政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/136818
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50940650      Online Users : 969
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136818


    Title: 正當性訊號和旁觀者效應對獎酬回饋式群眾募資案之影響
    How do legitimate signals and bystander effect affect the results of reward-based crowdfunding projects?
    Authors: 周文卿
    Chou, Wen-Ching
    Contributors: 于卓民
    黃國峯
    Yu, Chow-Ming
    Huang, Kuo-Feng
    周文卿
    Chou, Wen-Ching
    Keywords: 訊號理論
    正當性
    旁觀者效應
    社會影響
    獎酬回饋式群眾募資
    signaling theory
    legitimacy
    bystander effect
    social influence
    reward-based crowdfunding
    Date: 2021
    Issue Date: 2021-09-02 15:34:09 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 由群眾外包模式而來，群眾募資為近來方興未艾之新興小額網路募款模式，許多學者紛紛開始探討影響群眾募資成功之因素。群眾募資其中的一種樣態為獎酬回饋，在獎酬回饋式的群眾募資平台上，專案的支持者，甚或提案者，都是較沒有經驗或專業知識的小額出資者。因此，雙方之間存在的資訊不對稱，比其他樣態的群眾募資平台更為嚴重。在群眾募資期間，專案支持者必須接受到多樣的具正當性的訊號，以利他們做更好的判斷，提高專案成功的可能性。另外，一群對專案有興趣但卻還沒實際出資的旁觀者們，也需要時間去評估其他人的作為，因此，專案提案者必須思考如何降低旁觀者效應對群眾募資案的不良影響。因此，本論文基於此，進行三個研究試圖探討專案提案者可提出那些具正當性且適時的訊號，降低資訊不對稱和旁觀者效應，使群募專案較容易成功。
    本論文第二章說明第一個研究，研究發現來自於專案內容、專案提案者特色、第三方之多重的正當性訊號有助於群募專案成功，例如提出多樣的專案贊助選項、與社群平台建立連結以強化網絡外部性效果、強調提案者本身來自於新創團體、提案者本身已有群眾募資的成功經驗、專案於群募網站首頁輪播、或在首頁的編輯精選中出現等具正當性的訊號。第三章呈現第二個研究，研究分析後發現，旁觀者效應減少專案的每日募資金額。然而，機構單位提出的群眾募資專案，因其正當性，可降低旁觀者效應對每日募資金額的負面影響。另外，當專案設定的募款天數愈多時，也可以降低旁觀者效應對每日募資金額的負面影響。第四章呈現第三個研究，分析結果發現專案提案者應注意每日旁觀者比例的變化幅度，變化幅度太大不利於提案成功。專案提案者或平台管理者應適時發送專案進度報告或運用社群媒體轉發專案相關訊息，而且在整個募資期間需做好社會性影響的管理機制。
    本論文提出正當性訊號和旁觀者效應對獎酬式群眾募資計畫的影響，尤其是在一個對大眾公開的更吵雜的環境裡。本研究並提供此一新興現象未來跨領域於社會心理學與策略創業之研究方向與可能性。本論文對募資者也有參考價值，募資者可思考如何以合理的成本增進群眾對社群的參與度。未來研究者可進一步分析發送那些具社會性影響力的正當性訊號，以降低旁觀者效應。
    Rooted in crowdsourcing, crowdfunding is a new and developing phenomenon and scholars have demonstrated the impacts of different success factors on crowdfunding project success. In reward-based crowdfunding context, potential backers are less sophisticated and they tend to contribute much smaller amount in comparison with other types of crowdfunding. Potential project backers are troubled by the problem of information asymmetry and need more time to evaluate whether to make pledges by receiving multiple legitimate signals and observing the behavior of the “crowds.” The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the impacts of multiple legitimate signals and bystander effect to reward-based crowdfunding projects in a high-noise environment.
    In chapter two, I find multiple legitimate signals sent from project itself, project creators, and third-party could increase the propensity of a project’s success. Multiple legitimate signals include providing more reward options, establishing social network connections, showing creator’s past funding success, project creator being a start-up team, and project being displayed on the banner slider or editor’s select section on the crowding platform frontpage. In chapter three, co-authors and I show that the bystander effect harms the daily pledge amount. To mitigate such a negative impact, crowdfunding project creators may signal project legitimacy and use a longer project-funding period to escalate the conversion from bystanders to backers, which in turn enhances the fundraising performance.
    Finally, I further examine the bystander effect during the entire fundraising cycle in chapter four. The results show that a smaller fluctuation of the bystander effect changes during the entire fundraising cycle is positively related to the propensity of the project success. Adaptable legitimate signals such as project updates or information cascades could alleviate the social inhibition of helping in the middle of the fundraising cycle. Project creators shall pay close attention in managing social influence tactics along the entire project campaign.
    This dissertation suggests that legitimate signals and bystander effect affect reward-based crowdfunding project success, especially when problems linger out in the open to everyone’s noisy online and offline fundraising environment. Future studies should continue focusing on discovering the interaction of social psychology and strategic entrepreneurship contexts and on what legitimate signals of social influences could alleviate bystander effect of this emerging and promising phenomenon.
    Reference: 1. Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., and Goldfarb, A. 2011. The Geography of Crowdfunding. (NBER Working Paper Series No. 16820). http://www.nber.org/papers/w16820 (accessed October 18, 2015).
    2. Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., and Goldfarb, A. 2015. Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 24(2): 253-274.
    3. Ahlers, G.K.C., Cumming, D., Günther, C., and Schweizer, D. 2015. Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4): 955-980.
    4. Akerlof, A.G. 1970. The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3): 488-500.
    5. Aldrich, H., and Fiol, C. 1994. Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation. The Academy of Management Review, 19(4): 645-670.
    6. Allison, T.H., McKenny, A.F., and Short, J.C. 2013. The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6): 690-707.
    7. Anglin, A.H., Short, J.C., Drover, W., Stevenson, R.M., McKenny, A.F., Allison, T.H. 2018. The power of positivity? The influence of positive psychological capital language on crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4): 470-492.
    8. Arrow, K. 1993. Innovation in large and small firms. The Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 2(2): 111-124.
    9. Auerswald, P. E. and Branscomb, L. M. 2003. Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention and innovation transition on the United States. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28: 3-4.
    10. Backer-Funder. 2020. Crowd Watch Report. https://www.2019.report.crowdwatch.tw/. (Assessed Oct. 12, 2020)
    11. Bagozzi, R. P. and Dholakia, U. M. 2002. Intentional social action in virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2): 2-21.
    12. Banerjee, A.V. 1992. A simple model of herding behavior. The quarterly journal of economics, 107(3): 797-817.
    13. Barron, G. and Yechiam, E. Private e-mail requests and the diffusion of responsibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5): 507-520.
    14. Baumol, W.J. and Ide, E. A. 1956. Variety in retailing. Management Science, 3(1), 93–101.
    15. Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., and Schwienbacher, A., 2010. Crowdfunding: An organization perspective. Retrieved from: http://economix.fr/uploads/source/doc/workshops/2010_dbm/Belleflamme_al.pdf
    16. Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., and Schwienbacher, A., 2013. Individual Crowdfunding Practices. Venture Capital, 15(4): 313-333.
    17. Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., and Schwienbacher, A. 2014. Crowdfunding: Tapping the Right Crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5): 25-49.
    18. Bergh, D., Connelly, B., Ketchen Jr, D., and Shannon, L. 2014. Signaling theory and equilibrium in strategic management research: an assessment and a research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 51(8): 1334-1360.
    19. Bikhchandani, S., Hirchleifer, D., and Welch, I. 1998. Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3): 151-170.
    20. Block, J., Hornuf, L., and Moritz, A. 2018. Which updates during an equity crowdfunding campaign increase crowd participation? Small Business Economics, 50(1): 3-27.
    21. Borst, I., Moser, C., and Ferguson, J. 2018. From friendfunding to crowdfunding: Relevance of relationships, social media, and platform activities to crowdfunding platform performance. New media & society, 20(4): 1396-1414.
    22. Bowerman, B.L. and O’Connell, R.T. 1990. Linear Statistical Models: An Applied Approach, 2nd ed. Belmont: Duxbury.
    23. Bradford, C.S. 2012. Crowdfunding and the Federal Securities Laws. Columbia Business Law Review, 2012(1): 1-150.
    24. Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    25. Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D., and Wright, M. 2015. New Financial Alternatives in Seeding Entrepreneurship: Microfinance, Crowdfunding, and Peer-to-Peer Innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1): 9-26.
    26. Bukhari, F. A. S., Usman, S. M., Usman, M., and Hussain, K. 2019. The effects of creator credibility and backer endorsement in donation crowdfunding campaigns success. Baltic Journal of Management, 15(2): 215–235.
    27. Burkett, E. 2011. A Crowdfunding Exemption? Online investment crowdfunding and U.S. Securities Regulation. Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law, 13: 63-106.
    28. Burtch, G., Gupta, D., and Martin, P. 2021. Referral timing and fundraising success in crowdfunding. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 23(3): 547-730.
    29. Burton, M., Sørensen, J., and Beckman, C. 2002. Coming from good stock: career histories and new venture formation. Available at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1252&context=articles
    30. Cassar, G. 2004. The Financing of Business Start-ups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2): 261-283.
    31. Certo, S.T. 2003. Influencing Initial Public Offering Investors with Prestige: Signaling with Board Structures. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 432-446.
    32. Chan, C. R., Parhankangas, A., Sahaym, A., and Oo, P. 2020. Bellwether and the herd? Unpacking the u-shaped relationship between prior funding and subsequent contributions in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(2): Article: 105934.
    33. Chen, X.P., Yao, X., and Kotha, S. 2009. Entrepreneur Passion and Preparedness in Business Plan Presentations: A Persuasive Analysis of Venture Capitalists’ Funding Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1): 199-214.
    34. Cheng, K. 2016. What factors are associated with the successful possibility in crowdfunding? [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taiwan Normal University. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/z7ph3v
    35. Chesbrough, H. 2003a. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
    36. Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., and Goodman, J. 2015. Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2): 333-358.
    37. Chiu, Y.P. and Chang, S.C. 2015. Leveraging the Buffering Effect and the Bystander Effect in Social Networking. Cyber Psychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18(8): 450-456.
    38. Chu, W. and Lin T. 2016. The determinants of successful crowdfunding projects: An empirical study of a Taiwanese crowdfunding platform, flyingV. Taiwan Academy of Management Journal, 16(2): 53-73.
    39. Clark, C. 2008. The impact of entrepreneurs’ oral “pitch” presentation skills on business angels’ initial screening investment decisions. Venture Capital, 10(3): 257-279.
    40. Colombo, M., Franzoni, C., and Rossi-Lamastra, C. 2015. Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding projects. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1): 75-100.
    41. Colombo, O. 2021. The use of signals in new-venture financing: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 47(1): 237-259.
    42. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R.D., and Reutzel, C.R. 2011. Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1): 39-67.
    43. Courtney, C., Dutta, S., and Li, Y. 2017. Resolving information asymmetry: Signaling, Endorsement, and Crowdfunding success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2): 265-290.
    44. Cramer, R., McMaster, M., Bartell, P., and Dragna, M. 1988. Subject competence and minimization of the bystander effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(13): 1133-1148.
    45. Crowdwatch. 2015. Taiwan Crowdfunding Annual Report. Retrieved from https://annual-report.crowdwatch.tw/2015
    46. Cumming, D. J., Leboeuf, G., Schwienbacher, A. 2020. Crowdfunding Models: Keep-it-All vs. All-or-Nothing. Financial Management, 49(2): 331-360.
    47. Cumming, D. J., Vanacker, T., and Zahra, S. A. 2021. Equity crowdfunding and governance: Toward an integrative model and research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(1): 69-95.
    48. Danmayr, F. 2014. Archetypes of Crowdfunding Platforms-A Multidimensional
    Comparison. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783658045586
    49. Darley, J. M. and Latané, B. 1968. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4): 377–383.
    50. Delmar, F. and Shane, S. 2004. Legitimating first: organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3):385-410.
    51. Doganova, L. and Eyquen-Renault, M. 2009. What do business models do? Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10): 1559-1570.
    52. Drover, W., Wood, M. S., Corbett, A. C. 2018. Toward a cognitive view of signaling theory: individual attention and signal set interpretation. Journal of Management Studies, 55(2): 209-231.
    53. Du, L., Hu, M., and Wu, J. 2019. Contingent stimulus in crowdfunding. Rotman School of Management Working Paper No. 2925962.
    54. Estellés-Arolas, E. and González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. 2012. Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38(2): 189-200.
    55. Evans, D. and Leighton, L. 1989. Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 79(3): 519-535.
    56. Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmuller, A., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., and Kainbacher, M. 2011. The bystander Effect: a meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological bulletin, 137(4): 517-537.
    57. Fisher, G., Kotha, S., and Lahiri, A. 2016. Changing with the times: An integrated view of identity, legitimacy, and new venture life cycles. Academy of Management Review, 41(3): 383-409.
    58. Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J. M., and Hornsby, J. S. 2017. Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1): 52-71.
    59. Franke, N. and Gruber, M. 2008. Venture capitalists’ evaluation of Start-up teams:
    Trade-offs, knock-out criteria, and the impact of VC experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3): 459-483.
    60. Frydrych, D., Bock, A. J., and Kinder, T. 2016. Creating project legitimacy – the role of entrepreneurial narrative in reward-based crowdfunding. International Perspectives on Crowdfunding-Positive, normative and critical theory. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312184412_Creating_Project_Legitimacy_-_The_Role_of_Entrepreneurial_Narrative_in_Reward-Based_Crowdfunding_Positive_Normative_and_Critical_Theory
    61. Frydrych, D., Bock, A. J., Kinder, T., and Koeck, B. 2014. Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding. Venture Capital, 16(3): 247-269.
    62. Giustiziero, G., Kaul, A., and Wu, B. 2019. The dynamics of learning and competition in Schumpeterian environments. Organization Science, 30(4): 668–693.
    63. Gompers, P. A., Gornall, W., Kaplan, S. N., and Strebulaev, I. A. 2020. How do venture capitalists make decisions? Journal of Financial Economics, 135(1): 169-190.
    64. Gompers, P. and Lerner, J. 2004. The Venture Capital Cycle. Boston: MIT Press.
    65. Gunarathne, P., Riu, H., and Seidmann, A. 2018. When social media delivers customer service: differential customer treatment in the airline industry. MIS Quarterly, 42(2): 489-520.
    66. Hallen, D. and Eisenhardt, K.M. 2012. Catalyzing Strategies and Efficient Tie Formation: How Entrepreneurial Firms Obtain Investment Ties. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1): 35-70.
    67. Hanley, A. and Girma, S. 2006. New ventures and their credit terms. Small Business Economics, 26(4): 351-364.
    68. Harris, V.A. and Robinson, C. E. 1973. Bystander intervention: Group size and victim status. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2(1): 8-10.
    69. Hemer, J. 2011. A snapshot on crowdfunding. Arbeitspapiere Unternehmen und Region, No. Rs/2011, Fraunhofer, Karlsrruhe.
    70. Higgins, M. C. and Gulati, R. 1999. The Effects of IPO Team Ties on Investment Bank Affiliation and IPO Success. Harvard Business School Working Paper #00-025.
    71. Hoenig, D. and Henkel, J. 2015. Quality Signals? The Role of Patents, Alliances, and Team Experience in Venture Capital Financing. Research Policy, 44(5): 1049-1064.
    72. Hong, Y., Hu, Y., and Burtch, G. 2018. Embeddedness, Pro-Sociality, and Social Influence: Evidence from Online Crowdfunding. MIS Quarterly, 42(4): 1211–1224.
    73. Hotelling, H. 1929. Stability in competition. The Economic Journal, 39(153): 41–57.
    74. Hussain, I., Shu, R., Tangirala, S., and Ekkirala, S. 2019. The voice bystander effect: How information redundancy inhibits employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3): 828-849.
    75. Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Denhardt, S., and Füller, J. 2013. The impact of user interaction in social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on Facebook. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(5/6): 342-351.
    76. Josefy, M., Dean, T. J., Albert, L. S., and Fitza, M. A. 2017. The role of community in crowdfunding success: Evidence on cultural attributes in funding campaigns to “save the local theater”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2): 161–182.
    77. Jung, E. J., Susarla, A., and Sambamurphy, V. 2015. Community engagement and
    collective evaluation in crowdfunding. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2606449
    78. Kahn, B. E. and Lehmann, D. R. 1991. Modeling choice among assortments. Journal of Retailing, 67(3): 274–299.
    79. Kahn, B. E., Moore, W. L., and Glazer, R. 1987. Experiments in constrained choice.
    Journal of Consumer Research, 14(1): 96–113
    80. Kahneman, D. and Snell, J. S. 1992. Predicting a changing taste: Do people know what they will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(3): 187–200
    81. Kickstarter. 2014. Available at: http://www.kickstarter.com
    82. Kleemann, F., Gunter Voss, G., and Rieder, K. 2008. Un(der)paid Innovators: The
    Commercial Utilization of Consumer Work through Crowdsourcing. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, (4)1: 5-26.
    83. Kozinets, R. V., Hemetsberger, A., and Schau, H. J. 2008. The Wisdom of Consumer Crowds: Collective Innovation in the Age of Networked Marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(4): 339-354.
    84. Kreps, D. M. 1979. A representation theorem for preference for flexibility. Econometrica, 47(3): 565–577.
    85. Kunz, M., Bretschneider, U., Erler, M., and Leimeister, J. 2017. An empirical investigation of signaling in reward-based crowdfunding. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(3): 425-461.
    86. Kuppuswamy, V. and Bayus, B. L. 2017. Does my contribution to your crowdfunding project matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1): 72-89.
    87. Kuppuswamy, V. and Bayus, B.L. 2018. Chapter 17. A Review of Crowdfunding Research and Finding. Handbook of New Product Development Research, pp. 361-373. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784718152
    88. Kuppuswamy, V. and Bayus, B. L. 2018. Crowdfunding creative ideas: The dynamics of project backers. In Coming, D., and Hornuf, L. (Ed.), The Economics of Crowdfunding: Startups, Portals and Investor Behavior: 151–182. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66119-3_8
    89. Latané, B. and Dabbs, J. M. 1975. Sex, group size, and helping in three cities. Sociometry, 38(2): 180-194.
    90. Latané, B. and Darley, J. M. 1968. Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3): 215-221.
    91. Latané, B. and Darley, J. M. 1970. The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
    92. Latané, B. and Nida, S. 1981. Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2): 308-324.
    93. Latané, B. and Rodin, J. 1969. A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(2): 189-202.
    94. Lee, P.M. and Wahal, S. 2004. Grandstanding, certification and the underpricing of venture capital backed IPOs. Journal of Financial Economics, 73(2): 375-407.
    95. Levine, M. and Crowther, S. 2008. The responsive bystander: how social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6): 1429-1439.
    96. Levine, M. and Manning, R. 2013. Social identity, group processes, and helping in emergencies. European Review of Social Psychology, 24(1): 225-251.
    97. Levy, P., Lundgren, D., Ansel, M., Fell, D., Fink, B., and McGrath, J. E. 1972. Bystander effect in a demand-without-threat situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(2): 166-171.
    98. Lin, M., Prabhala, N. R., Viswanathan, S. 2013. Judging borrowers by the company they keep: Friendship networks and information asymmetry in online peer-to-peer lending. Management Science, 59(1): iv-264.
    99. Liu, Y., Chen, Y., and Fan, Z-P. 2021. Do social network crowds help fundraising campaign? Effects of social influence on crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Research, 122(6): 97-108.
    100. MacMillan, I., Siegel, R., and Narasimha, P. 1985. Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new venture proposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1): 119-128.
    101. Manning, S. and Bejarano, T. 2017. Convincing the crowd: Entrepreneurial storytelling in crowdfunding campaigns. Strategic Organization, 15(2): 194-219.
    102. Markey, P.M. 2000. Bystander intervention in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(2): 183-188.
    103. Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., and Jennings, P. D. 2007. Do the stories they tell get them the money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1107-1132.
    104. Massolution, 2013. 2013 Crowdfunding Industry Report.
    105. Massolution, 2015. 2015 Crowdfunding Industry Report.
    106. Maxwell, A. L., Jeffrey, S. A., and Lévesque, M. 2011. Business angel early stage
    decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(2): 212-225.
    107. McKenny, A. F., Allison, T. H., Ketchen Jr., D. J., Short, J. C., and Ireland, R. D. 2017. How should crowdfunding research evolve? A survey of the Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Editorial Board. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2): 291-304.
    108. Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal
    Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363.
    109. Meyskens, M. and Bird, L. 2015. Crowdfunding and value creation.
    Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 5(2): 155-166.
    110. Miller Jr., R. G. 2011. Survival analysis, volume 66. NY: John Wiley &Sons.
    111. Mollick, E. 2013. Step away by the crowd? Crowdfunding, venture capital, and the selection of entrepreneurs. SSRN Working Paper Series. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2239204.
    112. Mollick, E. 2014. The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Explorary Study. Journal
    of Business Venturing, 29(1): 1-16.
    113. Nagy, B. G., Pollack, J. M., Rutherford, M. W., and Lohrke, F. T. 2012. The influence of Entrepreneurs’ Credentials and Impression Management Behaviors on Perceptions of New Venture Legitimacy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36: 941-965.
    114. National Park Service. 2016. Joseph-Pulitzer-Statue of liberty national
    monument. Available at http://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/joseph-
    pulitzer.htm.
    115. Navis, C. and Glynn, M. A. 2011. Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgements of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3): 479-499.
    116. O’Reilly, T. 2007. What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, No. 1, p. 17, First Quarter. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1008839
    117. Ordanini, A., Miceli, L, Pizzetti, M., and Parasuraman, A. 2011. Crowd-funding:
    transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal of Service Management, 22(4): 443-470.
    118. Pariser, E. 2012. The Filter Bubble: What the internet is hiding from you? London, United Kingdom: Penguin Books.
    119. Parker, S. C. 2009. The Economics of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge
    University Press.
    120. Petkova, A. 2012. From the ground up: Building young firm’s reputations. The Oxford
    Handbook of Corporate Reputations. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596706.013.0019
    121. Plummer, L., Allison, T. H., and Connelly, B. L. 2016. Better together? Signaling interactions in new venture pursuit of initial external capital. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1585-1604.
    122. Pollack, J. M., Rutherfold, M. W., and Nagy, B. G. 2012. Preparedness and
    Cognitive Legitimacy as Antecedents of New Venture Funding in Televised 123. Business Pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5): 915-939.
    123. Pollock, T. G., Chen, G., Jackson, E. M., and Hambrick, D. C. 2010. How much prestige is enough? Assessing the value of multiple types of high-status affiliates for young firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1): 6-23.
    124. Prasad, D., Bruton, G. D., and Vozikis, G. 2000. Signaling value to business angels: The proportion of the entrepreneur’s net worth invested in a new venture as a decision signal. Venture Capital, 2(3): 167-182.
    125. Pretince-dunn, S. and Rogers, R. W. 1982. Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3): 503-513.
    126. Rao, H. 1994. The social construction of reputation: certification contests,
    legitimation, and the survival of organizations in American Automobile Industry: 1895-1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15:29-44.
    127. Renault, C. S. 2012. Economic development in the US alters course because of recession. Local Economy, 27(1): 50-54.
    128. Rice, M. 2002. Co-production of business assistance in business incubators: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(2): 163-187.
    129. Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., and Server, J. M. 2005. Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6): 1033-1049.
    130. Ross, A. S. and Braband, J. 1973. Effect of increased responsibility on bystander intervention: II. The cue value of a blind person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2): 254-288.
    131. Rutkowski, S., Levine, R. M., and Romer, D. 1983. Group cohesiveness, social norms, and bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3): 545-552.
    132. Scholtens, B. 1999. Analytical issues in external financing alternatives for SBEs. Small Business Economics, 12(2): 137-148.
    133. Schwienbacher, A. and B. Larralde. 2012. Crowdfunding of Entrepreneurial Ventures. In D. Cumming (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurial Finance, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    134. Scholz, N. 2015. The Relevance of Crowdfunding: The Impact on the Innovation Process of Small Entrepreneurial Firms. Manchester, UK: Springer Gabler.
    135. Shane, S. and Cable, D. 2002. Network Ties, Reputation, and the Financing of New Ventures. Management Science, 48(3): 364-381.
    136. Short, J. C., Ketchen Jr., D. J., McKenny, A. F., Allison, T. H., and Ireland, R. D. 2017. Research on crowdfunding: Reviewing the (Very Recent) Past and Celebrating the Present. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2): 149-160.
    137. Solomon, L. Z., Solomon, H., and Stone, R. 1978. Helping as a function of number of bystanders and ambiguity of emergency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4:318-321.
    138. Sorescu, A., Shankar, V., and Kushwaha, T. 2007. New Product
    Preannouncements and Shareholder Value: Don’t Make Promises You Can’t Keep. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3): 468-489.
    139. Spence, M. 1973. Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3): 355-374.
    140. Spence, M. 2002. Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American economic review, 92(3): 434-459.
    141. Stanko, M. A. and Henard, D. H. 2016. How crowdfunding influences innovation. Sloan Management Review, 57(3): 15-17.
    142. Stanko, M. A. and Henard, D. H. 2017. Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding, openness and the consequences for innovation. Research Policy, 46(4): 784-798.
    143. Staub, E. 1974. Helping a distressed person: Social, personality, and stimulus determinants. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.
    144. Steignberger, N. and Wilhem, H. 2019. Extending signaling theory to rhetorical signals: Evidence from crowdfunding. Organization Science, 29(3): 357-546.
    145. Stiglitz, J. E. 2002. Information and the change in the paradigm in economics.
    American Economic Review, 92(3): 460-501.
    146. Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Social Structure and Organizations. In: March, J.P., Ed., Handbook of Organizations, Rand McNally, Chicago, 142-193.
    147. Stuart, T., Hoang, H., and Hybels, R. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 315- 349.
    148. Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610.
    149. Sullivan, D. M. and Ford, C. M. 2014. How entrepreneurs use networks to address changing resource requirements during early venture development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(3): 551-674.
    150. Tan, J., Shao, Y., and Li, W. 2013. To be different, or to be the same? An exploratory study of isomorphism in the cluster. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1): 83-97.
    151. Tain, X., Song, Y., Luo, C., Zhou, H., and Lev, B. 2021. Herding behavior in supplier innovation crowdfunding: Evidence from Kickstarter. International Journal of Production Economics, 239 (in press).
    152. Terza, J. V., Basu, A., and Rathouz, P. J. 2008. Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. Journal of Health Economics, 27(3): 531–543.
    153. Thies, F., Wessel, M., and Benlian, A. 2016. Effects of social interaction dynamics on platforms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(3): 843-873.
    154. Tomczak, A. and Brem, A. 2013. A Conceptualized Investment Model of Crowdfunding. Venture Capital, 15(4): 335-359.
    155. Überbacher, F. 2014. Legitimation of new ventures: A review and research programme. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4): 667-698.
    156. Usman, S. M., Bukhari, F. A. S., Usman, M., Badulescu, D., and Sial, M. S. 2019. Does the Role of Media and Founder’s Past Success Mitigate the Problem of Information Asymmetry? Evidence from a UK Crowdfunding Platform. Sustainability, 11(3), 692.
    157. van Bommel, M., van Prooijen, J-W., Elffers, H., and van Lange, P. A. M. 2012. Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4): 926-930.
    158. van den Bos, K., Müller, P. A., and van Bussel, A. A. L. 2009. Helping to overcome intervention inertia in bystander’s dilemmas: Behavioral disinhibition can improve the greater good. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4): 873-878.
    159. Vismara, S. 2018. Signaling to Overcome Inefficiencies in Crowdfunding Markets. In D. Cumming and L. Hornuf (Series Ed.) The Economics of Crowdfunding-Startups, Portals, and Investor Behavior (pp. 29-56). Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-66119-3
    160. Voelpel, S., Eckhoff, R., and Förster, J. 2008. David against Goliath? Group size and bystander effects in virtual knowledge sharing. Human Relations, 61(2): 271-295.
    161. West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W, and Chesbrough, H. 2014. Open Innovation: The next decade. Research Policy, 43(5): 805-811.
    162. Wiklund, J., Baker, T., and Shehperd, D. 2010. The age-effect of financial indicators as buffer against the liability of newness. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4): 423-437.
    163. Wooldridge, J. M. 2015. Control function methods in applied econometrics. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2): 420–445.
    164. Yechiam, E. and Barron, G. 2003. Learning to ignore online help requests. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 9: 327-229.
    165. Yu, J. C. M, Huang, K. F., Chou, S. W. C., and Kuo, Y. 2018. White Power – your milk is saved by yourselves. Perdo office National Cheng-chi University.
    166. Zhang, J. and Liu, P. 2012. Rational herding in microloan markets. Management
    Science, 58(5): 892-912.
    167. Zheng, H., Hung, J., Qi, Z., and Hu, B. 2016. The role of trust management in reward-based crowdfunding. Online Information Review, 40(1): 97-116.
    168. Zheng, H., Li, D., Wu, J., and Xu, Y. 2014. The role of multidimensional social
    capital in crowdfunding: A comparative study in China and U.S. Information & Management, 51(4): 488-496.
    169. Zimmerman, M.A. and Zeitz, G. J. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new
    venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3): 414-431.
    170. Zott, C. and Huy, Q. N. 2007. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 70-105.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    企業管理學系
    97355508
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097355508
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202101456
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Business Administation] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    550801.pdf2395KbAdobe PDF20View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback