IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v36y2025i3p1375-1396.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Sofia Bapna

    (Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455)

  • Gordon Burtch

    (Questrom School of Business, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215)

Abstract

Social ventures fundraising through crowdfunding compete for contributions. Thus, they often involve major donors to influence the contributions of smaller donors. We examine what type of major-donor contribution scheme is most likely to attract smaller donors, considering whether and to what degree male and female donors differ in their response to alternative major-donor contribution schemes that are commonly used in practice. In a field experiment, donors were randomly assigned to receive one of three solicitation messages about projects seeking funds through crowdfunding. All donors received identical messages, with the exception that information on major-donor involvement was varied across conditions. The message to the control group made no mention of a major donor. The seed group was informed that a major donor had unconditionally funded the first 50% of the projects’ costs and that the projects were collecting the remaining 50% from other donors; we hypothesize that this scheme is likely to appeal to female donors, who tend to be more uncertainty and risk averse. Finally, the challenge-match group was informed that a major donor would provide the remaining 50% of the projects’ costs after the projects secure the first 50% from other donors; we hypothesize that this scheme is likely to appeal to male donors, who tend to respond more positively to challenges. The major donor in the field experiment—Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft—is an Austrian government agency that promotes and funds innovation. We find that females in the seed group are ∼50% and ∼35% more likely to exhibit an interest in contributing as compared with females in the control or challenge-match conditions, respectively. Among males, we do not observe significant differences in interest in contributing across the three groups. Survey results indicate that females are more responsive to the seed scheme because it yields a perception that the organization conducting the project is of high quality, is likely to reach its funding goal, and is likely to achieve its implementation goals. Our study suggests that social ventures will be more successful at attracting contributions from female donors if a major donor kicks off the campaign with an initial, unconditional contribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Sofia Bapna & Gordon Burtch, 2025. "An Experimental Evaluation of Gender Differences in Responses to Major-Donor Funding Schemes for Crowdfunded Social Ventures," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 1375-1396, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:36:y:2025:i:3:p:1375-1396
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2022.0318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.0318
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2022.0318?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adena, Maja & Huck, Steffen, 2022. "Personalized fundraising: A field experiment on threshold matching of donations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1-20.
    2. Anindya Ghose & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis & Beibei Li, 2014. "Examining the Impact of Ranking on Consumer Behavior and Search Engine Revenue," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1632-1654, July.
    3. Adena, Maja & Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Huck, Steffen, 2024. "Charitable Giving by the Poor: A Field Experiment in Kyrgyzstan," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 70(1), pages 633-646.
    4. Daniel Rondeau & John List, 2008. "Matching and challenge gifts to charity: evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 253-267, September.
    5. Huck, Steffen & Rasul, Imran, 2011. "Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5-6), pages 351-362, June.
    6. Stephan Meier, 2007. "Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching Donations in a Field Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(6), pages 1203-1222, December.
    7. Bieberstein, Frauke von & Jaussi, Stefanie & Vogel, Claudia, 2020. "Challenge-seeking and the gender wage gap: A lab-in-the-field experiment with cleaning personnel," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 251-277.
    8. Shai Bernstein & Arthur Korteweg & Kevin Laws, 2017. "Attracting Early-Stage Investors: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 72(2), pages 509-538, April.
    9. James Andreoni & Lise Vesterlund, 2001. "Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 293-312.
    10. Karlan, Dean & List, John A. & Shafir, Eldar, 2011. "Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5-6), pages 344-350, June.
    11. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2003. "Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 681-701, March.
    12. Ali Mohammadi & Kourosh Shafi, 2018. "Gender differences in the contribution patterns of equity-crowdfunding investors," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 275-287, February.
    13. John A. List & David Lucking-Reiley, 2002. "The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(1), pages 215-233, February.
    14. Young, Alwyn, 2019. "Channeling Fisher: randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Alexander Bleier & Maik Eisenbeiss, 2015. "Personalized Online Advertising Effectiveness: The Interplay of What, When, and Where," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 669-688, September.
    16. Gordon Burtch & Diwakar Gupta & Paola Martin, 2021. "Referral Timing and Fundraising Success in Crowdfunding," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 676-694, May.
    17. Dean Karlan & John A List, 2012. "How Can Bill and Melinda Gates Increase Other People’s Donations to Fund Public Goods?," Working Papers id:4880, eSocialSciences.
    18. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    19. M. Tina Dacin & Peter A. Dacin & Paul Tracey, 2011. "Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1203-1213, October.
    20. Gee, Laura K. & Schreck, Michael J., 2018. "Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 282-297.
    21. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    22. Savannah Wei Shi & Michael Trusov, 2021. "The Path to Click: Are You on It?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 344-365, March.
    23. Alwyn Young, 2019. "Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 557-598.
    24. Karlan, Dean & List, John A., 2020. "How can Bill and Melinda Gates increase other people's donations to fund public goods?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    25. Marinelli, Nicoletta & Mazzoli, Camilla & Palmucci, Fabrizio, 2017. "How does gender really affect investment behavior?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 58-61.
    26. Adena, Maja & Huck, Steffen, 2017. "Matching donations without crowding out? Some theoretical considerations, a field, and a lab experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 32-42.
    27. Vesterlund, Lise, 2003. "The informational value of sequential fundraising," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 627-657, March.
    28. Sofia Bapna & Martin Ganco, 2021. "Gender Gaps in Equity Crowdfunding: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2679-2710, May.
    29. Jia Liu & Olivier Toubia & Shawndra Hill, 2021. "Content-Based Model of Web Search Behavior: An Application to TV Show Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(10), pages 6378-6398, October.
    30. Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-1458, December.
    31. Catherine Eckel & Philip Grossman, 2008. "Subsidizing charitable contributions: a natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 234-252, September.
    32. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    33. Hibbert, Ann Marie & Lawrence, Edward R. & Prakash, Arun J., 2013. "Does knowledge of finance mitigate the gender difference in financial risk-aversion?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 140-152.
    34. Sofia Bapna, 2019. "Complementarity of Signals in Early-Stage Equity Investment Decisions: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 933-952, February.
    35. Meer, Jonathan, 2017. "Does fundraising create new giving?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 82-93.
    36. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    37. repec:feb:natura:0053 is not listed on IDEAS
    38. Keongtae Kim & Il-Horn Hann, 2019. "Crowdfunding and the Democratization of Access to Capital—An Illusion? Evidence from Housing Prices," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 276-290, March.
    39. Gary Charness & Patrick Holder, 2019. "Charity in the Laboratory: Matching, Competition, and Group Identity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1398-1407, March.
    40. Mollick, Ethan, 2014. "The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Krasteva, Silvana & Saboury, Piruz, 2021. "Informative fundraising: The signaling value of seed money and matching gifts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    2. Saboury, Piruz & Krasteva, Silvana & Palma, Marco A., 2022. "The effect of seed money and matching gifts in fundraising: A lab experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 425-453.
    3. Indranil Goswami & Oleg Urminsky, 2018. "No Substitute for the Real Thing: The Importance of In-Context Field Experiments In Fundraising," Natural Field Experiments 00660, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Indranil Goswami & Indranil Goswami, 2020. "No Substitute for the Real Thing: The Importance of In-Context Field Experiments in Fundraising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1052-1070, November.
    5. Adena, Maja, 2021. "How can we improve tax incentives for charitable giving? Lessons from field experiments in fundraising," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 344-353.
    6. Adena, Maja & Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Huck, Steffen, 2024. "Charitable Giving by the Poor: A Field Experiment in Kyrgyzstan," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 70(1), pages 633-646.
    7. Adena, Maja & Huck, Steffen, 2022. "Personalized fundraising: A field experiment on threshold matching of donations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1-20.
    8. Gee, Laura K. & Schreck, Michael J., 2018. "Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 282-297.
    9. Shusaku Sasaki & Hirofumi Kurokawa & Fumio Ohtake, 2022. "An experimental comparison of rebate and matching in charitable giving: The case of Japan," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 147-177, January.
    10. Kotsadam, Andreas & Somville, Vincent, 2024. "Wealth and charitable giving – Evidence from an Ethiopian lottery," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    11. Jiang, Bixia & Bai, Xu & You, Weijia & Fan, Kun, 2021. "Where and how to launch your forestry crowdfunding campaign? Evidence from China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    12. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2017. "To mitigate or not to mitigate: The price elasticity of pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 209-222.
    13. Castillo, Marco & Petrie, Ragan, 2020. "Optimal Incentives to Give," IZA Discussion Papers 13321, IZA Network @ LISER.
    14. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Karlan, Dean & List, John A., 2020. "How can Bill and Melinda Gates increase other people's donations to fund public goods?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    16. Adena, Maja & Huck, Steffen, 2017. "Matching Donations Without Crowding Out?," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 16, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    17. Adena, Maja & Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Huck, Steffen, 2019. "Charitable giving by the poor: A field experiment on matching and distance to charitable output in Kyrgyzstan," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2019-305, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    18. Johannes Diederich & Timo Goeschl, 2013. "To Give or Not to Give: The Price of Contributing and the Provision of Public Goods," NBER Working Papers 19332, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Gallier, Carlo & Goeschl, Timo & Kesternich, Martin & Lohse, Johannes & Reif, Christiane & Römer, Daniel, 2023. "Inter-charity competition under spatial differentiation: Sorting, crowding, and spillovers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 457-468.
    20. Epperson, Raphael & Reif, Christiane, 2018. "Matching schemes and public goods: A review," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-070, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, revised 2018.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:36:y:2025:i:3:p:1375-1396. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.