Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management (AIEM) 9(2) (2020) 11-19

Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management

(AIEM)
DOI: http://doi.org/10.7508/aiem.02.2020.11.19

ISSN: 2222-7059 (Print)

EISSN: 2222-7067 (Online)

ARTICLE

DOES PROJECT FEATURE AFFECT PERCEIVED ATTRIBUTE AND CROWDFUNDING

INTENTION IN DIFFERENT PROJECT TYPES? AN EMPIRICAL STUDY FROM CHINA
Cong Shen, Mingxia Wei*

School of Management, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450001, China

*
Corresponding Author E-mail: wei_mingxia@126.com

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ARTICLE DETAILS ABSTRACT

Article History:
Received 1 December 2020
Accepted 8 December 2020
Available online 20 December 2020
Although the crowdfunding industry has developed rapidly in China in recent years, the phenomenon of financing
failure still occurs frequently, which is related to the lack of crowdfunding intention of supporters. By employing
the structural equation modeling (SEM), this study constructed a research model of supporters’ crowdfunding
intention, aiming to further explore the differences in the factors that influence supporters’ crowdfunding
intention under donation-based and product-based crowdfunding types. Through a questionnaire survey of 449
respondents who have participated in crowdfunding projects, it was found that the project feature can exert a
certain effect on crowdfunding intention by affecting the perceived attribute. On the one hand, project feature
had different impact on perceived attribute in different crowdfunding types. It was found that project return
and risk have significant effects on the perceived attribute in both crowdfunding types. Social network, however,
showed different impacts on perceived attribute in two crowdfunding types. On the other hand, perceived
attribute also had varying degrees of influence on crowdfunding intention. Perceived credibility had a significant
positive influence on crowdfunding intention of supporters in both crowdfunding types, whereas the influence
of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on different project types of crowdfunding intention were
different. The results of this study are conducive to the better understanding the law of supporters’ crowdfunding
intention in various project types, to provide some theoretical basis for the project sponsors to better design the
project and for the platform to improve enthusiasm of potential supporters’ crowdfunding intention.

KEY WORDS

Project Feature, Perceived Attribute, Crowdfunding Intention, Donation-based Crowdfunding, Product-based

Crowdfunding.

1. INTRODUCTION potential factors affecting the participation intention in crowdfunding

Crowdfunding is a form of funding in which the founders of emerging
companies raise money from investor groups via online platforms to get
their ideas off the ground [1]. In order to achieve the expected financing
amount, fundraisers will carefully design the project in the financing
process of crowdfunding project to attract the support of potential
investors. However, the project financing in reality still has a greater
probability of failure. Based on data from the crowdfunding platform
Kickstarter in 2017, up to 60% of projects were stranded due to the
financing failure [2]. Similarly, the financing success rate of another
platform, Indiegogo, was only 10% at one time [3]. The low success rate
of project financing reflects that potential supporters lack investment
intention for the project to a certain extent. On this basis, how to increase
the participation intention of supporters in crowdfunding projects has
become the key to sustainable and healthy development of the industry.
Therefore, it is of great significance to explore the factors that influence
the participation intention of supporters in crowdfunding projects.
By reviewing relevant literature in recent years, it can be found that
some scholars have conducted in-depth analysis on supporters’
participation intention in crowdfunding projects. They also found some
projects, such as whether there is a higher uncertainty in project,
whether there is a recommendation from acquaintances, whether
there is a good reputation, whether the sponsors can faithfully fulfill
their promises, whether the idea of the campaign is attractive enough,
and whether there is positive media coverage [2,4-11]. Although these
factors have been proven to affect potential supporters’ participation
intention in crowdfunding projects, most studies focus on one or two
factors to discuss the investors’ participation intention in crowdfunding
projects, and lack of the summary of the inherent laws of these
influencing factors. Considering that investors in reality often conduct
comprehensive and all-round investigation of crowdfunding projects
before deciding whether to participate in them, the analysis of only
one or two factors may not fully reflect the objective laws of potential
supporters’ investment intention.
In the further analysis, the above influencing factors can all be classified
as project features to a certain extent. For instance, acquaintance
recommendation, word-of-mouth effect, media reports, social presence,
and crowd familiarity can be categorized into the project social network.
The uncertainty in the use of new technologies and websites can be
categorized as project risk. Whether the sponsors can faithfully fulfill

Cite The Article: Cong Shen, Mingxia Wei (2020). Does Project Feature Affect Perceived Attribute and Crowdfunding Intention in Different Project Types? An Empirical Study
from China. Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management, 9(2): 11-19.
 Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management (AIEM) 9(2) (2020) 11-19
their promise and whether the campaign is attractive enough can be
classified as project returns. These features are the basic elements
that influence supporters to participate in crowdfunding projects.
Although some studies focus on other features, such as the discussion
on the participation intention in crowdfunding projects from the feature
of sponsors and investors, such study is mainly conducted from the
perspective of participants [12]. In other words, the current research
lacks an analysis of the influence of supporter’s participation intention
in crowdfunding projects from the perspective of the overall project
feature.
In addition, after summarizing the existing literature, it can be found
that although some factors related to project feature can influence
the participation intention of supporters in crowdfunding projects,
they are not direct influencing factors. These factors often require
the transmission of other intermediate factors to deliver effect on
crowdfunding intention. Gerber and Hui proposed that trust is the key
intermediate factor [13], which has been further supported by some
researchers. For example, existing studies suggest that technology
characteristics [14], social presence [4], acquaintance promotion [7],
website acceptance, and crowd familiarity [15] can all have an effect on
the participation intention of supporters in crowdfunding projects by
influencing the trust of potential supporters. Such factors that directly
affect supporters’ participation intention can be understood as perceived
factors of supporters, which is summarized as perceived attribute in this
paper. It should be noted that the perceived attribute may not only be a
factor of trust [16]. There may also be other perceived factors that can
play a role between project feature and crowdfunding intention.
Moreover, based on the review of existing literature, it is found that most
studies rarely refer to crowdfunding intention of different project types.
The existing studies either focus on a certain type of project [10,15],
or do not distinguish between the types of crowdfunding projects
[8,11]. Even though a small number of studies involve the discussion
of the crowdfunding types, they focus on the analysis of the influence
of the characteristics of the promoters and investors in different types
of projects on the investment intention of crowdfunding [12], yet lack
the analysis of whether there are differences in different categories of
crowdfunding intention from the perspective of project feature.
Compared with European and American countries, China’s crowdfunding
market started relatively late. But it is worth mentioning that it became
a hit with the public once it appeared. After a surge in the number of
platforms in 2014, the financing scale of China’s crowdfunding market
expanded year by year and exceeded RMB 20 billion in 2017 [12].
However, due to the Chinese government’s intensified supervision of
the Internet market in recent years, some non-compliant crowdfunding
platforms have gradually withdrawn from the market. In this context,
the research on Chinese investors’ crowdfunding intention is conducive
to the clear understanding of the investment rules of crowdfunding
supporters, so as to enable the project sponsors to better design the
project and obtain a higher financing success rate, and promote the
prosperity and development of the crowdfunding industry in China
and even in Asia. Therefore, this paper discusses the factors influencing
investors’ crowdfunding intention based on the two types of projects
in which Chinese supporters participate are more involved: donation-
based and product-based crowdfunding projects. From the perspective
of supporters, the current study uses the structural equation
modeling (SEM) method to construct a research model of supporter’s
crowdfunding intention, so as to analyze the impact of project feature
on perceived attribute, as well as the impact of perceived attribute on
intention. Furthermore, the similarities and differences of influencing
factors of project participation intention of public welfare and product
crowdfunding supporters are compared and analyzed. The research
aims to optimize the crowdfunding projects for the project sponsors,
and provide some theoretical basis for the platform to increase the
participation intention of supporters in the project.
2. RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
2.1 Application of TAM
On the basis of rational behavior theory, Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) was proposed and first used to analyze users’ acceptance of
information system [17]. In the model, the behavioral intention of
supporters is influenced by perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease
Cite The Article: Cong Shen, Mingxia Wei (2020). Does Project Feature Affect Perceived Attribute and Crowdfunding Intention in Different Project Types? An Empirical Study
from China. Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management, 9(2): 11-19.
of use (PEOU). With the evolution of the model, TAM has been gradually
extended to the field of Internet finance, and has conducted in-depth
discussions on users’ intention of using in such fields as online banking,
online finance and social finance. However, due to the relatively short
time for Internet crowdfunding to enter the public’s field of vision, there
are relatively few studies using TAM to explore users’ crowdfunding
support intention. In the model, although external variables have
been confirmed to have an impact on users’ intention through the two
perceived variables of PU and PEOU, these two perceived variables alone
may not fully reflect the investment intention of potential supporters for
online crowdfunding projects. Based on the existing discussion on trust,
this paper introduces a new variable, perceived credibility, as another
key factor directly affecting the crowdfunding intention crowdfunding,
and extends the traditional TAM model. Meanwhile, three project
features of project returns, social network, and risk are introduced
as external variables in the construction of the research model of
supporters’ crowdfunding intention.
2.2 Perceived attribute
(1) Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use
Perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) are two
important variables in TAM, which are used to measure the user’s
acceptance of a specific system [17]. Among them, PU is used to measure
the improvement of personal work performance by specific system,
while PEOU is used to measure how easily the user uses a specific
system. It is indicated that both PU and PEOU are can be affected by
external variables, and PEOU has a direct impact on PU. For the current
study, scholars have used TAM to explore the acceptance and willingness
of users in online shopping [18], mobile banking [19], online service
applications [20] and other scenarios, finding that both two perceived
variables of PU and PEOU can be used to measure the acceptance of new
things on the Internet in a relatively stable way. In addition, it remains
to be further investigated whether these two perceived factors can
affect users’ participation intention in crowdfunding. Based on this, the
following hypotheses are proposed in this study:
H1 Perceived ease of use has a significant positive impact on perceived
usefulness.
H2 Perceived ease of use has a significant positive impact on
crowdfunding intention.
H3 Perceived usefulness has a significant positive impact on
crowdfunding intention.
(2) Perceived credibility
Perceived credibility (PC) refers to the subjective perceived trust level
of supporters [21]. In the early stage of e-commerce development, trust
is introduced into the e-commerce environment and was understood
as the expectation that allows users to believe that the transaction
partner can fulfill the contract during the transaction [22]. The rise
of the crowdfunding market has led an increasing number of scholars
to believe that PC-related factors such as trust and reliability have
an increasingly important impact on the participation intention
of supporters [4,7,14,15]. In the current study, it is assumed that
the generation of perceived credibility precedes the occurrence of
crowdfunding investment intention. In other words, users are willing
to provide financial support for crowdfunding projects only when they
have trust in the project and sponsor [23]. Based on this, the following
hypotheses are proposed in this study:
H4 Perceived credibility has a significant positive impact on
crowdfunding intention.
2.3 Project feature
(1) Project returns
Participants in crowdfunding projects have the right to receive returns,
and the return on investment varies according to the type of project.
This property of obtaining feedback is called project returns [6]. At
present, there are two crowdfunding models with a large number
of participants in China, respectively, donation-based crowdfunding
 Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management (AIEM) 9(2) (2020) 11-19
H5
Project Returns
H6
H7
H8
H9
Social Network
H10
H11
H12
Risk
H13
Project Feature
Figure 1: Research model and Hypotheses.
and product-based crowdfunding. Among them, donation-based
crowdfunding mainly focuses on the intangible return of the satisfaction
or sense of achievement from participating in the project, while product-
based crowdfunding mainly focuses on the priority of obtaining physical
products or enjoying services [24]. According to the findings of the
researchers, in the process of participating in the project, the supporters
expect that they can gain something materially or spiritually. Based on
this, the following hypotheses are proposed in this study:
H5 Project returns has a significant positive impact on perceived
credibility.
H6 Project returns has a significant positive impact on perceived
usefulness.
H7 Project returns has a significant positive impact on perceived ease
of use.
(2) Social network
Investors’ decision on whether to participate in crowdfunding projects
can be influenced by the outside world [25]. With the connection
with others as an example, the investors’ participation intention is
affected not only by the project participation experience and project
recommendation of family members or friends, but also by the number
of user comments and supporters in the platform [26-29]. In this study,
such influence based on the crowdfunding communities is collectively
referred to as social network. Based on this, the following hypotheses
are proposed in this study:
H8 Social network has a significant positive impact on perceived
credibility.
H9 Social network has a significant positive impact on perceived
usefulness.
H10 Social network has a significant positive impact on perceived ease
of use.
(3) Risk
In the 1960s, Bauer introduced the concept of risk into the study of
consumer behavior, which can be interpreted as the subjective feeling
of uncertainty generated by consumers in the process of purchasing
products or services due to the unpredictable purchase results. This
subjective perception is further interpreted by Cox as the consumer’s
pre-purchase prediction of adverse consequences and their negative
effects [30]. In scenarios such as mobile banking usage and online
service application, risk is proven to have a negative effect on users’
willingness to use [19,20]. Although some scholars have discussed the
risk categories and the impact of risks in the crowdfunding market
[6,7], the relationship between risks and investment intention in the
crowdfunding market still needs further discussion. Based on this, the
following hypotheses are proposed in this study:
H11 Risk has a significant negative impact on perceived credibility.
Cite The Article: Cong Shen, Mingxia Wei (2020). Does Project Feature Affect Perceived Attribute and Crowdfunding Intention in Different Project Types? An Empirical Study
from China. Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management, 9(2): 11-19.
Perceived
Credibility
H4
Perceived H3 Crowdfunding
Usefulness Intention
H1
H2
Perceived Ease
of Use
Perceived Attribute
H12 Risk has a significant negative impact on perceived usefulness.
H13 Risk has a significant negative impact on perceived ease of use.
Based on the above assumptions, a research model of the crowdfunding
intention of supporters is constructed to analyze the relevant factors
that may affect the participation intention of supporters in the donation-
based and product-based crowdfunding projects (as shown in Figure 1).
3. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Measurement
Based on the previous assumptions, this study used a questionnaire
to investigate the validity of the proposed model. The questionnaire
design mainly consisted of the following three parts. Firstly, the
screening items were set before the formal questionnaire survey to
distinguish what types of crowdfunding projects the respondents have
participated in. Respondents who had no participation experience in
donation-based or product-based crowdfunding projects would not be
included in the study. If respondents had participated in two or more
crowdfunding projects at the same time, the questionnaire can be filled
out according to the type of projects with more participation times or
with respondents’ preference. Secondly, the variables in the project
feature, perceived attribute and crowdfunding intention were measured
respectively. All the questions were rated on the Likert seven-point
scale, with values ranging from 1 to 7 points from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree”. Thirdly, the demographic variables were used
to analyze the respondent’s background. It should be noted that the
measurement items of all variables in the questionnaire were extracted
from the existing mature scales, and had been reviewed by experts in
related fields in advance. The descriptive statistics of the questionnaire
measurements are shown in Table 1 below.
3.2 Sample Collection
In order to ensure the quality of collected data, this paper strictly
screens the eligible subjects. Meanwhile, eligible respondents were
informed in advance that they would be sent a postcard designed by
the school to show gratitude upon completion of the questionnaire. In
this study, the collection of sample data mainly adopted two methods.
First, researcher used personal social networking software such as
WeChat and QQ to send messages to friends or group members to find
eligible respondents for survey. Second, after registered as a member
of JD Crowdfunding and Easy Crowdfunding, the user information
retained in crowdfunding community were used to find eligible
respondents and invite them to participate in the questionnaire. JD
Crowdfunding and Easy Crowdfunding are two typical platforms for the
rapid development of crowdfunding for domestic products and public
welfare. The questionnaire survey spanned from February to May 2019.
A total number of 461 questionnaires were collected from participants
of the crowdfunding project. After eliminating invalid questionnaires,
449 valid answers were finally obtained. Among them, there were 244
valid questionnaires for donation-based crowdfunding and 205 valid
questionnaires for product-based crowdfunding. Relevant demographic
information is shown in Table 2.
 Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management (AIEM) 9(2) (2020) 11-19

Table 1: Constructs and Survey Questions.

Construct Items Source

Project I am satisfied with the returns of participating in the crowdfunding project.

Gerber and Hui
Returns Participating in the crowdfunding project increases my sense of accomplishment.
(2013) [13]
(PR) Participating in the crowdfunding project makes me feel happy.
Relatives and friends around me have participated in crowdfunding projects.
Social Kuppusw-amy and
Friends and relatives around me would recommend crowdfunding projects to me.
Network (SN) Bayus (2013) [26]
Before I participated in a project, I would concern about the number of supporters.
The project sponsor may publish false project information.
Hong and Cha
Risk (R) Crowdfunding platforms may not be able to do a good job in reviewing projects.
(2013) [31]
My payment account, password and other information may be leaked through the platform.
Participating in crowdfunding projects enables me to obtain useful information.
Perceived Usefulness Venkatesh and
Participating in crowdfunding projects enables me to effectively use my idle funds.
(PU) Davis (2000) [32]
Participating in crowdfunding projects is worth my time, money and effort.
The operation process of participating in a crowdfunding project is simple.
Perceived Venkatesh and
The crowdfunding website has a clear and detailed description of the project.
Ease of Use (PEOU) Davis (2000) [32]
The project sponsor will update the project information timely.
The project information on the crowdfunding platform is trustworthy.
Perceived Credibility
The crowdfunding platform can provide a safe investment environment for project participants. Lee (2005) [33]
(PC)
I have confidence in the crowdfunding project sponsors and their teams.
If I haven’t been involved in a crowdfunding project, I’m willing to try and fund it.
Jarvenpaa and
Intention (Int) If I have been involved in a crowdfunding project, I will continue to support it.
Todd (1996) [34]
If I have participated in a crowdfunding project, I will increase the frequency of funding support.

Table 2: Sample demographics.

Donation-based Product-based
Demographic variables Items
Freq. Percentage Freq. Percentage
Male 121 49.4 113 55.1
Gender
Female 124 50.6 92 44.9
Under 20 28 11.4 0 0
20’s (20-29) 84 34.3 50 24.4
30’s (30-39) 69 28.2 69 33.7
Age
40’s (40-49) 45 18.4 45 22.0
50’s (50-59) 16 6.5 36 17.6
Over 60 3 1.2 5 2.4
Two-year college or below 34 13.9 44 21.5
Education Level Four-year college 166 67.8 142 69.3
Graduate school or above 45 18.3 19 9.3
Under 5 years 18 7.3 0 0
5-10 years 95 38.8 66 32.2
Years of Internet Use 11-15 years 79 32.2 97 47.3
16-20 years 43 17.6 36 17.6
Over 20 years 10 4.1 6 2.9
Less than 3000 RMB 69 28.2 2 1.0
3001-6000 RMB 77 31.4 61 29.8
Monthly Income Level
6001-9000 RMB 60 24.5 98 47.8
More than 9000 RMB 39 15.9 44 21.5

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
We evaluated whether the variables constructed in the existing studies
were clear enough in this questionnaire by means of confirmatory factor
analysis. SPSS 19 and AMOS 21 were used in this research for analyzing
reliability, validity, as well as for the analysis of hypothesis testing.
4.1 Reliability and validity analysis
Through confirmatory factor analysis, the reliability and validity of the
scale are tested. In the present study, factor loading (STD.) is used to
evaluate the reliability of each measurement item, and CR value is used
to evaluate the component reliability of the model. According to the
obtained results, the factor load (STD.) values of the measured items are
all greater than 0.6, and the CR values all reach the level of 0.7. All the
indicators satisfy the requirements [35], indicating that the reliability of
the model is high, and the stability of the scale is good. The test results of
the reliability indicators are shown in Table 3 and Table 4.
The second is the test of questionnaire validity, which can be divided
into two types: convergent validity test and discriminant validity. To
test the convergent validity, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is used.
AVE values between 0.36 and 0.5 indicate that the convergent validity
is acceptable, and values greater than 0.5 indicate that the convergent
validity is ideal [36]. Through calculation, AVE values of the model are
found to meet the requirements, indicating that the convergent validity
of the scale is good. For the test of discriminant validity, the correlation
coefficient matrix of the dimension should be compared. In Table 5 and
Table 6, the diagonal bold font is the arithmetic square root of AVE. The
root values of diagonal AVE are all greater than the Pearson correlation
coefficient between this facet and other facets, indicating that the
discriminant validity between facets is good. Based on the above data,

Cite The Article: Cong Shen, Mingxia Wei (2020). Does Project Feature Affect Perceived Attribute and Crowdfunding Intention in Different Project Types? An Empirical Study
from China. Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management, 9(2): 11-19.
 Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management (AIEM) 9(2) (2020) 11-19

Table 3: Summary table of confirmatory factor analysis for Donation-based crowdfunding.

Significance estimation Item

Composite reliability
Construct Items of factor loading reliability
UNSTD. S.E. z-value P STD. SMC CR
PR1 1 0.642 0.412
Project Returns PR2 1.022 0.122 8.353 ***
0.675 0.456 0.741
PR3 1.225 0.135 9.108 ***
0.776 0.602
SN1 1 0.656 0.430
Social Network SN2 1.187 0.162 7.339 ***
0.627 0.393 0.687
SN3 0.962 0.126 7.611 ***
0.666 0.444
R1 1 0.787 0.619
Risk R2 1.145 0.09 12.784 ***
0.855 0.731 0.845
R3 1.08 0.091 11.865 ***
0.767 0.588
PU1 1 0.756 0.572
Perceived Usefulness PU2 1.072 0.11 9.775 ***
0.655 0.429 0.763
PU3 1.094 0.098 11.143 ***
0.744 0.554
PEoU1 1 0.616 0.379
Perceived Ease of Use PEoU2 1.158 0.132 8.765 ***
0.759 0.576 0.759
PEoU3 1.264 0.143 8.81 ***
0.766 0.587
PC1 1 0.783 0.613
Perceived Credibility PC2 0.983 0.091 10.833 ***
0.698 0.487 0.811
PC3 1.102 0.086 12.853 ***
0.819 0.671
Int1 1 0.683 0.466
Intention Int1 1.506 0.142 10.597 ***
0.785 0.616 0.776
Int3 1.344 0.135 9.929 ***
0.725 0.526

Table 4: Summary table of confirmatory factor analysis for Product-based crowdfunding.

Significance estimation Item

Composite reliability
Construct Items of factor loading reliability
UNSTD. S.E. z-value P STD. SMC CR
PR1 1 0.676 0.457
Project Returns PR2 1.015 0.133 7.604 ***
0.647 0.419 0.715
PR3 1.131 0.140 8.084 ***
0.702 0.493
SN1 1 0.663 0.440
Social Network SN2 1.243 0.143 8.670 ***
0.774 0.599 0.802
SN3 1.323 0.151 8.764 ***
0.831 0.691
R1 1 0.883 0.780
Risk R2 1.086 0.073 14.869 ***
0.853 0.728 0.891
R3 1.057 0.074 14.360 ***
0.829 0.687
PU1 1 0.734 0.539
Perceived Usefulness PU2 1.114 0.123 9.028 ***
0.724 0.524 0.787
PU3 1.134 0.120 9.423 ***
0.771 0.594
PEoU1 1 0.677 0.458
Perceived Ease of Use PEoU2 0.947 0.124 7.643 ***
0.656 0.430 0.711
PEoU3 1.004 0.128 7.858 ***
0.681 0.464
PC1 1 0.726 0.527
Perceived Credibility PC2 1.107 0.126 8.751 ***
0.694 0.482 0.756
PC3 1.033 0.115 8.998 ***
0.717 0.514
Int1 1 0.640 0.410
Intention Int1 1.350 0.150 9.020 ***
0.811 0.658 0.779
Int3 1.168 0.136 8.569 ***
0.747 0.558

Table 5: Inter-construct correlations for Donation-based crowdfunding.

Converge validity Discriminant validity (Pearson correlation)

AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Project Returns 0.490 0.700
2 Social Network 0.422 0.244 0.650
3 Risk 0.646 -0.156 -0.178 0.804
4 Perceived Usefulness 0.518 0.352 0.294 -0.329 0.720
5 Perceived Ease of Use 0.514 0.249 0.232 -0.301 0.402 0.717
6 Perceived Credibility 0.590 0.353 0.327 -0.459 0.545 0.408 0.768
7 Intention 0.536 0.266 0.234 -0.344 0.373 0.282 0.355 0.732
Note: Diagonal elements in bold are the square roots of AVE. In order to obtain sufficient discriminant validity, these values should exceed the inter-
context correlation.

Table 6: Inter-construct correlations for Product-based crowdfunding.

Converge validity Discriminant validity (Pearson correlation)

AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Project Returns 0.456 0.675
2 Social Network 0.577 0.155 0.760
3 Risk 0.732 -0.210 -0.144 0.856
4 Perceived Usefulness 0.552 0.212 0.145 -0.294 0.743
5 Perceived Ease of Use 0.451 0.246 0.171 -0.270 0.267 0.672
6 Perceived Credibility 0.508 0.296 0.167 -0.315 0.227 0.256 0.713
7 Intention 0.542 0.248 0.163 -0.262 0.251 0.295 0.300 0.736
Note: Diagonal elements in bold are the square roots of AVE. In order to obtain sufficient discriminant validity, these values should exceed the inter-
context correlation.

Cite The Article: Cong Shen, Mingxia Wei (2020). Does Project Feature Affect Perceived Attribute and Crowdfunding Intention in Different Project Types? An Empirical Study
from China. Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management, 9(2): 11-19.
 Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management (AIEM) 9(2) (2020) 11-19

0.457*** Perceived
Project Returns
Credibility
R2=0.763

R2=0.841

0.185* Perceived 0.582*** Crowdfunding

Social Network
Usefulness Intention
R2=0.772
0.353***

CHI-SQUARE=270.342 DF=173
Perceived Ease CHI/DF=1.563
Risk GFI=0.900 AGFI=0.867
-0.284***
of Use CFI=0.956 TLI=0.946
R2=0.542 RMSEA=0.048

Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Figure 2: Results of path analysis for Donation-based crowdfunding.

0.713*** Perceived
Project Returns
Credibility
R2=0.699

R2=0.764

0.043 Perceived 0.129 Crowdfunding

Social Network
Usefulness Intention
R2=0.526
0.480**

CHI-SQUARE=225.760 DF=173
Perceived Ease CHI/DF=1.305
Risk GFI=0.903 AGFI=0.871
-0.166 *
of Use CFI=0.970 TLI=0.964
R2=0.537 RMSEA=0.039

Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Figure 3: Results of path analysis for Product-based crowdfunding.

Table 7: Results of the hypothesis test.

Results
Hypothesis
Donation-based Product-based
H1 Perceived ease of use has a significant positive impact on perceived usefulness. supported supported
H2 Perceived ease of use has a significant positive impact on crowdfunding intention. not supported supported
H3 Perceived usefulness has a significant positive impact on crowdfunding intention. supported not supported
H4 Perceived credibility has a significant positive impact on crowdfunding intention. supported supported
H5 Project returns has a significant positive impact on perceived credibility. supported supported
H6 Project returns has a significant positive impact on perceived usefulness. supported not supported
H7 Project returns has a significant positive impact on perceived ease of use. supported supported
H8 Social network has a significant positive impact on perceived credibility. supported not supported
H9 Social network has a significant positive impact on perceived usefulness. supported not supported
H10 Social network has a significant positive impact on perceived ease of use. supported supported
H11 Risk has a significant negative impact on perceived credibility. supported supported
H12 Risk has a significant negative impact on perceived usefulness. supported supported
H13 Risk has a significant negative impact on perceived ease of use. supported supported

the validity test results of the model are proved to be satisfactory. Figure 2 and Figure 3 also reflect the standardized path coefficient and
significance level between variables, which can be used for hypothesis
4.2 Hypothesis test testing. The summary results of hypothesis test are shown in Table 7.

AMOS21.0 software is used to perform standardized path analysis on 5. DISCUSSION

the model, and the main fitness indexes of the model in the two types
of crowdfunding projects are obtained, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure
3. On the whole, the fitness indexes of the model are relatively good.
Although the values of individual indicators such as AGFI are slightly less
than 0.9, they are also close to the ideal state, which meets the general
requirements for structural equation model analysis. In addition,
According to the results of hypothesis testing, it is considered that
this research model has a good explanatory power for the supporters’
crowdfunding intention. In donation-based and product-based
crowdfunding, the model’s explanatory power R2 for user crowdfunding
intention is 84.1% and 76.4% respectively, showing a high explanatory

Cite The Article: Cong Shen, Mingxia Wei (2020). Does Project Feature Affect Perceived Attribute and Crowdfunding Intention in Different Project Types? An Empirical Study
from China. Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management, 9(2): 11-19.
 Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management (AIEM) 9(2) (2020) 11-19
level. Furthermore, the explanatory power of the project feature for the
perceived attribute R2 is also at medium and high levels.
First, the impact of perceived attribute on crowdfunding intention is
analyzed. According to the results of existing research and hypothesis
testing, variables such as perceived credibility, perceived usefulness,
and perceived ease of use are considered to have a positive impact on
investors’ crowdfunding intention. Among them, perceived credibility
has a significant influence on crowdfunding intention in both donation-
based and product-based crowdfunding projects, indicating that
perceived credibility plays a vital role in potential supporters of any
type of crowdfunding projects (β4dona=0.264, p<0.01; β4prod=0.440,
p<0.001). perceived usefulness is considered to be an important
factor affecting supporters’ participation intention in donation-based
crowdfunding (β3dona=0.582, p<0.001), which has no significant impact
on supporters’ participation intention in product-based crowdfunding
(β3prod=0.129, p=0.224). The effect of perceived ease of use is just the
opposite. perceived ease of use has a significant impact on supporters’
participation intention in product-based crowdfunding (β2prod=0.431,
p<0.01), but not on supporters’ participation intention in donation-
based crowdfunding (β2dona=0.149, p=0.198). In addition, perceived
ease of use has a significant impact on perceived usefulness in both
crowdfunding models (β1dona=0.353, p<0.001; β1prod=0.480, p<0.001).
For product-based crowdfunding, the impact of perceived usefulness
on users’ investment intention is significantly less than that of
perceived ease of use, which may be related to the fact that product-
based crowdfunding projects in the current platform are divided into
several levels according to the different prices. The setting of different
price levels often increases the difficulty for investors to choose. When
choosing a product-based crowdfunding project, potential investor may
spend much more time and energy than thinking about the usefulness
of the product itself. In addition, potential investment groups may
have a great demand for ease of use. For product supporters, if it is
difficult to participate in crowdfunding projects, they may not choose
to participate, even if the projects are indeed helpful. This shows that
the group thinks that perceived ease of use has a significant effect. For
donation-based crowdfunding, perceived usefulness is the first demand
of supporters. Compared with product-based crowdfunding projects,
the participation way of donation-based crowdfunding projects is
relatively simple and flexible, supporters can directly participate in
the donation according to relevant information. In addition, there is
no limitation for the amount of money that a participant supported,
which means participants can donate as much as they wish. Therefore,
in donation-based crowdfunding projects, supporters will pay more
attention to the projects they potentially support. When supporters find
that participating in a donation-based crowdfunding project is helpful,
their participation intention increases. The direct impact of perceived
credibility on investors’ crowdfunding intention is quite obvious in both
crowdfunding modes, which indicates that the previous research on
trust as an influence intention is confirmed in this paper.
The similarities and differences of the impact of project features on
perceived attribute in different project types are further explained.
Firstly, the impact of project returns is analyzed. Through the analysis of
hypothesis testing results, it is found that project return has a significant
positive impact on the three perceived variables of perceived credibility,
perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use under the donation-
based crowdfunding mode (β5dona=0.457, p<0.001; β6dona=0.399, p<0.001;
β7dona=0.390, p<0.001). In the product-based crowdfunding mode,
project return has a significant positive impact on perceived credibility
and perceived ease of use (β5prod=0.713, p<0.001; β7prod=0.567, p<0.001),
but not on perceived usefulness (β6prod=0.188, p=0.145). In terms of the
size of the path coefficient, project return has the greatest impact on
perceived attribute in both project types. In other words, investors
believe that material or spiritual returns can have a significant impact
on the participation intention in crowdfunding projects, regardless of
donation-based or product-based crowdfunding. However, project
returns of product-based crowdfunding has no significant impact on
perceived usefulness, indicating that participants’ perceived usefulness
is not directly affected by project returns in product crowdfunding
projects. On the contrary, the acquisition of perceived usefulness may
be related to the originality of the project itself and its attractiveness to
investors. For supporters’ participation in donation-based crowdfunding
projects, their returns mainly come from their emotional satisfaction
Cite The Article: Cong Shen, Mingxia Wei (2020). Does Project Feature Affect Perceived Attribute and Crowdfunding Intention in Different Project Types? An Empirical Study
from China. Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management, 9(2): 11-19.
and sense of achievement after participating in the projects, rather than
from the physical products. Therefore, supporters pay more attention to
the perceived usefulness improvement when participating in donation-
based crowdfunding projects.
Secondly, the effect of social network is analyzed. According to the
findings, social network has a significant positive impact on three
perceived variables of perceived credibility, perceived usefulness, and
perceived ease of use under the donation-based crowdfunding model
(β8dona=0.332, p<0.001; β9dona=0.185, p<0.05; β10dona=0.301, p<0.01).
However, the influence of social network in product-based crowdfunding
is relatively weak (β8prod=0.088; β9prod=0.043; β10prod=0.177, p<0.05). In
terms of the size of path coefficient, the influence of social network on
donation-based crowdfunding perceived attribute ranks the second, and
its influence on product-based crowdfunding perceived attribute is the
weakest. The reasons for this difference may be as follows. For donation-
based crowdfunding projects, supporters tend to be compassionate and
responsible and have a high need for spiritual rewards. Moreover, they
tend to pay more attention to the content of projects and comments
from the crowdfunding community through social networks before
participating in projects. In addition, it is easier to trust the information
obtained from acquaintances or relatives about donation-based
crowdfunding, and the social network has the most significant impact
[11]. For the supporters of product-based crowdfunding, although
social network has certain influence, it has less influence than donation-
based crowdfunding. The reason behind it may be that investors pay
more attention to the return, risk and innovation of product-based
crowdfunding projects.
Finally, the influence of risk is analyzed. Regardless of donation-based
crowdfunding or product-based crowdfunding, risk has a significant
negative impact on perceived attribute (β11dona=-0.377, p<0.001;
β12dona=-0.166, p<0.01; β13dona=-0.284, p<0.001; β11prod=-0.194, p<0.01;
β12prod=-0.162, p<0.05; β13prod=-0.166, p<0.05). The impact of risk on
perceived attribute is significant in different types of crowdfunding.
The path coefficient values of perceived risk of different crowdfunding
types are similar and the difference is not that obvious, which reflects
the balanced degree of influence of risk on both crowdfunding types.
Although risk factors of different crowdfunding types may be different,
risk prevention is considered as an important thing of high-quality of
crowdfunding development.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions and Theoretical Implications
Through the online questionnaire of participants in crowdfunding
projects, this study constructs a research model of supporters’
participation intention in crowdfunding projects, so as to further
compare and analyze the differences between supporters’ participation
intention in donation-based and product-based crowdfunding projects.
The study draws the following conclusions. Firstly, for the three
variables in the project feature, project return has the greatest influence
on perceived attribute, and the positive influence is basically significant.
The influence of risk on perceived attribute is followed, which shows
significant negative influence. In the donation-based crowdfunding
perceived attribute, social network has significant influence on all three
variables. However, in product-based crowdfunding, social network has
only significant influence on perceived ease of use.
Secondly, for the three variables in perceived attribute, perceived
credibility can have a significant positive impact on supporters’
crowdfunding intention in both crowdfunding types. Perceived
usefulness has a significant influence on the supporters’ participation
intention in donation-based crowdfunding, but not in product-based
crowdfunding. On the contrary, perceived ease of use has a significant
impact on the supporters’ participation intention in product-based
crowdfunding, but not in donation-based crowdfunding. In addition,
both perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use have positive
influences on crowdfunding intention.
This paper can make some theoretical contributions. First of all, the
existing research on influencing factors of crowdfunding investment
intention is classified according to the attribute of project, so as to
distinguish direct and indirect influencing factors. In this study, project
feature and perceived attribute are redefined. The influence of project
 Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management (AIEM) 9(2) (2020) 11-19
feature on perceived attribute, and perceived attribute on crowdfunding
intention is further explored by building a research model of supporter’s
crowdfunding intention. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the existing
studies rarely involve the discussion of the differences in investment
intention of different crowdfunding projects, this study chooses two
crowdfunding types in which Chinese domestic supporters are more
involved, namely donation-based and product-based crowdfunding. By
combining the research models of supporters’ crowdfunding intention,
the differences of supporters’ crowdfunding intention under different
crowdfunding types are studied and analyzed.
6.2 Managerial Implications
The conclusions of this study can provide some basis for the sponsors to
better design crowdfunding projects, and can also provide some basis
for the platform to effectively mobilize the crowdfunding intention
of potential supporters, which is conducive to the formation and
development of a good ecological environment for crowdfunding. At the
same time, the research also has certain management implications.
For project sponsors, they can focus on the project’s rewards when
designing the project, so that the participants of the donation-based
crowdfunding project can obtain spiritual satisfaction, and the
participants of the product-based crowdfunding can get high-quality
products and services. At the same time, the risks of the project should
be reasonably controlled and avoided. The design of the project should
keep the crowdfunding information open and transparent throughout,
so as to ensure the authenticity and effectiveness of the project
information provided. In addition, the project sponsor needs to update
the actual situation of project financing in a timely manner.
For crowdfunding platforms, it is necessary to continuously improve
the construction of the crowdfunding community network, so that
the platform can truly become a bridge linking project sponsors and
potential backers. At the same time, it is necessary to actively build
user information exchange channels, so that project participants can
conveniently and freely exchange investment experience, which provide
convenience for users’ information acquisition and communication
needs. In addition, the platform can standardize the project review
mechanism and protect users’ personal information to reduce the
probability of risks as much as possible. On the one hand, platform
should formulate sound project audit standards, strengthen the audit
intensity, and improve the quality of audit personnel, so as to avoid
losses caused by the platform’s audit errors to project investors. On
the other hand, platform should also protect the personal information
of users and provide a safe investment environment for users when
supporters participate in the project.
6.3 Limitations
It has to be admitted that this study also has some limitations. First of
all, this study constructs a research model of supporter’s crowdfunding
intention, which believes that the effect of project feature on crowdfunding
intention needs to be influenced through perceived attribute. In view
of this, the influence of project feature on perceived attribute, and the
role of perceived attribute on crowdfunding intention are discussed
respectively. In this regard, the research can further explore whether
project feature has a direct impact on crowdfunding intention. Secondly,
since this study discusses supporters’ intention in the two models
of donation-based and product-based crowdfunding, some common
features of these two projects are selected in the research. Although
these features can basically reflect the project feature, there may be
some subtle differences of project feature in different crowdfunding
types, which is a direction for in-depth study. Finally, this paper
investigates the supporters’ participation intention in crowdfunding
projects from the perspective of project feature. Subsequent studies can
also explore the influence of these basic variables from the perspective
of the characteristic of sponsors and participants.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C.S. contributed to the draft manuscript, model construction, the
design, distribution and collection of survey questionnaires, and data
analysis; M.W. contributed to conceptualization, project administration,
revising the manuscript, and the funding acquisition. This research was
financially supported by the project of National Social Science Fund of
Cite The Article: Cong Shen, Mingxia Wei (2020). Does Project Feature Affect Perceived Attribute and Crowdfunding Intention in Different Project Types? An Empirical Study
from China. Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management, 9(2): 11-19.
China (Grant No. 18BGL264), and the project of Philosophy and Social
Science Innovation Team Fund of Universities in Henan Province (Grant
No. 2019-CXTD-04).
REFERENCES
[1] Mollick, E. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Bus.
Venturing (2014) 29: 1-16.
[2] Kuppuswamy, V., Bayus, B.L. Does my contribution to your
crowdfunding project matter? Bus. Venturing (2017) 32: 72-89.
[3] Bi, S., Liu, Z., Usman, K. The influence of online information on
investing decisions of reward-based crowdfunding. Bus. Res. (2017) 71:
10-18.
[4] Chen, Y., Dai, R., Yao, J., Li, Y. Donate time or money? The determinants
of donation intention in online crowdfunding. Sustainability (2019) 11:
4269.
[5] Efrat, K., Gilboa, S., Sherman, A. The role of supporter engagement
in enhancing crowdfunding success. Balt. J. Manag (2020) 15: 199-213.
[6] Kim, M.J., Hall, C.M. Investment crowdfunding in the visitor economy:
The roles of venture quality, uncertainty, and funding amount. Curr.
Issues Tour (2019).
[7] Moon, Y., Hwang, J. Crowdfunding as an alternative means for
funding sustainable appropriate technology: Acceptance determinants
of backers. Sustainability (2018) 10: 1456.
[8] Munim, Z.H., Shneor, R., Adewumi, O.M., Shakil, M.H. Determinants
of crowdfunding intention in a developing economy: Ex-ante evidence
from Bangladesh. Int. Emerg. Mark (2020).
[9] Shneor, R., Munim, Z.H. Reward crowdfunding contribution as
planned behaviour: An extended framework. Bus. Res (2019) 103: 56-
70.
[10] Wang, T., Li, Y., Kang, M., Zheng, H. Exploring individuals’ behavioral
intentions toward donation crowdfunding: Evidence from China. Ind.
Manage. Data Syst (2019) 119: 1515-1534.
[11] Zhao, Q., Chen, C.D., Wang, J.-L., Chen, P.-C. Determinants of
backers’ funding intention in crowdfunding: Social exchange theory and
regulatory focus. Telemat. Inform (2017) 34: 370-384.
[12] Liang, T.P., Wu, S.P.J., Huang, C.C. Why funders invest in
crowdfunding projects: Role of trust from the dual-process perspective.
Inform. Manage (2019) 56: 70-84.
[13] Gerber, E.M., Hui, J. Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for
participation. ACM T. Comput-Hum. Int. (2013) 20: 34.
[14] Liu, L., Suh, A., Wagner, C. Empathy or perceived credibility?
An empirical study on individual donation behavior in charitable
crowdfunding. Internet Res (2018) 28: 623-651.
[15] Zhang, Y., Tan, C.D., Sun, J., Yang, Z. Why do people patronize
donation-based crowdfunding platforms? An activity perspective of
critical success factors. Comput. Hum. Behav (2020) 112: 106470.
[16] Thaker, M.A.M.T., Thaker, H.M.T., Pitchay, A.A. Modeling
crowdfunders’ behavioral intention to adopt the crowdfunding-waqf
model (CWM) in Malaysia The theory of the technology acceptance
model. Int. Islamic Middle (2018) 11: 231-249.
[17] Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of
computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manage.
Sci (1989) 35: 982-1003.
[18] Ha, S., Stoel, L. Consumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a
technology acceptance model. Bus. Res (2009) 62: 565-571.
[19] Gu, J.-C., Lee, S.-C., Suh, Y.-H. Determinants of behavioral intention
to mobile banking. Expert Syst (2009) 36: 11605-11616.
 Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management (AIEM) 9(2) (2020) 11-19
[20] Shen, C.-C., Chiou, J.S. The impact of perceived ease of use on
Internet service adoption: The moderating effects of temporal distance
and perceived risk. Comput. Hum. Behav (2010) 26: 42-50.
[21] Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. An integrative model of
organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Acad. Manage. Rev (2007)
32: 344-354.
[22] McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L. What trust means in e-commerce
customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. Int.
Electron Comm (2001) 6: 35-59.
[23] Cholakova, M., Clarysse, B. Does the possibility to make equity
investments in crowdfunding projects crowd out reward-based
investments? Entrep. Theory Pract (2015) 39: 145-172.
[24] Saxton, G.D., Wang, L. The social network effect: The determinants
of giving through social media. Nonprof. Volunt. Sec. Q (2016) 43: 850-
868.
[25] Moritz, A., Block, J.H. Crowdfunding: A literature review and
research directions. In Crowdfunding in Europe. FGF Studies in Small
Business and Entrepreneurship; Brüntje D., Gajda O., Eds.; Springer:
Cham, Germany (2016): 25-53.
[26] Kuppuswamy, V., Bayus, B.L. Crowdfunding creative ideas: The
dynamics of project backers in kickstarter. SSRN Electron (2013).
[27] Lin, M., Viswanathan, S. Home bias in online investments: An
empirical study of an online crowdfunding market. Manage. Sci (2016)
62: 1393-1414.
[28] Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M. Parasuraman, A. Crowd-funding:
Transforming customers into investors through innovative service
Cite The Article: Cong Shen, Mingxia Wei (2020). Does Project Feature Affect Perceived Attribute and Crowdfunding Intention in Different Project Types? An Empirical Study
from China. Advances In Industrial Engineering And Management, 9(2): 11-19.
platforms. Serv. Manage (2011) 22: 443-470.
[29] Zvilichovsky, D., Inbar, Y., Barzilay, O. Playing both sides of the
market: Success and reciprocity on crowdfunding platforms. SSRN
Electron (2013) 4.
[30] Cox, D.F., Rich, S.U. Perceived risk and consumer decision-making:
The case of telephone shopping. Marketing Res (1964) 1: 32-39.
[31] Hong, I.B., Cha, H.S. The mediating role of consumer trust in an
online merchant in predicting purchase intention. Int. Inform. Manage
(2013) 33: 927-939.
[32] Venkatesh, V., Davis, F. A theoretical extension of the Technology
Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci (2000)
46, 186-204.
[33] Lee, T. The impact of perceptions of interactivity on customer trust
and transaction intentions in mobile commerce. Electron. Commer. Res
(2005) 21: 328-339.
[34] Jarvenpaa, S.L., Todd, P.A. Consumer reactions to electronic
shopping on the world wide web. Int. Electron. Comm (1996) 1: 59-88.
[35] Hair, J.F., Tatham, R.L., Anderson, R.E. Multivariate data analysis.
Technometrics (1998) 30: 130-131.
[36] Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Marketing Res (1981)
18: 39-50.
[37] Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating
control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance
model. Inform. Syst. Res (2000) 11: 342-365.