Optimization: Journal of Research in Management

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

What Do Backers Trust When They Do Not Know Initiators?Crowdfunding Experimentation in India


Affiliations
1 Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comte, Burgundy School of Business-Ceren, France
2 Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, School of Management and Labour Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India
3 Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Purpose-The establishment and sustainability of the transaction depends on the willingness of the actors to meet their commitments. They are usually loyal when they trust. Trust emerges when one party believes that the other party achieves prior commitments without taking advantage of his/her exchange partner, even of the opportunity manifests.
This paper aims to explore how crowd funding platforms can build trust to simultaneously attract project initiators and contributors and facilitate transactions between them. The focus is put on the third-party sources of trust building: cultural, politico-legal and independent certifying institutions.
Design/methodology/approach-To answer to the research purpose we adopt the method of experimentation with four fictitious, but highly plausible platforms: One platform represents the control reference. Three more platforms are designed according to the three types of third-party trust builders (as independent variables):network of acquaintance (group pressure), label of certification designated by the non-governmental professional organization, and the politico-legal authority.
Findings-The ANOVA analyses reveal unexpected results. While there are significant differences on behaviors of time spent and pages visited across the experimentation websites, the behavior of donation does not present any significant difference at the time of experimentation among the control website and the three other declinations, which are supported by different third-party builder of trust.
The differences in donation behaviors are not however statistically significant. Thus, it can be stated that the different types of third-party trust builders do not alter the magnitude of donation behaviors. They, however, do alter the stickiness behaviors.
Originality/value-Results and insights gained from this research extend the theoretical literature on trust in general and trust building in emerging P2P markets in particular. The findings also provide actionable policies for practitioners in particular in the two-sided markets where platforms need to build trust between different parties. Our results might yield to actionable policies to build trust beyond the sector of crowdfunding, which was our field of research. Consequently, marketers and business responsible managers can proactively contribute to build trust, in order to ease and speedup transactions and exchanges.
User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • • Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 12(2), 215.

  • • Anderson, E. & Weitz, B. (1992). The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (1), 18-34.

  • • Ba, et al. (1999). Building Trust in the Electronic Market through an Economic Incentive Mechanism. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems (AIS 1999), Charlotte, NC, 1999.

  • • Bainbridge W. S. (2007). The Scientific Research Potential of Virtual Worlds, Science, 317 (5837), 472-476.

  • • Baron, D., and Byrne. E. (1991). Social Psychology. 6th ed. Boston: Simon and Schuster.

  • • BCG, The Boston Consulting Group. (2000). The Race for Online Riches: E-Retailing in Europe. http://www.bcg.com. [20.07.2000].

  • • Brainov, S. & Sandholm, T. (1999). Contracting with uncertain level of trust. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce.

  • • Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • • Butler, J. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17 (3), 643-663.

  • • Calvert, R. (1995a). The Rational Choice Theory of Social Institutions: Cooperation, Coordination, and Communication. J. Banks and E. Hanushek, eds., Modern Political Economy: Old Topics, New Directions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 216-267.

  • • Calvert, R. (1995b). Rational Actors, Equilibrium, and Social Institutions. J. Knight and Sened, eds., Explaining Social Institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 57-93.

  • • Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Online: 16. May 2005 http://dict ionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=trust

  • • Cook D. P., Luo. W. (2003). The Role of Third-Party Seals in Building Trust Online. E - Service Journal, 2(3), 71.

  • • Dasgupta, P. (2000). Economic Progress and the Idea of Social Capital. In Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (Eds.), Social Capital: A multifaceted perspective. Washington, D.C: World Bank.

  • • Dean, D. H., & Biswas. A. (2001). Third-Party Organization Endorsement of Products: An Advertising Cue Affecting Consumer Pre-purchase Evaluation of Goods and Services. Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 41-57.

  • • Doney, P.M., and Cannon, J.P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61 (2), 35-51.

  • • Dowling G. R., (1994). Corporate Reputations: Strategies for Developing the Corporate Brand. Kogan Page.

  • • Dyer, J. H., Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14(1), 57.

  • • Einwiller, et al. (2000). Engendering Trust in Internet Businesses Using Elements of Corporate Branding. In Proceedings of the 2000 Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2000), Long Beach, CA, August 2000.

  • • Einwiller, S., & Will, M. (2001).The role of reputation to engender trust in electronic markets. 5th International Conference on Corporate Reputation, Identity and Competitiveness, (Paris, France).

  • • Einwiller, Sabine. (2001). The significance of reputation and brand for creating trust in the different stages of a relationship between an online vendor and its customers. Proceedings of the 8th Research Symposium on Emerging Electronic Markets (RSEEM2001), September 16 18, Maastricht, NL.

  • • Erikson, E. H. (1954). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues,1(1).

  • • Fogg BJ, J. Marshall, T. Kameda, J. Solomon, A. Rangnekar, J. Boyd, B. Brown (2001). Web credibility research: a method for online experiments and early study results. In CHI ’01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’01). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 295-296.

  • • Fombrun, C.J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

  • • Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. Free Press.

  • • Fung, R. K. K., and Lee, M. K. O. (1999). EC-Trust (Trust in Electronic Commerce): Exploring the Antecedent Factors.” Proceedings of the 5th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, WI, 517-519.

  • • Glietman, H. (1995). Psychology. (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company

  • • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.

  • • Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeatedties and contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 85-112.

  • • Harmon, R. R., & Coney, K. A. (1982). The persuasive effects of source credibility in buy and lease situations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 255-260.

  • • Hellreigel, D., Slocum J.W. Jr, and Woodman, R.W. (1992), Organisational Behaviour, St.Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

  • • Helm, S. (2000). Viral Marketing - Establishing Customer Relationships by “Word-of-mouse”. In Schmid, Beat F.; Tomczak, Torsten; Schoegel, Markus; Buchet, Brigette: EM - Electronic Commerce and Marketing. EM - Electronic Markets, 10(3), November.

  • • Hoffman, et al. (1999). Building Consumer Trust Online. Communications of the ACM, 42, 80-85.

  • • Hooley, T., Marriott, J., & Wellens, J. (2012). Online experiments. In What is Online Research?: Using the Internet for Social Science Research (The ‘What is?’ Research Methods Series, 91-106. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781849665544.ch-007

  • • Houston, R. W., and Taylor, G. K. (1999). Consumer Perceptions of CPA Web Trust SM Assurances: Evidence on Expectation Gap. International Journal of Auditing, (3), 89-105.

  • • Hoxmeier, J. (2000). Software preannouncements and their impact on customer’s perceptions and vendor reputation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(1), 115-139.

  • • Jarvenpaa, S.L., and Tractinsky, N. (1999). Consumer Trust in an Internet Store: A Cross-Cultural Validat ion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(2). Online: 6. December 2005

  • • Johnson K. A. (2007). The impacts of hyperlinks and writer information on the credibility of stories on a participatory journalism web site. Proceedings of the 11th IFIP TC 13 international conference on Humancomputer interaction, September 10-14, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

  • • Jones, G.R., & George, J.M (1998) The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academic of Management Review, 23(3), 531-546.

  • • Kamali, N., & Loker, S. (2002). Mass Customization: On line Consumer Involvement in Product Design. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 7(4).

  • • Kandori, M. (1992). Social Norms and Community Enforcement. Review of Economic Studies, 59, 63-80.

  • • Klein, B. D., (2001). The demand for and supply of assurance. Economic Affairs, 4-11 http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-article16pdf?.pdf>

  • • Knack, S. and Keefer, P. (1997). Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (4), 1251-1288.

  • • Kovar, S. et al. (2000). Consumer responses to the CPA Web Trust assurance. Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 17-35.

  • • Kozlov, M.D. and Johansen, M.K. (2010). Real behavior in virtual environments: psychology experiments in a simple virtual-reality paradigm using video games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(6), 711-14.

  • • Krantz, J.H. and Dalal, R.S. (2000). Validity of webbased psychological research, in M.H. Birnbaum (ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 35-60.

  • • La Porta. R., Lopez-de-Silanes. F., Shleifer. A., and Vishny. R. (1999). Trust in Large Organizations, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, May, 1997. Reprinted in P.Dasgupta and I. Serageldin, eds. “Social Capital: A multifaceted Perspective”, Washington, DC: The World Bank.

  • • Lala, V. et al. (2002). The impact of relative information quality of e-commerce assurance seals on Internet purchasing behavior. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 3(4), 237-253.

  • • Lewis. J. D., and Weigert. A. (1985). Trust as a Social Reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-985.

  • • Lindenberg, S. (2000). It takes both trust and lack of mistrust: the workings of cooperation and relational signalling in contractual relationships. Journal of Management and Governance, 4, 11-33.

  • • Liu C., Marchewka, J.T., Ku, C. (2004). American and Taiwanese perceptions concerning privacy, trust, and behavioural intentions in e - commerce. Journal of Global Information Management, 12(1),18.

  • • Luhman, N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York: Wiley.

  • • Lynch, et al. (2001). The Global Internet Shopper: Evidence from Shopping Tasks in ‘Twelve Countries. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(3),15-23.

  • • Lyons, B., and Mehta, J. (1997). Contracts, opportunism and trust: self-interest and social orientation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 21, 239-57.

  • • Marakkath N., Attuel-Mendes (2015). Can microfinance crowdfunding reduce financial exclusion? Regulatory issues. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(5), 624-636.

  • • Martovoy, A., & Mention, A. L. (2016). Patterns of new service development processes in banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(1).

  • • Mauldin, E., & Arunachalam, V. (2001). An experimental examination of alternative forms of Web assurance for business-to-consumer e-commerce. Journal of Information System, 76(1), 3354.

  • • Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 709-34.

  • • McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.

  • • McGinnies, E., and Ward, C.D. (1980). Better Liked Than Right: Trustworthiness and Expertise as Factors in Credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6 (3), 467-472.

  • • McKnight, D.H. and Chervany,N.L. (2000), What is Trust? A Conceptual Analysis and an Interdisciplinary Model. In Proceedings of the 2000 Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2000), Long Beach, CA, August 2000.

  • • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (4), 371-378.

  • • Moore, D. L. et al. (1986). Time compression, response opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 85-99.

  • • Mosteller J., N. Donthu, S. Eroglu. (2014). The fluent online shopping experience. Journal of Business Research, Available online 27 March.

  • • Mukherjee, A.,and Nath, P. (2003). A model of trust in online relationship banking. The International Journal of Bank Marketing. Bradford: 21(1), 5-11,

  • • NFO Interactive, (2001). Online Retail Monitor Study about Consumer Buying Habits is Released. NFO Interactive Press Release January 4 2001. Online: 12. June 2005

  • • Nooteboom, B. (1996). Trust, opportunism and governance: a process and control model. Organization Studies, 17(6), 985-1010.

  • • Ohanian, R. (1991). The Impact of Celebrity Spokespersons’, Perceived Image on Consumers’ Intention to Purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 46-53.

  • • Olson, D. B. and Suls, J. (1998). Self, other and ideal judgments of risk and caution as a function of the five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 425-436. Online: 5. June 2005

  • • Organ, D.W., and Konovsky, M. (1988). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organisational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,157-64.

  • • Ouchi, W.G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129-43.

  • • Palmer, J.W., Bailey, J.P., and Faraj, S. (2000). The role of intermediaries in the development of trust on the WWW: The use and prominence of trusted third parties and privacy statements. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(3). Online: 8. December 2005

  • • Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making Democracy Work - Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • • Reips, U.-D. (2002). Standards for internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49(4), 243-56.

  • • Rempel, J.K. et al., (1985).Trust in Close Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.

  • • Rousseau, D.M. et al., (1998). Not so Different after all: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3),393-404.

  • • Samuelson P. A., Nordhaus, W.D. (2001). Economics. 17th edition. McGraw-Hill Irwin

  • • Scheier, M. F., and Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201-228.

  • • Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The Social Control of Impersonal Trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 623-658.

  • • Sitkin, B. S., and Roth, L. N. (1993). Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic “Remedies” for Trust/Distrust. Organization Science,4(3), 367-392.

  • • Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., Pistrang, N. and Sanchez-Vives, M.V. (2006),.A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 1(1), 1-10.

  • • Smith, M.D. et al., (2000). Understanding Digital Markets: Review and Assessment. In E. Brynjolfsson and B. Kahin (Eds.), Understanding the Digital Economy: Data, Tools, and Research, 99-136. MIT Press.

  • • Sternthal, L.W. et al., (1978). The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response. The Journal of Consumer Research, 4.

  • • Suri, S. and Watts, D.J. (2011). Co-operation and contagion in Web-Based, networked public goods experiments. PLoS ONE, 6(3), 3-8.

  • • The Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1999. The Pew Internet & American Life Project, (2000),

  • • Wakefield, R. (2001). A determinat ion of the antecedents of online trust and an evaluation of current Web assurance seals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, University, MS.

  • • Wiersma, W. (n.d.), From web-forms to virtual worlds: Opportunities and Challenges posed by Four Types of Online Experiment. http://wybowiersma.net/pub/essays/Wiersma,Wybo,From_webforms_to_virtual_worlds.pdf [retrieved 30 June 2014].

  • • Williamson, O.E. (1991). Calculativeness, Trust, and Economic Organization. Journal of Law and Economics, 26,453-486, 1991.

  • • Woolse, R. (1997). Building high trust organizations. 58 (9), 12, 4p, 1 chart, 1bw, Business Source Premier.

  • • Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking. American Psychologist, 35 (2), 151-175.

  • • Zucker, L.G. (1986). Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure. In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds), Research in Organisational Behaviour, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 53-112.

  • • Zajonc, R.B. (Feb 1980). Feeling and thinking. American Psychologist, 35 (2), 151-175.

  • • Zucker, L.G. (1986). “Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure”. in B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds), Research in Organisational Behaviour, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 53-112.


Abstract Views: 279

PDF Views: 0




  • What Do Backers Trust When They Do Not Know Initiators?Crowdfunding Experimentation in India

Abstract Views: 279  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Djamchid Assadi
Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comte, Burgundy School of Business-Ceren, France
Nadiya Marakkath
Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, School of Management and Labour Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India
Shailesh Shinde
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India

Abstract


Purpose-The establishment and sustainability of the transaction depends on the willingness of the actors to meet their commitments. They are usually loyal when they trust. Trust emerges when one party believes that the other party achieves prior commitments without taking advantage of his/her exchange partner, even of the opportunity manifests.
This paper aims to explore how crowd funding platforms can build trust to simultaneously attract project initiators and contributors and facilitate transactions between them. The focus is put on the third-party sources of trust building: cultural, politico-legal and independent certifying institutions.
Design/methodology/approach-To answer to the research purpose we adopt the method of experimentation with four fictitious, but highly plausible platforms: One platform represents the control reference. Three more platforms are designed according to the three types of third-party trust builders (as independent variables):network of acquaintance (group pressure), label of certification designated by the non-governmental professional organization, and the politico-legal authority.
Findings-The ANOVA analyses reveal unexpected results. While there are significant differences on behaviors of time spent and pages visited across the experimentation websites, the behavior of donation does not present any significant difference at the time of experimentation among the control website and the three other declinations, which are supported by different third-party builder of trust.
The differences in donation behaviors are not however statistically significant. Thus, it can be stated that the different types of third-party trust builders do not alter the magnitude of donation behaviors. They, however, do alter the stickiness behaviors.
Originality/value-Results and insights gained from this research extend the theoretical literature on trust in general and trust building in emerging P2P markets in particular. The findings also provide actionable policies for practitioners in particular in the two-sided markets where platforms need to build trust between different parties. Our results might yield to actionable policies to build trust beyond the sector of crowdfunding, which was our field of research. Consequently, marketers and business responsible managers can proactively contribute to build trust, in order to ease and speedup transactions and exchanges.

References