychological reward, an overall aspiration to help other people and boosting one’s ego (Mount, 1996). Van Slyke and Brooks (2004) developed a model of charitable giving based on the motivations found by Mount (1996) and several sociodemographic background factors. They propose that these background factors - like demographics, past charitable experiences, sources of
information and the ability to give - have the ability to influence behaviour in the form of giving, volunteering or joining a charitable organisation (van Slyke & Brooks, 2004). Consequently, they propose that external triggers have the ability to activate the
aforementioned philanthropic behaviour, these triggers have been derived from Mount’s (1996) list of motivations for people to donate to non-profits (van Slyke & Brooks, 2004). The model of charitable giving developed by van Slyke and Brooks (2004) is illustrated in figure 1.
Similar motivations to the ones Mount (1996) established and other motivations have been found for donating to crowdfunding projects (Gerber & Hui, 2013). These motivations include getting a reward in return, helping another person, supporting a cause and being part of a community (Gerber & Hui, 2013). The overlapping motivations of donating to a charity and donating to a crowdfunding project can be generalised in two categories: (1) the desire to help (others or a cause) and (2) the resulting reward (either psychological or tangible) (Gerber & Hui, 2013; Mount, 1996). Some crowdfunding platforms give the initiator the ability to reward supporters with tangible products or services, the so-called reward-based approach (Mollick, 2014), this is not the approach taken by 1%Club. However, getting something in return doesn’t always have to be something tangible, it can be a psychological emotion or feeling - like satisfaction, gratefulness, joy, etc. - as well (Gerber & Hui, 2013; Mount, 1996; van Slyke & Brooks, 2004). The philanthropic behaviour of helping others or a specific cause, in a crowdfunding context, thus resembles the behaviour of supporting a charity (Gerber & Hui, 2013). On the other hand, supporting a crowdfunding project can also resemble purchase behaviour when tangible rewards are in the proposition (Kuo & Liu, 2014). Since donating to crowdfunding projects has common grounds with both donating to charitable causes and with
e-commerce purchase behaviour (Gerber & Hui, 2013; Kuo & Liu, 2014; Mollick, 2013; van Slyke & Brooks, 2004), similar advertising strategies might be relevant to influence
crowdfunding donation behaviour.
A range of strategies for advertising effectiveness have been embraced by companies and organisations, one such technique is emotional appeals (Hibbert et al., 2007). Emotions in advertising can be used to organise and motivate people’s behaviour (Nabi, 2002). Nabi (2002) described different emotions that can be used for persuasion purposes, such as anger, fear, guilt, disgust and happiness. Negative emotions, in particular, have been found to be effective in influencing behaviour(Merchant et al., 2009). The assumption that emotional appeals can be used to influence behaviour have not gone unnoticed by charitable
organisations, this is especially true for guilt appeals (Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997).
Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) examined 2,769 magazine advertisements for guilt and fear appeals and found out that the first appeal is used more often in advertising compared to the latter, 153 and 131 appearances respectively. Furthermore, their results show that charitable organisations account for the highest percentage (21,6%) of guilt appeal advertisements, followed by health care (17,6%) and food and cleaning products (11,1%) (Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997). Feelings of guilt appear when one is infracting, forecasting the infraction of, or failing to act in line with (self) expected behaviour, and results in a negative emotional state and possible self-mediated punishment (Mosher, 1965; O’Keefe, 2002). Often, the first reaction when one is feeling or expecting to feel guilty, is to prevent the situation from happening or to reduce the damage done (Nabi, 2002). This reaction can be exploited by charitable organisations by suggesting an action that can prevent or reduce the feelings of
guilt, often in the form of making a donation (Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997; Merchant et al., 2009).
Anticipated guilt is one of three identified types of guilt (Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997) and is not characterised by someone’s current negative emotional state of feeling guilty, but by the expectancy of feeling guilty (Lindsey, 2005; O’Keefe, 2002). Anticipatory guilt in advertising is often presented as a future scenario, in which, if the reader does not perform a suggested behaviour an undesirable outcome may follow (Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997; Lindsey, 2005; O’Keefe, 2002). The effect of anticipated emotions on decision making can be explained with the decision effect theory by Mellers and McGraw (2001). The decision effect theory suggests that people make a choice based on the anticipated feelings of pleasure or pain as a result of the decisions outcome, the choice that generates the most pleasure, or the least pain, is most likely to be chosen (Mellers & McGraw, 2001). It is expected that the aroused feelings of anticipated guilt increases donation intentions. Lindsey (2005) first demonstrated that messages about bone marrow donation can provoke anticipatory guilt, and consequently she showed that this emotion significantly increases intention in the
recommended behaviour and eventually the actual behaviour. Anticipated guilt therefore acts as a mediator between message and behaviour. The latter conclusion of this research has also been confirmed by Hibbert and colleagues (2007) who found out that feelings of guilt have a significant influence on donation intention. This notion is also endorsed by Basil et al. (2008), who discovered that anticipatory guilt significantly predicted donation intention. Moreover, anticipated guilt was found to fully mediate empathy and partially mediate self-efficacy in increasing donation intentions (Basil et al., 2008). The mediation effect of anticipated guilt between message and intentional behaviour has been proven by Steenhout and Kenhove (2006) as well. Both studies that are discussed in their paper support this assumption
(Steenhout and Kenhove, 2006). Based on the literature about emotional appeals, guilt appeals and anticipated guilt the first hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Anticipated guilt has a significant effect on donation intentions. Increased feelings of anticipated guilt will lead to higher donation intentions towards patronage
crowdfunding projects.
Another advertising strategy is message framing. Message framing is a
communication concept that has been introduced by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) as a product of their developed prospect theory. Prospect theory tries to explain people’s decision making when the outcome of that decision is not certain (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The theory suggests that people tend to avoid risky choices when the outcome of the decision results in certain advantages, on the other hand, when the outcome of the decision results in certain disadvantages, people tend to accept risky choices (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Thus, a person is risk averse with sure gains, and risk seeking with sure losses (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Message framing builds on this notion from prospect theory, and suggests that messages - with the same outcome - can be phrased with an assured frame to influence people’s decisions (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Message framing can be executed both positively or negatively, also known as a gain frame or a loss frame (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). In essence, framing means the manner in which the same message can be described with either positive gain terms or negative loss terms, and can influence how people feel about the concerned message and possibly influence their behaviour (Chang & Lee, 2010). Metaphorically, a positive frame would be called seeing a glass ‘half full’, while a negative frame would be seeing the glass ‘half empty’ (Chang & Lee, 2009). Tversky and Kahneman
(1981) exemplified their framing theory with a classroom experiment, two groups of
participants were asked to choose between two options in a hypothetical situation where the United States is preparing for an unusual disease. The options in their experiment were either risk avoiding or risk seeking, whereas the first group received the options in a positive frame (lives saved) and the second group received the options in a negative frame (lives lost)
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Tversky and Kahneman (1981) concluded with their classroom experiment that participants faced with a positive frame are more likely to avoid risk, while participants faced with a negative frame are more likely to seek risk.
In a charitable context, message framing has been proven to influence individual’s donation behaviour (Cao, 2015; Chang & Lee, 2009; Chang & Lee, 2010; Das et al., 2008). In this matter, charitable messages can be framed positively, for example: ‘With your donation, these children will be able to eat for a month’. The same message, with the same outcome, framed negatively would be: ‘Without your donation, these children won’t be able to eat for a month’. In their study about message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on charity advertising effectiveness, Chang and Lee (2010) found that negatively framed messages increase the persuasion effectiveness of charity advertising. Chang and Lee (2010) created child poverty-oriented charitable leaflets with either a positive or negative framed case story. The case stories were created around the fictional character of four-year-old Paul, in which the positive framed story ended with “Because of generous supporters like you, this bright and hopeful boy, Paul, will stand a chance. He now has many more choices for the future.” (Chang & Lee, 2010, p. 206). Consequently the negative framed story ended with “Without generous supporters like you, this bright and hopeful boy, Paul, will not stand a chance. His options have been taken away from him.“ (Chang & Lee, 2010, p. 206). The results pointed out a significant main effect of message framing, where the negatively framed
message resulted in a higher donation intention compared to the positively framed message (Chang & Lee, 2010). These results were consistent with the study that Chang and Lee (2009) did a year prior, in which they asked participants to evaluate a negatively or positively framed poster that would be used in a charitable advertising campaign. Cao’s study (2015) supports these findings, she found out that negatively framed charitable advertising increased donation intentions, which was moderated by feelings of perceived susceptibility.
On the other hand, in the context of crowdfunding, Kuo and Liu (2014) propose a different outcome. Kuo and Liu (2014) propose a model in which they hypothesise that a positive frame will have a positive effect on crowdfunding support intention and a negative frame will have a negative effect on crowdfunding support intention. They base their hypothesis on literature about framing and it’s effect on people’s purchase intention, they therefore consider supporting a crowdfunding project as a type of online purchase behaviour (Kuo & Liu, 2014). This seems logical since most crowdfunding platforms offer the ability to receive a tangible product or service in return for your donation, resulting in a transaction similar to e-commerce (Kuo & Liu, 2014). Kuo and Liu’s (2014) decision to consider
crowdfunding as a purchase behaviour seems plausible, but only for crowdfunding platforms that apply the reward-based approach. Kuo and Liu’s (2014) model is consistent with findings from research about framing and its influence on purchase behaviour or product evaluation (Buda & Zhang, 2000; Levin & Gaeth 1988; Wu & Cheng, 2011). Buda and Zhang (2000) conducted a study among 200 undergraduate students, in which they asked participants to rate a new product after reading a detailed description. The description was manipulated in a positive (“test market results show that 85 percent of the users of this product were satisfied with its performance’') or in a negative (“15 percent of the customers were dissatisfied with the product'') manner, the framed description was distributed evenly among the students
(Buda & Zhang, 2000, p. 235). The results of Buda and Zhang’s (2000) study reveal that a positive frame resulted in a significant higher product evaluation compared to a negative frame. Wu and Cheng (2011) confirmed these results, their study about framing and online buying behaviour revealed that the positively framed condition leads to a significant higher product rating. Wu and Cheng (2011) continued their research by studying whether the positively framed condition will eventually lead to a higher purchase intention, and revealed that a positive frame - indeed - leads to higher online purchase intentions. Levin and Gaeth (1988) labeled ground beef with “75% lean” (positive frame) or with “25% fat” (negative frame) in their study about the influence of framing on consumers’ product evaluation. They found that besides rating, even taste perception was negatively influenced by the negative frame (Levin & Gaeth, 1988). The literature discussed above seems to differentiate framing effects on the basis of whether participants receive something in return for their money. Literature about charitable behaviour reveals that a negative frame is more effective in increasing donations (Cao, 2016; Chang & Lee, 2009; Chang & Lee, 2010; Das et al., 2008), while literature about purchase behaviour reveals that a positive frame is more effective in increasing purchases (Buda & Zhang, 2000; Levin & Gaeth, 1998; Wu & Cheng, 2011). Because of the proven difference in framing effects between making a charitable donation and purchase behaviour, it is proposed that the effect of framing in crowdfunding depends on whether the supporter is rewarded with a tangible product or service. Because of the distinction between donation and purchase behaviour, the following three hypotheses are proposed
H2a: A negative framed crowdfunding project will be more effective in increasing donations compared to a positive framed crowdfunding project.
H2b: A reward-based crowdfunding project will be more effective in increasing donations compared to a donation-based crowdfunding project.
H2c: A positive framed reward-based crowdfunding project will be more effective in increasing donations compared to a negative framed reward-based crowdfunding project. While a negative framed donation-based crowdfunding project will be more effective in increasing donations compared to a positively framed donation-based crowdfunding project.
As mentioned above, both message framing and guilt appeals have been subjects of several studies. However, anticipated guilt is still understudied (Lindsey, 2005; O’Keefe, 2002) especially in combination with message framing. Framing has been proven to influence emotions (Cao, 2016; Chang & Lee, 2009; Chang & Lee, 2010; Das et al., 2008) as well as the ability of messages to influence anticipated guilt (Lindsey, 2005; Roney et al., 1995; Steenhaut & Kenhove, 2006), but less studies have been found that directly link message framing to anticipated guilt. Steenhaut and Kenhove's (2006) study about the mediating role of anticipated guilt in decision making claims that different framed messagesmotivates people to either make ethical or unethical decisions. Lindsey (2005) found out in her study about advertising for bone marrow donations, that participants anticipate feeling guilty after exposure to an negatively induced message. Furthermore, Roney and colleagues (1995) demonstrated that loss frames are more effective in influencing agitation-related emotions compared to dejection-related emotions. Agitation-related emotions are emotions that emphasise the presence of negative outcomes like guilt, anxiety, worry, fear, feeling tense, feeling alarmed, and feeling threatened (Higgins, 1987). Based on the literature above the next three hypotheses are proposed:
H3: A negative framed crowdfunding project will increase individuals’ anticipated feelings of guilt significantly more compared to a positive framed crowdfunding project. While a positive framed crowdfunding project will increase individuals’ anticipated feelings of happiness significantly more compared to a negative framed crowdfunding project. H4: The effect of framing of a crowdfunding project on increasing individual’s donation
intentions will be mediated by anticipated guilt.
H5: The intention to donate towards a crowdfunding project will decrease individual’s feelings of guilt and increase feelings of happiness.
Method Overview
An experiment of 2 (message framing: positive / negative) x 2 (crowdfunding type: reward-based / donation-based) between-subjects design was conducted to test the proposed hypotheses. The experiment manipulated message frame and crowdfunding type for a fictional crowdfunding project page. The crowdfunding project page was presented as an image in the experiment and was constructed according to the rules and design principles of 1%Club. The community team of 1%Club helped constructing and checking the
crowdfunding project, to ensure the quality and credibility of the page. The project contained a fictional story about a healthcare organisation who needed additional funding in order to organise their annual Christmas dinner for elderly who suffer from loneliness during the holidays. A total number of four different pages were constructed, all containing one of the four conditions. Certain components of the crowdfunding project page were kept constant, to ensure limited influence on the results. These components include the header, footer, amount
of money raised, target amount of money, project initiator, project theme, location, deadline and wall posts. The different crowdfunding pages can be viewed in appendix A.
Participants
The study participants were recruited from social media and direct marketing mails, and were therefore self-selected. The participants were invited to participate in the online survey, and were offered a chance to win €20,- donation credit for 1%Club. A total number of 206 people participated in the experiment. 18 responses were excluded because of their little time spend reading the crowdfunding project page or because of incomplete data, leaving a total number of 188 usable responses. The mean age of the participants was 34 years old (M = 34.02, SD = 11.46), a total of 95 males (50.5%) and 93 females (49.5%) participated in the survey, and 72.8% had made a donation to a charity at least ones in the last six months.
Procedure
Participants were recruited through social media and direct marketing mails, and entered the questionnaire after reading a short recruitment message containing information about the experiment. Upon agreeing to an informed consent, the participants were asked to carefully read one of four appointed crowdfunding project pages from 1%Club that varied in terms of message frame and crowdfunding type. Each crowdfunding project started with the same introduction:
Christmas can be a very lonely time for elderly in the Netherlands, 20% of the elders don’t celebrate Christmas or new years eve. 10% of all the elderly don’t even get visitors during the holidays. Elderly care organisation ACZ organises a Christmas dinner every December for this lonely group of seniors. Due to governmental cuts we might not be able to organise the Christmas dinner of 2016. With this crowdfunding campaign we are trying to change that.
The introduction was followed by the first manipulated text, the first manipulation was message frame, with the positive frame being:
With your donation, we will be able to organise the beloved Christmas dinner this year. As a result, lonely elderly will get the opportunity to experience the cosiness and warmth of Christmas once again. Together we can make sure that this vulnerable group will feel less lonely.
And the negative frame being:
Without your donation, we won’t be able to organise the beloved Christmas dinner this year. As a result, lonely elderly will miss the opportunity to experience the cosiness and warmth of Christmas. Together we can make sure that this vulnerable group will feel less lonely.
The information on the crowdfunding page concluded with the second manipulation, crowdfunding type, with donation-based crowdfunding being:
Donate now and give the elderly a warm and cozy Christmas.
And reward-based crowdfunding being:
Donate now and dine with us during this special evening and/or receive a Christmas box filled with foods and winter accessories assembled by our elderly. The rewards can be viewed on the right side of this page.
The reward-based crowdfunding condition contained additional rewards on the page, ranging from eating along at the Christmas dinner to receiving a knitted scarf, whereas the donation-based crowdfunding condition didn’t include any rewards on the page. After reading the crowdfunding page, participants were asked to answer questions about the manipulations (manipulations checks), the emotions they felt while reading the page (anticipated emotions), whether they wanted to make a donation (donation intention) and how making this donation
(or not) made them feel (resulting emotions). The survey ended with questions asking participants’ demographic information.
Measures
Participants responded, with a couple exceptions, to the items on seven-point Likert scales ranging from (1 =) strongly agree to (7 =) strongly disagree.
Manipulation checks. After reading the crowdfunding project page, one item
assessed message frame - i.e. to what extent the participants thought that the consequences of making (positive frame, M = 2.27, SD = .92) or not making (negative frame, M = 4.51, SD = 1.23) a donation were positive or negative (ranging from 1 = very positive to 7 = very
negative). Two items assessed crowdfunding type - i.e. to what extent the participants thought that they would be rewarded for their donation (reward-based crowdfunding, M = 3.38, SD = 1.38) or that others would be rewarded for their donation (donation-based crowdfunding, M = 3.07, SD = 1.14), for example “I would be rewarded for my donation”.
Anticipated emotions. Participants indicated what emotions they felt during or shortly after reading the crowdfunding project page. The twelve scale items were adapted and modified from Coulter and Pinto’s (1995) emotional response scale. Participants used a seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1 =) strongly agree to (7=) strongly disagree, to finish the phrase: “While reading the crowdfunding project, I felt (myself)..” with items ranging from upset to amused. Anticipated guilt was measured with seven of the twelve scale items, the other five scale items were used to measure anticipated happiness (Coulter & Pinto, 1995). An exploratory factor analysis indicated that the scale was three-dimensional, with scale items
‘accountable’ and ‘irresponsible’ forming the third component. The following reliability analysis proved both scales to be reliable, however the Cronbach’s Alpha would be higher when items ‘accountable’ and ‘irresponsible’ would be deleted. Based on the factor analysis and the reliability analysis, it has been decided that item ‘irresponsible’ would be excluded from the research. Scale item ‘accountable’ would still be included, since this item does explain component 2 - anticipated guilt - with .492. Consequently, a second factor analysis was conducted, this analysis indicated that the scale was two-dimensional (EV component 1 = 3.70 and EV component 2 = 2.80), explaining 59.14% of the variance. The new 6-item scale for anticipated guilt proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s Alpha of .79 (M = 4.28, SD = 1.07). The 5-item scale for anticipated happiness also proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s Alpha of .88 (M = 4.78, SD = 1.19).
Intention to donate. Intention to donate was assessed with one item: “I would like to donate money to this crowdfunding project.” (0 = no, 1 = yes) (M = .53, SD = .50). The item was derived from multiple studies (Basil et al., 2006; Cao, 2016; Das et al., 2008; Hibbert et al., 2007). Intention to donate is a concrete attribute, concrete attributes are attributes that are evidentially referring to a single characteristic and is generally agreed upon to what it is (Rossiter, 2002). Concrete attributes only require a single item to measure, other concrete attributes are for example buying intention, likability of an advertisement or price perception (Rossiter, 2002).
Resulting emotions. Participants indicated what emotions they felt after making or not making a donation to the crowdfunding project. The resulting emotions have been measured with the same scale as anticipated emotions. With the scale, guilt was measured
after making (M = 5.16, SD = .81) or not making (M = 4.69, SD = 1.18) a donation, happiness was measured after making (M = 3.42, SD = 1.12) or not making (M = 5.18, SD = 1.05) a donation as well. See appendix B for all the scale item questions.
Results
To check if random assignment to conditions was successful, first, an ANOVA with frame and crowdfunding type as the independent variables and age as the dependent variable was conducted. A main effect of frame, F(3, 184) = 6.73, p = .010, η² = .04 was found, indicating a difference between frame conditions on age. No main effects were found on crowdfunding type, F(3, 184) = 1.60, p = .208, η² = .01 , nor an interaction between frame and crowdfunding type F(3, 184) = .30, p = .584, η² = .00. This indicates that no differences existed between crowdfunding conditions on age. To check the distribution between conditions for gender, educational level, donation history and being a member of 1%Club, Chi-square tests were conducted. First, there were no differences between frames in gender, Χ² (1, N = 188) = 1.49, p = .222, nor between crowdfunding types in gender, Χ² (1, N = 188) = 1.05, p = .306. Second, there were no differences between frames in educational level, Χ² (6, N = 188) = 8.38, p = .212, nor between crowdfunding types in educational level, Χ² (6, N = 188) = 8.47, p = .206. Third, there were no differences between frames in donation history, Χ² (6, N = 188) = 2.06, p = .915, nor between crowdfunding types in donation history, Χ² (6, N = 188) = 3.65, p = .724. Fourth, there were no differences between frames in being a member of 1%Club, Χ² (1, N = 188) = 0.00, p = .987, nor between crowdfunding types in being a
member of 1%Club, Χ² (6, N = 188) = 0.00, p = .994. Based on these analyses we can assume that randomisation was mostly successful.
Manipulation checks
Respondents expressed a higher rating on a scale from ‘very positive’ to ‘very negative’ for the negatively framed crowdfunding page compared to the positively framed crowdfunding page, suggesting that the manipulation was successful. An independent samples t-test indicated that the difference in mean for the manipulation check for the negatively framed crowdfunding page (M = 4.51, SD = 1.23) was significant different from participants who were exposed to the positively framed crowdfunding page (M = 2.27, SD = .92), t (186) = 14.27, p < .01. Furthermore, a manipulation check was conducted for crowdfunding type, where participants indicated on a scale from ‘totally agree’ to ‘totally disagree’ whether they thought they or others would be rewarded for their donation. Participants in the reward-based crowdfunding condition answered two items about whether they would receive a reward (M = 3.38, SD = 1.38) and participants in the donation-based crowdfunding condition answered two items about whether others would receive a reward (M = 3.06, SD = 1.13). Even though it was expected that both means would be lower (further on the totally agree side), an independent samples t-test indicated that the difference in both means was not significant, t (186) = 1.70, p = .092, proving that the manipulation was successful.
Hypotheses testing
An independent samples t-test was conducted to test whether increased feelings of anticipated guilt lead to a higher donation intention (H1). The independent samples t-test indicated that the difference in mean anticipated guilt for those who intended to donate (M = 4.11, SD = 1.03) was significantly different from those who did not intend to donate (M = 4.48, SD = 1.08), t (186) = 2.39, p = .018. This indicates that increased feelings of guilt do lead to higher donation intentions, supporting H1.
A two-way ANOVA was conducted to test the main effects and interaction effect of framing and crowdfunding type on donation intention (H2a, H2b & H2c). The two-way ANOVA with framing and crowdfunding type on donation intention revealed no significant main effect of framing, F (1, 188) = 0.52, p = .472, η² = .00, nor a significant main effect of crowdfunding type, F (1, 188) = 0.27, p = .604, η² = .00, nor a significant interaction effect between these two factors, F (1, 188) = 0.52, p = .472, η² = .00. The results of this analysis reveal that there are no main effects nor an interaction effect of framing and crowdfunding type on donation intention, rejecting H2a, H2b and H2c. The results of this analysis are illustrated in figure 2.
Two independent samples t-tests were conducted to test whether the exposed frame type has influence on participants emotions (H3). The first independent samples t-test
indicated that the difference in anticipated guilt after seeing the positive frame (M = 4.21, SD = 1.00) was not significantly different from the anticipated guilt mean for those who were exposed to the negative frame (M = 4.39, SD = 1.16), t (186) = 1.15, p = .253. The second
Figure 2. Effects of framing and crowdfunding type on donation intention.
independent samples t-test indicated that the difference in anticipated happiness after seeing the positive frame (M = 4.62, SD = 1.25) was significantly lower from the anticipated happiness mean for those who were exposed to the negative frame (M = 5.04, SD = 1.06), t (186) = 2.40, p = .017. These results indicate that participants felt almost equally guilty and more happy after being exposed to the positive frame as compared to the negative frame, the results partially support H3.
A simple mediation bootstrapping procedure (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) in a PROCESS SPSS macro (Model 4; 5,000 bootstraps; Hayes, 2012), was conducted to test whether the effect of frame type on donation intention is being mediated by anticipated guilt (H4). A schematic model of this expected effect is illustrated in figure 3. First, the mediation analysis revealed that frame type has a non-significant negative effect on anticipated guilt (a = -.18, p = .253) and a non-significant positive effect on donation intention (c’ = .16, p = .578). Second, the analysis indicated that anticipated guilt has a significant negative effect on donation intention (b = -.33, p = .023). The bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect of frame type using 5,000 bootstrap samples was -.031 to .251, meaning that there was no evidence of an indirect effect of frame type on donation intention through anticipated guilt, resulting in the rejection of H4.
To test whether having an intention to donate will decrease feelings of guilt and increase feelings of happiness (H5), two paired samples t-tests with anticipated and resulting guilt, and happiness were conducted. The first paired samples t-test to test the decrease of feelings of guilt indicated that the difference in mean guilt before intending to donate (M = 4.11, SD = 1.03) was significantly lower than the mean guilt after having the intention to donate (M = 5.16, SD = .81), t (98) = -11.21, p < .01, indicating that feelings of guilt have decreased. The second paired samples t-test to test the increase of feelings of happiness indicated that the difference in mean happiness before intending to donate (M = 4.73, SD = 1.33) was significantly lower than the mean happiness after having the intention to donate (M = 3.42, SD = 1.12), t (98) = 11.55, p < .01, indicating that feelings of happiness have
increased. These results support and confirm H5.
Discussion
In the introduction, this study argued that crowdfunding is becoming a global, multibillion dollar industry (Massolutions, 2015). In recent years, crowdfunding has been gaining popularity with a rapid speed and new platforms are appearing on a daily basis (Massolutions, 2013; DealIndex, 2015). However, as the phenomenon itself has been
becoming more successful, individual projects are struggling to succeed (Massolutions, 2015; Zhao et al., 2016). This research examined the effects of different message strategies for crowdfunding projects, considering these strategies have been proven to be efficient in increasing charitable donations and online purchase behaviour. In particular, this research studied the effects of message framing on participant’s emotions and consequently the extent to which these (anticipated) emotions effect participant’s intention to donate to crowdfunding projects. In addition, this research tested framing effects among two crowdfunding types -
reward-based and donation-based crowdfunding. According to the model of charitable giving (van Slyke & Brooks, 2004), several external triggers have the ability to influence
individual’s charitable behaviour. These triggers can be activated by exterior parties, like (charitable) organisations and individual people, and thus initiators of crowdfunding projects as well. The ability of project initiators to activate the aforementioned triggers suggests that proven message strategies for increasing charitable donations or online purchases could be applicable in a crowdfunding context as well.
One of the strategies that has been discussed and researched is (anticipated) emotional appeals. Nabi (2002) discussed that inducing or triggering emotions in advertising could be used to influence people’s behaviour. One emotion that is often being used in charitable advertisements is guilt. People feel guilty when they breach, expect to breach or fail to perform in line with (self) expected behaviour (Mosher, 1965; O’Keefe, 2002). The decision effect theory claims that a decision outcome is influenced by anticipated feelings, it was therefore expected that feelings of guilt would lead to a choice that generates the least pain (Mellers & McGraw, 2001). Hence, it was hypothesised that increased feelings of anticipated guilt lead to a higher donation intention to crowdfunding projects. The results of this research indicate that stronger feelings of guilt indeed lead to a higher donation intention, leading to the confirmation of H1. Thus, the results are in line with Mellers and McGraw’s (2001) decision effect theory as well as Nabi’s (2002) claim that people who feel or expect to feel guilty try to prevent the emotion from happening. Making a donation to the crowdfunding project is therefore an attempt to reduce feelings of guilt and is the choice that generates the most pleasure and the least pain for those who feel guilty. The findings correspond with findings from previous research, Basil et al. (2008), Hibbert et al. (2007), Lindsey (2005) and
Steenhout and Kenhove (2006) all proved that anticipatory guilt has a significant influence on suggested behaviour.
The second message strategy that has been discussed and studied in this research is framing. Tversky and Kahneman (1981) introduced the concept of message framing as a result of their prospect theory. Tversky and Kahneman (1981) claimed that messages that have the same outcome can be framed in a certain manner to influence decision making. Whereas (positive) gain frames are likely to trigger risk avoiding decisions and (negative) loss frames are likely to trigger risk seeking decisions (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). The effects of framing seem to differentiate in literature, depending on the context. In a charitable context, research has shown that a negative frame is more likely to increase suggested behaviour - in the form of making donations (Cao, 2016; Chang & Lee, 2009; Chang & Lee, 2010; Das et al., 2008). While in an e-commerce context, research has shown that a positive frame is more likely to increase suggested behaviour - in the form of making purchases (Buda & Zhang, 2000; Levin & Gaeth, 1988; Wu & Cheng, 2011). This differentiation seems to be grounded in the fact that people don’t get anything tangible in return for making a donation, but they do get something tangible in return when making a purchase. This statement has been tested in this study, in which it was hypothesised that a positive frame would lead to a higher donation intention for reward-based crowdfunding projects (where supporters are rewarded for their donation), while a negative frame would lead to a higher donation intention for donation-based crowdfunding projects (where supporters aren’t rewarded for their donation). The results of this research reveal that neither frame nor crowdfunding type have significant effect on donation behaviour, leading to the rejection of H2a, H2b and H2c. However, as illustrated in figure 2, there seems to be (non-significant) effects within the reward-based crowdfunding type condition between the positive and negative frames and within the positive frame
condition between reward-based and donation-based crowdfunding types. Furthermore, as can be seen in the results section, it was expected that participants would have scored lower on the scale of the manipulation check for crowdfunding type. Even though the manipulation was successful, this indicates that the intended manipulation was not strong enough. The weak manipulation of crowdfunding type implies that participants were not acquainted enough with the benefits of making a donation. Taking the weak manipulation and the non-significant effects into account, it seems plausible that stronger manipulations could indeed lead to the expected (significant) effects.
Another key research element of this study was to investigate whether message framing could induce anticipated feelings of guilt or happiness. Cao (2016), Chang and Lee (2009; 2010) and Das et al. (2008) have shown with their studies that framing has the ability to influence emotions. Furthermore, Lindsey (2005), Roney et al. (1995) and Steenhaut and Kenhove (2006) have proven with their studies that messages have the ability to influence anticipated emotions. However, to the best of the researchers knowledge, no direct link between message frame and anticipated emotions have been found. Based on the above mentioned literature, it was hypothesised that a negative framed crowdfunding project has the ability to increase participants anticipated feelings of guilt more compared to a positive framed crowdfunding project, because negative frames have the ability to increase agitation-related emotions (Roney et al., 1995). On the other hand it was hypothesised that a positive framed crowdfunding project can increase participants feelings of happiness more compared to a negative framed crowdfunding project. The results of this research reveal contradicting findings, since a positive frame lead to (not significant) slightly higher feelings of anticipated guilt. At the same time, the positive frame lead to significant higher feelings of anticipated happiness. These findings lead to the partially acceptance of H3. Since the results reveal that
feelings of anticipated guilt are almost similar after exposure to the positive frame compared to the negative frame, it is proposed that framing does not influence feelings of anticipated guilt. However, taking into account that anticipated guilt means after exposure to the two frames were both on the disagree side of the scale, it implies that participants did not feel guilty in general. This could be the result of not being engaged enough with the topic of the crowdfunding project. Initially, the topic of elderly care was chosen because it’s actual and it was expected that everyone could relate to the cause since most people have senior parents or grandparents that could as well be victims of loneliness. This assumption could have been made wrongly, with these results as a consequence. On the contrary, the findings reveal that a positive frame does lead to higher feelings of happiness - as were expected in H3.
Because of the expected effect of framing on feelings of anticipated guilt and the expected (and proven) effect of anticipated guilt on donation intention, it was hypothesised that the effect of framing on increasing donation intention would be mediated by anticipated guilt. As the results reveal, framing does not have an effect on anticipated guilt nor on
donation intention, while anticipated guilt does have a significant effect on donation intention. This indicates that anticipated guilt does not mediate between framing and donation intention, rejecting H4.
It was lastly hypothesised that having an intention to donate towards a crowdfunding project decreases feelings of guilt and increases feelings of happiness. The results reveal that indeed intending to donate would decrease guilt and increase happiness. It seems that
intention to donate changes participants emotional state. It was proposed by Mellers and McGraw (2001) that people tend to make a decision that generates the least pain and most pleasure, in addition Nabi (2002) claimed that people tend to make a decision to prevent feeling guilty. Having an intention to donate thus seem to reduce feelings of guilt and increase
feelings of happiness, corresponding with making a decision that results in the least pain and most pleasure, accepting H5.
Conclusion
This study started with the research question: To what extent does message framing, emotional appeals and receiving rewards influence an individual’s emotional state and
consequently their donation behaviour towards crowdfunding projects? The research question was tested along several different hypotheses. It can be concluded that not all examined message strategies are applicable in a crowdfunding context. Neither message framing nor the ability to receive rewards seem to have the expected influence on donation behaviour.
However feelings of guilt do influence donation behaviour. The experiment in this research failed to induce the expected amount of anticipated guilt with framing strategies, but it succeeded in revealing that guilt influences donation behaviour. Consequently, making a donation does influence supporters emotional state, whereas feelings of guilt decreased and feelings of happiness increased. From a practical point of view, crowdfunding project
initiators could use these findings to increase donations by trying to increase feelings of guilt with the accompanying text and messages and by emphasising the resulting happiness of making a donation. Crowdfunding organisations could also benefit from these results by educating their project initiators in writing a crowdfunding page that induces these emotions. Furthermore, these organisations can use these findings in the text of their advertisements for individual projects, in order to increase donations. The findings of this study can benefit the industry as a whole, when both organisations and initiators apply the lessons learned. The application of these lessons can lead to a higher donation rate, which contribute to the
References
1%Club. (2017). Our Story. Retrieved from https://onepercentclub.com/en/pages/story-2 Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2006). Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of
responsibility. Psychology & Marketing, 23(12), 1035-1054.
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1-23.
Buda, R., & Zhang, Y. (2000). Consumer product evaluation: The interactive effect of message framing, presentation order, and source credibility. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(4), 229-242.
Cao, X. (2016). Framing charitable appeals: the effect of message framing and perceived susceptibility to the negative consequences of inaction on donation intention. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 3-12. Chang, C. T., & Lee, Y. K. (2009). Framing charity advertising: Influences of message
framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910-2935.
Chang, C. T., & Lee, Y. K. (2010). Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 195-220.
Cordova, A., Dolci, J., & Gianfrate, G. (2015). The determinants of crowdfunding success: Evidence from technology projects. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 115-124.
Coulter, R. H., & Pinto, M. B. (1995). Guilt appeals in advertising: What are their effects?. Journal of applied psychology, 80(6), 697.
Das, E., Kerkhof, P., & Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175.
DealIndex. (2015, July). Democratising finance: Alternative finance demystified July 2015. Retrieved from http://www.dealindex.co/
democratising_finance_dealindex_research_july_2015.pdf
Gerber, E. M., & Hui, J. (2013). Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for participation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(6), 34.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 24(8), 723-742.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological review, 94(3), 319.
Huhmann, B. A., & Brotherton, T. P. (1997). A content analysis of guilt appeals in popular magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 26(2), 35-45.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 47(2), 263-291.
Kuo, Y. F., & Liu, L. T. (2014, December). The effects of framing and cause-related marketing on crowdfunding sponsors' intentions: A model development. In S. Wang (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia (pp. 439-443). New York, USA: ACM.
Kuo, Y. F., & Wu, C. H. (2014, December). Understanding the drivers of sponsors' intentions in online crowdfunding: A model development. In S. Wang (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia (pp. 433-438). New York, USA: ACM.
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of consumer research, 15(3), 374-378.
Lindsey, L. L. M. (2005). Anticipated guilt as behavioral motivation an examination of
appeals to help unknown others through bone marrow donation. Human Communication Research, 31(4), 453-481.
Lukkarinen, A., Teich, J. E., Wallenius, H., & Wallenius, J. (2016). Success drivers of online equity crowdfunding campaigns. Decision Support Systems, 87, 26-38.
Massolutions. (2013). The crowdfunding industry report. Retrieved from http:// reports.crowdsourcing.org/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=58 Massolutions. (2015). The crowdfunding industry report. Retrieved from http://
reports.crowdsourcing.org/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=54
Mellers, B. A., & McGraw, A. P. (2001). Anticipated emotions as guides to choice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 210-214.
Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Sargeant, A. (2010). Charitable organizations' storytelling influence on donors' emotions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 754-762.
Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1-16.
Mosher, D. L. (1965). Interaction of fear and guilt in inhibiting unacceptable behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(2), 161-167.
Mount, J. (1996). Why donors give. Nonprofit management and leadership, 7(1), 3-14. Nabi, R. L. (2002). Discrete emotions and persuasion. The persuasion handbook:
Developments in theory and practice, 289-308. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage. O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion. The persuasion handbook:
Developments in theory and practice, 329–344. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behavioral research, 42(1), 185-227.
Roney, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Shah, J. (1995). Goals and framing: How outcome focus influences motivation and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1151-1160.
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International journal of research in marketing, 19(4), 305-335.
Steenhaut, S., & Van Kenhove, P. (2006). The mediating role of anticipated guilt in consumers’ ethical decision-making. Journal of business ethics, 69(3), 269-288.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
van Slyke, D. M., & Brooks, A. C. (2005). Why do people give? New evidence and strategies for nonprofit managers. The american review of public administration, 35(3), 199-222.
Wu, C. S., & Cheng, F. F. (2011). The joint effect of framing and anchoring on internet buyers’ decision-making. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10(3), 358-368.
Yuan, H., Lau, R. Y., & Xu, W. (2016). The determinants of crowdfunding success: A semantic text analytics approach. Decision Support Systems, 91, 67-76.
Zhao, Q., Chen, C. D., Wang, J. L., & Chen, P. C. (2016). Determinants of backers’ funding intention in crowdfunding: Social exchange theory and regulatory focus. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 370-384.
Appendix A
A total of four different crowdfunding pages were constructed for the experiment in this study. Each crowdfunding page contained one of four conditions. Each condition consisted of either a positive or a negative frame and was either reward-based or donation-based. The following pages were constructed, positive frame x reward-based crowdfunding (figure A1), positive frame x donation-based crowdfunding (figure A2), negative frame x reward-based
crowdfunding (figure A3), and negative frame x donation-based crowdfunding (figure A4). All crowdfunding pages can be viewed on the following pages.
Figure A1. Crowdfunding project page with a positive frame and reward-based crowdfunding
Figure A2. Crowdfunding project page with a positive frame and donation-based crowdfunding
Figure A3. Crowdfunding project page with a negative frame and reward-based crowdfunding
Figure A4. Crowdfunding project page with a negative frame and donation-based crowdfunding
Appendix B Scale item questions Manipulation checks
1. The information in the crowdfunding project presented information about the
consequences of donating money to this project. To what extent do you think that those consequences were positive or negative?
2. The information in the crowdfunding project presented information about the
consequences of not donating money to this project. To what extent do you think that those consequences were positive or negative?
3. The information in the text of the crowdfunding page, gave me the idea that: 1. I would be rewarded for my donation
2. I would receive a gift on a short term for my donation
4. The information in the text of the crowdfunding page, gave me the idea that: 1. Other people would be rewarded because of my donation
2. Other people will receive a gift on a short term because of my donation
Anticipated emotions
1. People differentiate in a how certain feelings and thoughts are called upon when reading specific information. Can you indicate to what extent you experienced the following feelings and thoughts during or shortly after reading the text. While reading the crowdfunding project, I felt (myself)..
1. Accountable 2. Amused 3. Ashamed
4. Bad 5. Good 6. Guilty 7. Happy 8. Irresponsible 9. Laughing 10. Smiling 11. Uneasy 12. Upset Donation intention
1. Would you, after reading the text on the crowdfunding page, make a donation to this project? Remember: no real donation can nor will be made, but please answer the question as if that was the case.
Resulting emotions
1. You have indicated that you would be intended to make a donation. If you made this donation in real life, can you indicate to what extent you would experience the following feelings and/or thoughts.
1. Accountable 2. Amused 3. Ashamed 4. Bad 5. Good
6. Guilty 7. Happy 8. Irresponsible 9. Laughing 10. Smiling 11. Uneasy 12. Upset
2. You have indicated that you would not be intended to make a donation. If you wouldn't make this donation in real life, can you indicate to what extent you would experience the following feelings and/or thoughts.
1. Accountable 2. Amused 3. Ashamed 4. Bad 5. Good 6. Guilty 7. Happy 8. Irresponsible 9. Laughing 10. Smiling 11. Uneasy 12. Upset
Demographic information 1. What is your gender?
1. Male 2. Female 2. What is your age?
3. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? 1. None 2. Primary school 3. High school 4. Trade/technical/vocational school 5. Associate degree 6. Bachelor’s degree 7. Master’s degree 8. Professional degree 9. Doctorate degree
4. Have you ever made a donation to a charity before? 1. No, never
2. I don't know (anymore) 3. Yes, in the past month 4. Yes, in the past 3 months 5. Yes, in the past 6 months
6. Yes, but longer than half a year ago 5. Are you a member of 1%Club?
