We develop a recombinant framework of technological information disclosure by integrating the insights of the recombinant innovation perspective and the crowdfunding literature. We propose that the technological information disclosed in a technology project’s crowdfunding description can boil down to two recombinant features, that is, the number of disclosed technological domains (N) and the interdependence thereof (K). We further posit that the N and K of disclosed technological information about a project have distinct implications for crowdfunders’ perceived usefulness and complexity of the project’s rewards, thus affecting crowdfunding performance in distinct ways. That is, N has an inverted U-shaped effect on crowdfunding performance, while K has a monotonically negative effect on crowdfunding performance. Such effects of N and K of disclosed technological domains are further moderated by crowdfunders’ knowledge about the disclosed technological domains. Evidence from the field data from Kickstarters.com and a scenario-based study support our predictions.
AgrawalA.CataliniC.GoldfarbA. (2014). Some simple economics of crowdfunding. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 14(1), 63–97.
2.
AgrawalA.CataliniC.GoldfarbA. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, social networks, and the timing of investment decisions. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24(2), 253–274.
3.
AllisonT. H.DavisB. C.ShortJ. C.WebbJ. W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 53–73.
4.
AllisonT. H.DavisB. C.WebbJ. W.ShortJ. C. (2017). Persuasion in crowdfunding: An elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(6), 707–725.
5.
AllisonT. H.McKennyA. F.ShortJ. 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.
6.
AlvarezS. A.BusenitzL. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27(6), 755–775.
7.
AnglinA. H.ShortJ. C.DroverW.StevensonR. M.McKennyA. F.AllisonT. 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.
BelleflammeP.LambertT.SchwienbacherA. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609.
9.
BelleflammeP.OmraniN.PeitzM. (2015). The economics of crowdfunding platforms. Information Economics and Policy, 33, 11–28.
10.
BiS.LiuZ.UsmanK. (2017). The influence of online information on investing decisions of reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Research, 71, 10–18.
11.
BleiD. M. (2012). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 77–84.
12.
BleiD. M.NgA. Y.JordanM. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.
13.
CastellvíM. T. C. (2003). Theories of terminology: Their description, prescription and explanation. Terminology, 9(2), 163–199.
14.
ChanC. S. R.ParhankangasA. (2017). Crowdfunding innovative ideas: How incremental and radical innovativeness influence funding outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 237–263.
15.
ChenX. P.YaoX.KothaS. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199–214.
16.
CholakovaM.ClarysseB. (2015). Does the possibility to make equity investments in crowdfunding projects crowd out reward–based investments?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 145–172.
17.
ColomboM. G.FranzoniC.Rossi-LamastraC. (2015). Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 75–100.
18.
CourtneyC.DuttaS.LiY. (2017). Resolving information asymmetry: Signaling, endorsement, and crowdfunding success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 265–290.
19.
DavisB. C.HmieleskiK. M.WebbJ. W.CoombsJ. E. (2017). Funders’ positive affective reactions to entrepreneurs’ crowdfunding pitches: The influence of perceived product creativity and entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 90–106.
20.
DellaertB. G. C.StremerschS. (2005). Marketing mass-customized products: Striking a balance between utility and complexity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 219–227.
21.
FeldmanR.FreskoM.KinarY.LindellY.LiphstatO.RajmanM.SchlerY.ZamirO. (1998, September23–26). Text mining at the term level [Paper presentation]. Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery: Second European Symposium, PKDD’98 Nantes, France, 1998.
22.
FeldmanR.SangerJ. (2007). The text mining handbook: Advanced approaches in analyzing unstructured data. Cambridge University Press.
FlemingL.SorensonO. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019–1039.
25.
FlemingL.SorensonO. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 909–928.
26.
GalunicD. C.RodanS. (1998). Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1193–1201.
27.
GancoM. (2013). Cutting the Gordian knot: The effect of knowledge complexity on employee mobility and entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 34(6), 666–686.
28.
GancoM. (2017). NK model as a representation of innovative search. Research Policy, 46(10), 1783–1800.
29.
GerberE. M.HuiJ. L. (2013). Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for participation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(6), 1–32.
30.
GerberE. M.HuiJ. S.KuoP.-Y. (2012). Crowdfunding: Why people are motivated to post and fund projects on crowdfunding platforms [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Design, Influence, and Social Technologies: Techniques, Impacts and Ethics. Seattle, Washington, USA.
31.
GriffithT. L. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 472–488.
32.
HaansR. F.PietersC.HeZ. L. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1177–1195.
33.
HendersonR. M.ClarkK. B. (1990). Architectural innovation – the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.
34.
HsuD. H. (2007). Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding. Research Policy, 36(5), 722–741.
35.
JiangH.WangZ. Y.YangL. S.ShenJ.HahnJ. (2021). How rewarding are your rewards? A value-based view of crowdfunding rewards and crowdfunding performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(3), 562–599.
36.
KaplanS.VakiliK. (2015). The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1435–1457.
37.
KatilaR.AhujaG. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.
38.
KilduffG. J.GalinskyA. D.GalloE.ReadeJ. J. (2016). Whatever it takes to win: Rivalry increases unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1508–1534.
39.
KimK.ViswanathanS. (2018). The ‘experts’ in the crowd: The role of experienced investors in a crowdfunding market. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 347–372.
40.
KincaidJ. P.FishburneR. P.Jr.RogersR. L.ChissomB. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Brancho.
41.
KullbackS.LeiblerR. A. (1951). On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(1), 79–86.
42.
KuppuswamyV.BayusB. L. (2017). Does my contribution to your crowdfunding project matter?Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 72–89.
43.
LiJ. J.ChenX.-P.KothaS.FisherG. (2017). Catching fire and spreading it: A glimpse into displayed entrepreneurial passion in crowdfunding campaigns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1075.
44.
LinY.BohW. F.GohK. H. (2014). How different are crowdfunders? Examining archetypes of crowdfunders and their choice of projects [Paper presentation]. Academy of Management Proceedings. Philadelphia, PA.
45.
ManningS.BejaranoT. A. (2017). Convincing the crowd: Entrepreneurial storytelling in crowdfunding campaigns. Strategic Organization, 15(2), 194–219.
McKennyA. F.AllisonT. H.KetchenD. J.ShortJ. C.IrelandR. 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.
48.
MollickE. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.
49.
MollickE.NandaR. (2016). Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Management Science, 62(6), 1533–1553.
50.
MollickE.RobbA. (2016). Democratizing innovation and capital access: The role of crowdfunding. California Management Review, 58(2), 72–87.
51.
ParhankangasA.RenkoM. (2017). Linguistic style and crowdfunding success among social and commercial entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(2), 215–236.
52.
PennerL. A.CraigerJ. P.FritzscheB. A.FreifeldT. S. (2014). Measuring the prosocial personality. In ButcherJ. N.SpielbergerC. D. (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (pp. 147–164). Psychology Press.
53.
QasemiZadehB.BuitelaarP.ChenT.BordeaG. (2012). Semi-Supervised Technical Term Tagging With Minimal User Feedback [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 617–621. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
54.
RenJ.RaghupathiV.RaghupathiW. (2021). Exploring the subjective nature of crowdfunding decisions. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 15, e00233.
55.
SavinoT.PetruzzelliA. M.AlbinoV. (2017). Search and recombination process to innovate: A review of the empirical evidence and a research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 54–75.
56.
ScheafD. J.DavisB. C.WebbJ. W.CoombsJ. E.BornsJ.HollowayG. (2018). Signals’ flexibility and interaction with visual cues: Insights from crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(6), 720–741.
57.
ShaneS. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.
58.
ShortJ. C.KetchenD. J.McKennyA. F.AllisonT. H.IrelandR. D. (2017). Research on crowdfunding: Reviewing the (very recent) past and celebrating the present. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 149–160.
StankoM. A.HenardD. H. (2017). Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding, openness and the consequences for innovation. Research Policy, 46(4), 784–798.
61.
StarbuckW. H.MillikenF. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In HambrickD. (ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35–65). JAI Press
62.
SwaminathanV. (2003). The impact of recommendation agents on consumer evaluation and choice: The moderating role of category risk, product complexity, and consumer knowledge. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1–2), 93–101.
63.
ThompsonD. V.HamiltonR. W.RustR. T. (2005). Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 431–442.
64.
ToC.KilduffG. J.OrdonezL.SchweitzerM. E. (2018). Going for it on fourth down: Rivalry increases risk taking, physiological arousal, and promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1281–1306.
65.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). SAGE.
66.
WesselM.ThiesF.BenlianA. (2017). Opening the floodgates: The implications of increasing platform openness in crowdfunding. Journal of Information Technology, 32(4), 344–360.
67.
WoodJ.TanP.WangW.ArnoldC. (2017). Source-LDA: Enhancing probabilistic topic models using prior knowledge sources [Paper presentation]. 2017 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). San Diego, CA.
68.
WuJ. F.ShanleyM. T. (2009). Knowledge stock, exploration, and innovation: Research on the United States electromedical device industry. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 474–483.
69.
XiaoT.MakhijaM.KarimS. (2022). A knowledge recombination perspective of innovation: Review and new research directions. Journal of Management, 48(6), 1724–1777.
70.
YayavaramS.AhujaG. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2), 333–362.
71.
YayavaramS.ChenW. R. (2015). Changes in firm knowledge couplings and firm innovation performance: The moderating role of technological complexity. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 377–396.
72.
ZacharakisA. L.MeyerG. D. (1998). A lack of insight: Do venture capitalists really understand their own decision process?Journal of Business Venturing, 13(1), 57–76.
73.
ZhangH.ChenW. (2019). Backer motivation in crowdfunding new product ideas: Is it about you or is it about me?Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 241–262.
74.
ZhangY. F.DeCarloT. E.ManikasA. S.BhattacharyaA. (2022). To exploit or explore? The impact of crowdfunding project descriptions and backers’ power states on funding decisions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(2), 444–462.
75.
ZvilichovskyD.InbarY.BarzilayO. (2015). Playing both sides of the market: Success and reciprocity on crowdfunding platforms. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2304101
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
