What Makes Peer Fundraisers Successful? Examining Peer‐to‐Peer Fundraising Success in the Context of Peer‐to‐Peer Nonprofit–Business Collaboration

Hesse, Laura; Boenigk, Silke Article — Published Version What Makes Peer Fundraisers Successful? Examining Peer‐ to‐Peer Fundraising Success in the Context of Peer‐to‐Peer Nonprofit–Business Collaboration Nonprofit Management and Leadership Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Hesse, Laura; Boenigk, Silke (2024) : What Makes Peer Fundraisers Successful? Examining Peer‐to‐Peer Fundraising Success in the Context of Peer‐to‐Peer Nonprofit–Business Collaboration, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, ISSN 1542-7854, Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Hoboken, USA, Vol. 35, Iss. 3, pp. 571-592, https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21630 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/319357 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2025; 35:571–592 https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21630 571 Nonprofit Management and Leadership RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS What Makes Peer Fundraisers Successful? Examining Peer- to- Peer Fundraising Success in the Context of Peer- to- Peer Nonprofit– Business Collaboration LauraHesse | SilkeBoenigk Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Correspondence: Laura Hesse ([email protected]) Received: 14 June 2023 | Revised: 17 July 2024 | Accepted: 13 August 2024 Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Keywords: direct observable data | fundraising best practices | online philanthropy | signaling theory | social network approach | web crawling ABSTRACT To advance the conceptual understanding of what drives peer- to- peer fundraising success, this study takes a first step toward conceptualizing antecedents of peer fundraiser success based on a realworld nonprofit– business collaboration. Drawing on social network and signaling theories, combined with knowledge from peer- to- peer fundraising literature, the authors developed and tested a midrange theorydriven framework of peer fundraising success. The study collected observable data from a peer- to- peer collaboration between UNICEF and Les Mills, labeled “Workout for Water” campaign, and analyzed a unique dataset of 1899 fitness instructors who were engaged in the campaign as peer fundraisers. By contrasting characteristics and actions of successful and unsuccessful peer fundraisers, the empirical evidence from the twopart model affirms several antecedents distinguishing between those peer fundraisers who achieve fundraising success and those who do not. The personal efforts to initiate additional actions and peer fundraiser's professional reputation within the peer community are particularly important. Furthermore, personalizing the individual's online fundraising page is important for overcoming the barrier of receiving no donations. As a key implication for practice, we present how to better realize peer- to- peer fundraising campaigns within a nonprofit– business collaboration setting. 1 | Introduction Over the past decade, peer- to- peer fundraising has attracted increasing attention from both scholars and practitioners (Castillo, Petrie, and Wardell2014; Chapman, Masser, and Louis2019; Hesse and Boenigk2023; Martin and Schlereth2020; Meer2011; Scharf and Smith2016; Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright2015). Nonprofit scholars, exemplified by Chapman, Masser, and Louis(2019), Hesse and Boenigk(2023), and Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright(2015), have started to explore peer- to- peer fundraising in terms of its distinction from traditional fundraising or crowdfunding approaches (van Teunenbroek, Dalla Chiesa, and Hesse2023). These authors share the common understanding that peer- to- peer fundraising is a specific fundraising strategy in which private individuals, referred to as peer fundraisers, operate as advocates for their favorite social causes by actively reaching out to other individuals, referred to as peer donors, on behalf of a nonprofit organization (Chapman, Masser, and Louis2019, 573). The American Heart Walk, for example, is recognized as the largest U.S. peer- to- peer campaign (American Heart Association2024). Association supporters engage as peer fundraisers, encouraging their private social network (family and friends) to donate toward research on cardiovascular health in exchange for their involvement in the walk. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2024 The Author(s). Nonprofit Management & Leadership published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. 572 Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2025 Nonprofit practitioners acknowledge the growing significance of peer- to- peer fundraising in the sector; however, they highlight the substantial impact of crises such Covid- 19 on its success. The number of participants in U.S. peer- to- peer fundraising campaigns declined from approximately 6 million in 2016 to 2.2 million people in 2020 (Hessekiel 2022). Consequently, many nonprofit organizations are actively working to increase participation in peer- to- peer campaigns to secure success. Against this background, a burgeoning field of research has emerged, focusing on peer- to- peer fundraising success and its antecedents (Chapman, Masser, and Louis 2019; Hesse and Boenigk2023; Meer2011; Priante et al.2021). Based on reviewing this literature, we identify at least three research gaps which we address in our study. The first research gap concerns the theoretical understanding of peer- to- peer fundraising success. Previous peer fundraising studies have primarily adopted a donorcentric perspective, evaluating success based on individual donation amounts and identifying factors such as strong social ties (Meer2011), relational altruism (Scharf and Smith2016), and donor inspiration (Hesse and Boenigk 2023). However, previous literature emphasizes the significance of adopting a fundraisercentric perspective, as donorcentric studies often regard (peer) fundraising activities merely as initial triggers for donations (Breeze, Day Lafferty, and Wiepking2023). This narrow focus neglects the nuanced understanding of diverse fundraising strategies and the characteristics of fundraisers. This is particularly critical given the evidence demonstrating that solicitation methods significantly impact both the likelihood and the magnitude of donations (Andreoni, Rao, and Trachtman2017). In peer- to- peer fundraising literature, the fundraisercentric perspective remains fragmented, creating a gap in understanding the antecedents from the peer fundraiser's viewpoint. We aim to address this gap by theorizing and conceptualizing relevant antecedents and assess success based on the total donations raised by individual fundraisers within a campaign. The second gap is related to the conceptualization and measurement of peer- to- peer fundraising success in comparison to nonsuccess. According to the fundamentals of social impact measurement outlined by Ebrahim and Rangan(2014), a comprehensive evaluation of various outcomes, including zerooutcomes, is essential for assessing the impact of an action. This involves comparing groups such as successful versus unsuccessful fundraisers to gain deeper insights beyond success stories (Fan- Osuala, Zantedeschi, and Jank 2018). However, the few studies that have already took a fundraisercentric view have excluded peer fundraisers who have raised no donations from their empirical analyses (Chapman, Masser, and Louis2019; Scharf and Smith2016) or did not explore the reasons for the lack of success of some peer fundraisers (Priante et al.2021). To address this gap, our second aim is to identify the antecedents that distinguish successful from unsuccessful peer fundraisers. The third gap pertains to the context of peer- to- peer fundraising campaigns. With the rise of corporate– nonprofit fundraising initiatives, these campaigns increasingly transcend transactions with family and friends. In this expanded context, peer fundraisers collaborate with individuals outside their close social networks for specific social causes. A notable example is the 2024 Workout for Water (WFW) campaign by Les Mills supporting UNICEF New Zealand (www.worko utfor water.org). This context introduces new actors, such as forprofit companies and their employees, into peer- to- peer campaigns. As a result, communication, financial transactions, and overall planning become more complex (Priante et al.2021; Saxton and Wang 2014). Previous research has predominantly focused on peer interactions within private settings (Chapman, Masser, and Louis2019; Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright2015), leaving a gap in understanding peer- to- peer nonprofit– business contexts (Hesse and Boenigk2023; Lin et al.2019). Therefore, this study aims to deepen knowledge of the specifics of peer- to- peer fundraising within a nonprofit– business framework. Our contribution to the peer- to- peer fundraising literature is threefold. First, this study is among the first to develop a framework on antecedents driving peer- to- peer fundraising success. Second, our work is among the first that compares successful and unsuccessful peer fundraisers within one campaign, therewith contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of success (Ebrahim and Rangan2014). Third, our emphasis on peer- to- peer fundraising within a nonprofit– business collaboration context adds a novel dimension to the literature, providing insights into unexplored dynamics in this collaborative setting. Further, our study has practical contributions for fundraising management by identifying crucial drivers of peer fundraiser success. This offers actionable guidance for preselecting effective peer fundraisers and provides specific recommendations to enhance their fundraising success. 2 | Conceptualizing Antecedents of Peer- to- Peer Fundraising Success 2.1 | Theoretical Positioning of the Study The present study is positioned within middlerange theory. The concept of middlerange theory was first introduced by Merton(1968). It serves as a theoretical framework that bridges the gap between highly abstract theories (grand theories) and specific empirical observation within a particular domain (Brodie, Saren, and Pels2011; Stank et al.2017). Grand theories attempt to explain a wide range of phenomena (Weick1989), whereas middlerange theories rely on existing evidence within a specific field of study to develop a contextspecific understanding of relationships between constructs and the conditions under which they occur (Merton 1968). Weick (1989) argues that middlerange theories are essential, countering the tendency of grand theories being overadaptable, with all assumptions remaining plausible. Scholars from various disciplines, such as service (Brodie, Saren, and Pels2011), logistics (Stank et al.2017), and marketing (Woodside2003), have applied this approach to address realworld problems. We argue that the need for a refined conceptual grounding of peer- to- peer fundraising success is evident in its distinct nature from traditional fundraising with a new actor— the peer fundraiser— being introduced in the network. This shift challenges the traditional fundraising assumptions centered on the dyadic donor– nonprofit organization relationship (Bhati and 573 Mc Donnell 2020; Sargeant 2001), instead emphasizing the significance of personal connections (Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright2015) between the peer fundraiser and donor. Moreover, as communication and donation transactions increasingly occur between the peer donor and peer fundraiser, often facilitated by social media platforms (Lin et al.2019), the imperative for a redefined comprehension of peer fundraising success beyond the traditional dyadic understanding is emphasized. Middlerange theorizing aligns well with this need. By synthesizing previous findings from fundraising literature, connecting limited but realistic assumptions to more general hypotheses, it facilitates the extension of knowledge within peer- to- peer research. Following the guidelines provided by Stank et al.(2017), in a first step, we reviewed the literature on peer- to- peer fundraising (Chapman, Masser, and Louis2019; Hesse and Boenigk2023; Meer2011; Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright2015) and identified potentially relevant antecedents. Second, we reflected on previous conceptual frameworks, in particular the “peer engagement behavior model” by Lin et al.(2019), and then developed our own theoretical rationale based on social network theory combined with signaling theory. Drawing on these theories, we formulate specific, testable hypotheses, creating a link between theories and tangible observations. 2.2 | Review of Academic Peer- to- Peer Literature Our work is related to a body of conceptual and empirical studies from two areas of research that provide insights into antecedents of peer- to- peer fundraising success. First, we draw on studies within the peer- to- peer fundraising literature to provide existing knowledge in the domain (e.g., Chapman, Masser, and Louis2019; Hesse and Boenigk2023; Meer2011). Second, we complement this knowledge with findings from the peer engagement literature within the service domain (Lin et al.2019) which provides us with a more comprehensive conceptualization. AppendixA summarizes the main findings of these studies and shows how our work is distinct. A review of the related literature reveals three key observations. 2.2.1 | Peer- to- Peer Fundraising: Donor- Centric View in a Private Setting The early studies in peer- to- peer fundraising literature have predominantly adopted a donorcentric view (Meer 2011; Scharf and Smith2016; Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright2015). Emphasizing the individual donation decision by a peer donor as the main outcome of success, these studies specifically focus on scenarios where peer donors are from close social networks of peer fundraisers and aim to identify antecedents influencing the donation decision. For example, based on data from 18,060 alumni of a large university in the United States, Meer(2011) identified strong social ties and shared characteristics as key antecedents impacting both the likelihood of donation and the donated amount. Furthermore, Scharf and Smith (2016) and Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright (2015) investigated Facebook fundraisers, revealing that the majority of donations in their dataset originated from family members, friends, or work colleagues. Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright(2015) empirically confirmed the information on earlier donations on a peer- to- peer fundraising platform as significant antecedent, influencing subsequent donations. Scharf and Smith(2016) revealed a negative correlation between the size of the fundraiser group and the amount of donations given by peer donors, highlighting group size as an antecedent. In smaller groups, peer donors exhibit a greater concern for the peer fundraiser reaching their goals, leading to increased donations— a phenomenon they call relational altruism. 2.2.2 | Peer- to- Peer Fundraising: Peer Fundraiser- Centric View in a Private Setting In recent years, there has been a paradigm shift with an emerging body of studies taking a peer fundraisercentric approach (Chapman, Masser, and Louis2019; Priante et al.2021; Sepehri et al.2021). Emphasizing the total amount raised by an individual fundraiser as a measure of success, these studies specifically focused on identifying success antecedents in private settings. This literature stream has collectively identified ten antecedents and six control variables influencing the amount of donations collected by a peer fundraiser, which we broadly categorize into three categories. The first category of antecedents primarily centers around the actions taken by peer fundraisers to enhance donation outcomes. Chapman, Masser, and Louis (2019) identified that peer fundraisers who (1) identify more strongly with the selected charity, (2) take more actions to solicit donations, (3) signal their personal investment, (4) signal the efficacy of the charity, and (5) aim for a high target were more successful in raising donations. Other bestpractice actions that have been emphasized in previous research include participation in an online fundraising group, being highly active on Twitter (Priante et al.2021), and the usage of indirect fundraising appeals (e.g., narratives written in the third person) compared with direct appeals (e.g., narratives written in the first person) (Sepehri et al.2021). The second category of antecedents encompasses social networkrelated antecedents. Priante et al.(2021) confirmed that fundraisers with a moderate level of centrality on Twitter and who participated in online fundraising groups collected higher donation amounts for the Movember campaign. Furthermore, they empirically show the curvilinear effect of groups size on donation amounts. The third category of antecedents are fundraiserrelated personal attributes, which have been treated as controls. Priante et al.(2021) found that being male, having a high income, possessing campaign experience, and serving as a group captain positively influence donation amounts in the peer- to- peer fundraising context. 2.2.3 | Peer- to- Peer Fundraising in a Nonprofit– Business Collaboration Context Research within the service literature, led by Lin et al.(2019) conceptualized peer engagement behaviors in a peer- to- peer business context proposing a definition and characteristics, as well as a set of research questions for future research. Drawing on social network theory, Lin et al.'s(2019) peer engagement behavior framework contains three categories of antecedents: (1) peer providerbased antecedents, comparable to peer fundraisers, involving factors initiated by the peer provider, such as service quality, reputation, and information exchange; (2) 574 Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2025 peercustomer- based antecedents, resembling peer donors, encompassing considerations such as cost– benefit analysis and relationship quality; and (3) peerplatform- based antecedents, involving platform interactivity and signaling. These insights provide a theoretical foundation for the conceptual development of our study on peer- to- peer fundraising success, as Lin et al.(2019, 398) proposed that “peers display greater degrees of engagement behaviors” if they interact in an altruistic and socialdriven peer context. 2.3 | Conceptual Framework Figure 1 provides a visual representation of our conceptual framework of antecedents driving peer fundraising success. It consists of three main elements: the peer- to- peer network structure in nonprofit– business collaboration, antecedents from a peer fundraisercentric view, and the individual peer fundraiser success as the intended success outcome under study. As previously mentioned, the conceptualization is theorydriven at a midrange level, and grounded in social network and signaling theories, aligning with previous research (Lin et al.2019; Priante et al.2021; Saxton and Wang2014). 2.3.1 | Peer- to- Peer Network Structure Social network theory outlines how relationship structures organized within a social network of social actors (such as individuals, organizations, or groups) influence behaviors of and resource exchanges between those actors (Burt 1997). Therefore, social networks are conceptualized as social structures that extend beyond isolated dyadic relationships (Krause, Croft, and James2007). Actors within these networks are linked by various social ties and relationships that influence the behaviors of others within the same network (Burt1997). This is in line with the notion of Lin et al.(2019). Consequently, we first visually capture the interconnectedness of key actors involved in a peer- to- peer nonprofit– business collaboration, including peer fundraisers, peer donors, nonprofit organizations, and forprofit organizations (Figure1). These actors collaboratively work toward supporting a specific social cause, often on peer platforms enabling communication and resource exchange (Lin et al. 2019). Further, social network theory argues that not all links within the social network hold equal importance (Brass2022; Kilduff and Brass2010). Certain actors may occupy central positions, serving as connectors between various actors in the network, whereas others may play more secondary roles. Although we acknowledge that the success of the peer- to- peer fundraising campaign is dependent on the social relationships between all actors, our conceptual framework primarily focuses on peer fundraiserrelated antecedents. This is supported by social network theory for two reasons. First, peer fundraisers serve as a bridge between peer donors and nonprofit organizations, facilitating connections and information flow (Brass2022; Burt1992). Second, the centrality of peer fundraisers contributes to the overall network's stability. Social network theory highlights that the removal of central actors can significantly impact network dynamics (Brass2022). 2.3.2 | Peer Fundraiser- Related Antecedents As shown in Figure1, we conceptualize three categories of antecedents that we posit influence the individual success of peer fundraisers: peer fundraisers' individual fundraising page characteristics, peer fundraisers' personal effort, and peer fundraiser's professional reputation. The first category is based in Lin et al.'s(2019) arguments that peer- to- peer campaigns are most often realized on online platforms and therefore platformrelated factors and communication (e.g., standard text, colors, visuals) are highly relevant for the peer- to- peer campaign success. This reasoning is also embedded in signaling theory. According to signaling theory, signals (e.g., text messages, visuals) are employed to effectively communicate credible information about the signalers' (peer fundraisers) qualities or attributes, aiming to diminish uncertainty and facilitate decisionmaking of the receiver; in our context, the decision of the peer donor to donate (Conelly et al.2011; Spence2002; Taj2016). The second category of antecedents that we conceptualize is the personal FIGURE 1 | Framework of antecedents driving peer fundraising success. 575 effort signaled by a peer fundraiser. Thereby, our conceptualization aligns with the concept of “costly signaling” (Kharouf et al. 2020) within the framework of signaling theory. This underscores the significance of individuals undertaking actions that involve a considerable investment of time, effort, or resources, creating signals that are challenging for those individuals with lower commitment to replicate. Specifically, by putting personal effort into the campaign beyond the comparatively smaller task of individualizing the fundraising page, the peer fundraiser signals a profound commitment and dedication. The third category of antecedents that we conceptualize is the peer fundraisers' professional reputation. Within the framework of signaling (Spence2002), reputation can be regarded as a signal of trustworthiness which leads to success. Reputation can be conceptualized differently depending on the context. In a business context, it is likely that the position of an individual is related to the signaled reputation. In the next section, we develop a single hypothesis for each factor visualized in Figure1. We are aware that other antecedents could exist that potentially affect peer fundraisers' individual success. However, our conceptual framework is rooted in midrange theory and therewith prioritizes observable phenomena from our realworld example. 2.3.3 | Success Outcome Distinct from previous conceptualizations of success, our framework encompasses a dual perspective. First, we investigate the binary nature of success and nonsuccess, echoing the proposition by Fan- Osuala, Zantedeschi, and Jank(2018) that a comparative analysis of successful and unsuccessful peer fundraisers provides a profound understanding of the patterns leading to fundraising success; this is further anchored in impact literature (Ebrahim and Rangan2014). Second, our conceptualization extends to quantify success, placing particular emphasis on the individual donation amounts raised in successful cases. The exact amount of donations received provides further insights into the effectiveness of different antecedents (signals) in driving success. 2.4 | Hypotheses Development 2.4.1 | Peer Fundraiser's Individual Fundraising Page Characteristics We propose peer fundraisers' individual fundraising page characteristics as the first category of antecedents influencing fundraisers' success. Particularly, in the nonprofit– business collaboration context, peer fundraisers interact with donors primarily through a campaignspecific platform (Lin et al.2019). Based on signaling theory (Spence2002), the platform can thus be regarded as a medium through which peer fundraisers (signalers) can transmit signals to peer donors (receivers). These signals refer to specific characteristics of individual peer fundraiser pages that serve as indicators of their credibility, commitment, and effort. This could include updates made to the fundraising page (Chapman, Masser, and Louis2019), shared personal stories (Sepehri et al. 2021), or the level of engagement through direct messages. Chapman, Masser, and Louis (2019) underscore the significance of individual pages, revealing a positive correlation between actions taken by peer fundraisers, such as updating their pages, and increased donation amounts received by peer fundraisers. Within our target campaign, we propose three specific characteristics serving as signals, and therewith as key antecedents to success. The first characteristic is the individualized text message on the individual fundraising webpage. Research suggests that the donation appeal text is a key element in the success of an online campaign (Geiger and Moore2022; Sepehri et al.2021). For example, using a metaanalytical approach, Geiger and Moore(2022) found that the amount and style of text used to describe a crowdfunding campaign are positively associated with fundraising success. We argue that the individualization of text messages serves as an intentional strategic signaling element to communicate information to peer donors. In our research context, peer fundraisers could follow standard communication to promote the project or interact with others in a more individualized manner. Building on Majumdar and Bose's (2018) arguments, we hypothesize that the individualization of the text message enhances its persuasive impact by signaling the importance of the campaign to the peer fundraiser. Thus, we hypothesize the following: H1a. Providing an individualized text message on the individual fundraising page is positively related to the total donation amount received by the peer fundraiser. The second characteristic is the personalized visual of the peer fundraiser. Existing literature on fundraising communication underscores the positive impact of visuals on fundraising success (Kim2020). However, a notable gap exists in the exploration of the influence of personalized visuals of peer fundraisers on their fundraising success. Informed by signaling theory, we posit that displaying a personalized visual creates a more meaningful connection between the peer fundraiser and donors. We hypothesize that this enhanced personal connection increases the likelihood of fundraising success for peer fundraisers. Therefore, our hypothesis posits that, within the framework of signaling theory, the personalization of visuals acts as a signal, influencing the peer- to- peer fundraising success in the context of nonprofit– business collaboration. Thus, we hypothesize the following: H1b. Providing a personalized visual on the individual fundraising page is positively related to the total donation amount received by peer fundraisers. The third characteristic is setting a personalized fundraising target to signal a specific monetary goal to potential donors. Literature on peer- to- peer fundraising discusses the potential effects related to setting a personalized fundraising target, which are conceptually distinct (Argo et al. 2020; Chapman, Masser, and Louis2019; Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright2015). First, literature indicates that simply displaying a personalized fundraising target on fundraising pages has a positive impact on the donation behavior of peer donors (Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright2015). Second, similarly, Argo et al.(2020) suggest the existence of a “completion effect” in charitable crowdfunding. Having a fundraising target may be beneficial because donors aim to be the ones who complete the campaign by making a 576 Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2025 donation that reaches the target and therefore make larger donations. Third, Chapman, Masser, and Louis(2019) highlight the importance of communicating the target amount on a peer fundraiser's fundraising page. Accounting for whether the peer fundraisers in a campaign changed the standard target suggested by the fundraising page, they report significant empirical proof for the relation between setting a higher fundraising target than suggested and the subsequent money raised. Therefore, we argue that the signal of a personalized fundraising target fosters fundraising success, as donors are likely to adopt the target of the fundraiser as their own. Distinct from Chapman, Masser, and Louis(2019), we consider the actual target amount. Thus, we hypothesize the following: H1c. The amount of the personalized fundraising target on the individual fundraising page is positively related to the total donation amount received by the peer fundraiser. We assume that this effect appears if the donors perceive the target amount as realistic (Kamatham et al.2021). 2.5 | Peer Fundraiser's Personal Effort We acknowledge that fundraisers' personal effort is likely to generate a reciprocal response from donors, driven by the motivation to contribute in exchange for the effort (Argo et al.2020; Scharf and Smith 2016). This reciprocity is grounded in the premise of signaling theory that individuals are inclined to reciprocate when faced with signals of commitment and effort. We define peer fundraisers' personal effort as additional actions, beyond the appearance of the webpage, undertaken by peer fundraisers to raise money successfully. We contextualize two forms of personal effort. First, personal effort is observable in the form of investing extra time to raise funds; more specifically, through the initiation of additional actions for promoting the social cause. An example is when a peer fundraiser realizes an additional offline or online event or challenge to support the fundraising. This form of personal effort creates the impression that the peer fundraiser cares about the social cause and the community (Breeze and Jollymore2017). Thus, we hypothesize the following: H2a. Initiating additional actions for promoting a peer fundraising campaign is positively related to the total donation amount received by the peer fundraiser. Second, personal effort is observable in the form of investing one's own money. We expect peer fundraisers to make a selfdonation to the social cause on their individual fundraising webpage through the same donation process as the peer donors to be more successful. There is a lack of information regarding selfdonation in the peer fundraising context. We believe that selfdonation behavior is especially important in the nonprofit– business collaboration context, as peer fundraisers and donors have a looser relationship. Therefore, investing one's own money can have a strong signaling effect showing that the peer fundraiser cares not only about the fundraising but also about the wellbeing of the beneficiaries. Indeed, drawing on a crowdfunding context, Du, Wang, and Meng (2020) report that a selfdonation positively impacts the probability of a charitable project achieving fundraising success and increases the number of donations in that it attracts donors by signaling quality. The authors anchor this effect on the theory of warmglow (Andreoni1990). Therefore, we assume that selfdonation within peer- to- peer fundraising may be a signal of quality; however, we also argue that selfdonation may signal the trust and care on the part of the peer fundraiser. Hence, we hypothesize the following: H2b. Making selfdonations to the individual fundraising page is positively related to the total donation amount received by the peer fundraiser. 2.6 | Peer Fundraiser's Professional Reputation Based on social network theory (Burt 1992), we consider the peer fundraiser's professional reputation within the peer network as success antecedent. Empirical evidence is limited, but the importance of a peer fundraiser's reputation within the peer community for fundraising success has been indicated (Priante et al.2021; Scharf and Smith2016). Studies have highlighted that the reputation of peer fundraisers results in a larger peer network, which in turn results in more potential donors (Scharf and Smith 2016). For example, Rindova, Pollock, and Hayward (2006) suggest that an individual's position within a network is often influenced by the formal position the individual holds. In our context, a peer fundraiser's reputation is based on their professional rank as a fitness instructor. Fitness instructors with a higher rank are likely to have a greater reputation, a larger peer network, and signal more trustworthiness. Consequently, we assume that peer fundraisers who have earned a higher rank within the peer fitness community have a higher professional reputation as fundraisers. Thus, we hypothesize the following: H3. A peer fundraiser's higher professional rank within the peer community is positively related to the total donation amount received by the peer fundraiser. 2.6.1 | Controls Several variables should be controlled for in our study context. However, based on the available data, we can only consider peer fundraisers' sociodemographic characteristics in terms of sex and country as controls. Fundraising studies have confirmed the impact of sociodemographic factors on fundraising success (Dale et al.2018). For example, Priante et al.(2021) found male fundraisers to be more successful. Regarding the influence of the country, we respond to the call of Chapman, Masser, and Louis(2019) and test peer effects in different cultural contexts. 3 | Methods 3.1 | Research Context Our research context is the WFW peer- to- peer campaign 2019, initiated by Les Mills and UNICEF. The WFW project's social mission is to provide every child in East Africa with access to 577 clean water (for the current 2024 campaign see: WorkO utFor Water.org). Worldwide, the Les Mills network consists of about 20,000 partner fitness clubs and 140,000 fitness instructors who can potentially function as peer fundraisers for the campaign. The fitness instructors can participate in the campaign by setting up an individual fundraising webpage (AppendixB) on the WFW platform, where they can raise money for the cause. All financial transactions are conducted via the platform. The platform enables the peer fundraisers to customize their fundraising pages by, for example, writing a personalized donation text, changing their picture on the webpage, and setting a personalized fundraising target. Additionally, instructors can organize offline WFW fitness events (e.g., pushup or swimming challenges) or make donations themselves. According to the official webpage, 3297 peer individuals and teams participated in the WFW campaign, raising a total of USD 590,829 (by July 5, 2022). This study is part of a large empirical project on peer- to- peer giving. As mentioned earlier, this study takes the peer fundraiser perspective and examines success factors. In a complementary project, we analyzed the context from a donor perspective (Source: not cited to avoid selfidentification). 3.2 | Data Collection and Sample For data collection, we combined two different data sources. First, we designed and implemented a Pythonbased web crawling (Thomas and Mathur2019) to collect direct observable data on the WFW campaign. We extracted all publicly available information from the individual peer fundraiser webpages, spanning from March 2019, which was the start of the campaign, to January 2021. This study employs legal web scarping as a timesaving method to collect publicly available data, ensuring ethical compliance with platform terms. Although web crawling offers efficiency in collecting large datasets, which enhances research innovation and provides an alternative to traditional approaches such as survey data, thus overcoming measurement biases, it is crucial to acknowledge the challenges associated with its use (Luscombe, Dick, and Walby2022). These include technical complexities, legal and ethical considerations, potential disruption to website performance, and the perception of researchers as hackers. These considerations underscore the need for responsible and ethical use of web scraping methodologies in fundraising research. Additionally, we encountered the challenge of structuring the scraped data during our research, emphasizing the importance of careful data extraction, transformation, and cleaning procedures to ensure the creation of a coherent and wellorganized dataset. Based on our web crawled data, we constructed a dataset, where each observation captured a peer fundraiser, including the characteristics of their individual fundraising webpage, their personal fundraising target, their sociodemographic characteristics, and the funds raised until that point of the campaign. To validate the extracted data, we generated a random sample of 100 individual peer fundraising webpages and manually verified the information on the web page. In total, we obtained data from 3134 fundraising pages. We manually excluded fundraising teams (two or more individuals who raised funds together) from the dataset. Furthermore, duplicates occurred because of the coded search path of the web crawler; some websites were revisited by the crawler. Our final dataset included 1899 individual peer fundraising webpages. For some analyses, we split this sample into two subsamples: successful peer fundraisers (N = 851) and unsuccessful peer fundraisers (N = 1048). Second, we collected available information on recent job descriptions of each individual peer fundraiser from various social media and business networks, such as Instagram, LinkedIn, and the Les Mills webpage, to classify the Les Mills fitness instructors by their rank within Les Mills. Table1 provides an overview of the sample characteristics. The sample includes 1899 peer fundraiser individuals, with 1299 (68.4%) women and 600 (31.6%) men. The top three currencies represented in the dataset were USD (48.6%), NZD (20.4%), and EUR (17.3%). Furthermore, we find that 1048 (55.2%) of the 1899 peer fundraisers did not raise any donations from a peer donor on their individual fundraising platform. 3.3 | Measurement Table2 provides a list of all the measures used in our study. In contrast to survey studies employing established scales, our study relies solely on observable data. In line with previous studies that have used observable fundraising data (Chapman, TABLE 1 | Sample characteristics. Variable Peer fundraiser, N = 1899 N% Sex Female 1299 68.4% Male 600 31.6% Country zone representation (currency) USA (USD) 924 48.6% New Zealand (NZD) 388 20.4% Europe (EUR) 329 17.3% United Kingdom (GBP) 117 6.2% Australia (AUD) 61 3.2% Canada (CAD) 39 2.1% Brazil (BRL R) 28 1.4% Mexico (MXN) 70.4% Japan (JPN) 60.3% Donations raised Yes 851 44.8% Noa1048 55.2% aIn total, we found 1093 peer fundraisers to have raised at least one donation. However, on 242 peer fundraisers' fundraising pages, the selfdonation was the only donation. Therefore, they are included in the unsuccessful sample. 578 Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2025 TABLE 2 | Measurements. Dimension Variables Measurement Operationalization Peer fundraiser's success: donation amount (dependent variable) Financial success Continuous Peer fundraiser's total donation amount raised on the peer platform within the study period. Selfdonations made by the peer fundraiser were deducted from the total donation amount raised Peer fundraiser's individual fundraising page characteristics (independent variable) Individualized text message 0 = no, standard default 1 = yes, personalized text Binary variable, coded as 1 if the fundraiser changed the standard default of the donation text message Personalized visuals 0 = no, standard default 1 = yes, personalized visual Binary variable, coded as 1 if the fundraiser changed the standard default of the picture Personalized fundraising target Continuous The logtransformed amount of donation targeted in USD by a peer fundraiser was displayed on the peer platform within study period Peer fundraiser's personal effort (independent variable) Initiation of additional action 0 = no additional action 1 = yes, additional action Binary variable, coded as 1 if the fundraiser initiated an additional online or offline challenge for the cause to generate donations Selfdonation 0 = no selfdonation 1 = yes, selfdonation Binary variable, coded as 1 if the fundraiser also donated to their platform webpage (by checking whether the fundraiser is listed as a donor on their own platform webpage) Peer fundraiser's professional reputation (independent variable) Professional rank within the peer community 0 = regular trainer 1 = champion Accounting for the fundraiser's professional reputation within the peer community by their job rank achieved within their fitness career. Binary variable, coded as 1 if the fundraiser is a global representatives, national trainers, assessors, and/or presenters Controls Sex 0 = female 1 = male Binary variable coded as 1 if the name algorithm identified a name as male name. We crossvalidated the gender with information on professional accounts on Instagram and LinkedIn if possible Country 1 = USA (USD) 2 = New Zealand (NZD) 3 = Europe (EUR) 4 = United Kingdom (GBP) 5 = Australia (AUD) 6 = Canada (CAD) 7 = Brazil (BRL R) 8 = Mexico (MXN) 9 = Japan (JPN) Categorical variable, measured by referring to the currency in which the peer fundraisers raised their donations 585 5.3 | Limitations and Future Research Our study presented indepth evidence from a large realworld peer- to- peer campaign. Nonetheless, some limitations could not be addressed and provide opportunities for future research. First, we only referred to direct observable data as opposed to traditional survey data, limiting our ability to fully address potential omitted variable bias. Therefore, our results need to be interpreted with caution regarding causal interpretation of the independent variables (signals). It is possible that several effects would be nonexistent if we controlled for other factors. Given that our results rely on visible signals in the campaign under study, the potential for unseen antecedents underscores the need for cautious interpretation. Future research should consider employing additional survey approaches and experimental studies to comprehensively examine unintentional signals that may influence the dynamics of peer- to- peer fundraising, aligning with Popper's(1972) emphasis on actively seeking evidence that challenges or refines existing conceptualizations. Second, our theoretical foundation and framework needs to be further improved. Our results are based on a specific peer- to- peer fundraising campaign in a business– nonprofit collaboration context, in which peer fundraisers are not necessarily related to the nonprofit organization outside the campaign, limiting their generalizability to private settings. We believe this holds especially true for the findings on the peer fundraiser reputation, which, we argue, is likely to be context specific. We invite future research to test the validity of this finding in various contexts and actively seek evidence that may challenge this finding. Third, we want to encourage researchers to extend the current knowledge on the relationships between the different actors involved in peer- to- peer fundraising and its success (Chapman et al.2022). Our conceptualization indicates that nonprofit organizations currently occupy a decentralized position in the network. However, for sustained engagement and relationships with both peer fundraisers and donors, a nonprofit organization should aim for a more central role in the long term. Simultaneously, it is an interesting research question to address the longterm beneficial outcome for nonprofit organizations and therewith refine the existing knowledge. In conclusion, future research can enhance our conceptual framework by validating and reinforcing existing theories in the realm of peer- to- peer fundraising. Inspired by Karl Popper's philosophy of theory falsification (Popper1972), researchers can employ empirical testing and the falsifiability criterion to challenge or refine our prevailing conceptualizations. Connected to Popper's philosophy, we therefore view our identified limitations not as constraints but as integral aspects that inspire the iterative process of scientific inquiry. The ongoing refinement of theories, expansion of methodologies, and exploration of diverse contexts will contribute to the advancement of knowledge within the dynamic landscape of peer- to- peer fundraising. Acknowledgments Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References American Heart Association. 2024. “Heart Walk Landing Page.” https:// w w w 2.heart.org/site/SPage Ser ve r/?pagen ame=Heart Walk_ Landi ng_Page. Andreoni, J. 1990. “Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm- Glow Giving.” The Economic Journal 100, no. 401: 464–477. Andreoni, J., J. M. Rao, and H. Trachtman. 2017. “Avoiding the Ask: A Field Experiment on Altruism, Empathy, and Charitable Giving.” Journal of Political Economy 125, no. 3: 625–653. Argo, N., D. Klinowski, T. Krishnamurti, and S. Smith. 2020. “The Completion Effect in Charitable Crowdfunding.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 172, no. April: 17–32. Becker, A. 2018. “An Experimental Study of Voluntary Nonprofit Accountability and Effects on Public Trust, Reputation, Perceived Quality, and Donation Behavior.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 47, no. 3: 562–582. Belotti, F., P. Deb, W. G. Manning, and E. C. Norton. 2015. “Twopm: Two- Part Models.” The Stata Journal 15, no. 1: 3–20. Bhati, A., and D. Mc Donnell. 2020. “Success in an Online Giving day: The Role of Social Media in Fundraising.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 49, no. 1: 74–92. Blevins, C., and L. Mullen. 2015. “Jane, John…Leslie? A Historical Method for Algorithmic Gender Prediction.” DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly 9, no. 3: 2–2.1. Brass, D. J. 2022. “New Developments in Social Network Analysis.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 9: 225–246. Breeze, B., D. Day Lafferty, and P. Wiepking, eds. 2023. The Fundraising Reader. 1st ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/97810 03145936. Breeze, B., and G. Jollymore. 2017. “Understanding Solicitation: Beyond the Binary Variable of Being Asked or Not Being Asked.” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 22, no. 4: e1607. Brodie, R. J., M. Saren, and J. Pels. 2011. “Theorizing About the Service Dominant Logic: The Bridging Role of Middle Range Theory.” Marketing Theory 11, no. 1: 75–91. Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burt, R. S. 1997. “A Note on Social Capital and Network Content.” Social Networks 19, no. 4: 335–373. Castillo, M., R. Petrie, and C. Wardell. 2014. “Fundraising Through Online Social Networks: A Field Experiment on Peer- To- Peer Solicitation.” Journal of Public Economics 114, no. June: 29–35. Chapman, C. M., W. R. Louis, B. M. Masser, and E. F. Thomas. 2022. “Charitable Triad Theory: How Donors, Beneficiaries, and Fundraisers Influence Charitable Giving.” Psychology & Marketing 39, no. 9: 1826–1848. Chapman, C. M., B. Masser, and W. R. Louis. 2019. “The Champion Effect in Peer- To- Peer Giving: Successful Campaigns Highlight 586 Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2025 Fundraisers More Than Causes.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48, no. 3: 572–592. Conelly, B. L., S. T. Certo, R. D. Ireland, and C. R. Reutzel. 2011. “Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment.” Journal of Management 37, no. 1: 39–67. Dale, E. J., J. Ackerman, D. J. Mesch, U. O. Osili, and S. Garcia. 2018. “Giving to Women and Girls: An Emerging Area of Philanthropy.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 47, no. 2: 241–261. Du, Z., K. Wang, and M. Li. 2020. “Can Self- Donation Improve the Project Performance? The Impacts of Self- Donation in Charitable Crowdfunding.” In ICIS 2020 Proceedings - Making Digital Inclusive: Blending the Local and Global. Association for Information Systems, vol.17, 2179. Ebrahim, A., and V. K. Rangan. 2014. “What Impact? A Framework for Measuring the Scale and Scope of Social Performance.” California Management Review 56, no. 3: 118–141. Fan- Osuala, O., D. Zantedeschi, and W. Jank. 2018. “Using Past Contribution Patterns to Forecast Fundraising Outcomes in Crowdfunding.” International Journal of Forecasting 34, no. 1: 30–44. Gazley, B., and C. Guo. 2020. “What Do We Know About Nonprofit Collaboration? A Systematic Review of the Literature.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership 31, no. 2: 211–232. Geiger, M., and K. Moore. 2022. “Attracting the Crowd in Online Fundraising: A Meta- Analysis Connecting Campaign Characteristics to Funding Outcomes.” Computers in Human Behavior 128, no. March 2022: 107061. Grant, A. M. 2008. “Employees Without a Cause: The Motivational Effects of Prosocial Impact in Public Service.” International Public Management Journal 11, no. 1: 48–66. Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Heres- Del- Valle, D., and D. Niemeier. 2011. “CO2 Emissions: Are Land- Use Changes Enough for California to Reduce VMT? Specification of a Two- Part Model With Instrumental Variables.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 45, no. 1: 150–161. Hesse, L., and S. Boenigk. 2023. “Donor Inspiration in Nonprofit Management: Conceptualization and Measurement in a Peer- To- Peer Context.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership 34, no. 2: 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21566. Hessekiel, D. 2022. “An Uptick at Last: Peer- To- Peer Fundraising Grew in 2021.” Forbes, March 2008. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ david hesse kiel/2022/03/01/anuptic kat- lastpeer- topeer- fundr aisin ggrew- in- 2021/. Kamatham, S. H., P. Pahwa, J. Jiang, and N. Kumar. 2021. “Effect of Appeal Content on Fundraising Success and Donor Behavior.” Journal of Business Research 125, no. March: 827–839. Kharouf, H., D. J. Lund, A. Krallman, and C. Pullig. 2020. “A Signaling Theory Approach to Relationship Recovery.” European Journal of Marketing 54, no. 9: 2139–2170. Kilduff, A., and D. J. Brass. 2010. “Organizational Social Network Research: Core Ideas and Key Debates.” The Academy of Management Annals 4, no. 1: 317–357. Kim, K. 2020. “How Message Strategies, Visual Strategies and Technology Affordances Influence Donations on Facebook Fundraiser Pages.” Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave. ohiol ink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=bgsu1 59500 48896 50708. Krause, J., D. P. Croft, and R. James. 2007. “Social Network Theory in the Behavioural Sciences: Potential Applications.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62: 15–27. Lin, M., L. Miao, W. Wei, and H. Moon. 2019. “Peer Engagement Behaviors: Conceptualization and Research Directions.” Journal of Service Research 22, no. 4: 388–403. List, J. A., and D. Lucking- Reiley. 2002. “The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence From a University Capital Campaign.” Journal of Political Economy 110, no. 1: 215–233. Lokshin, M., and Z. Sajaia. 2004. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Endogenous Switching Regression Models.” The Stata Journal 4, no. 3: 282–289. Luscombe, A., K. Dick, and K. Walby. 2022. “Algorithmic Thinking in the Public Interest: Navigating Technical, Legal, and Ethical Hurdles to Web Scraping in the Social Sciences.” Quality & Quantity 56, no. 3: 1023–1044. Majumdar, A., and I. Bose. 2018. “My Words for Your Pizza: An Analysis of Persuasive Narratives in Online Crowdfunding.” Information & Management 55, no. 6: 781–794. Martin, B., and C. Schlereth. 2020. “Is Social Media Peer- To- Peer Fundraising a Curse or a Blessing? Analysing the Factors That Affect the Donation Amount.” In Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy, 49th, 62639. Meer, J. 2011. “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Peer Pressure in Charitable Solicitation.” Journal of Public Economics 95, no. 7– 8: 926–941. Merton, R. K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, NY: Free Press. Pierpont, R. 2011. “Capital campaigns.” In In Achieving Excellence in Fundraising, edited by E. R. Tempel, T. L. Seiler, and E. E. Aldrich, 3rd ed., 81–91. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Popper, K. R. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Priante, A., M. L. Ehrenhard, T. van den Broek, A. Need, and D. Hiemstra. 2021. ““Mo” Together or Alone? Investigating the Role of Fundraisers' Networks in Online Peer- To- Peer Fundraising.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 51, no. 5: 986–1009. Rindova, V. P., T. G. Pollock, and M. L. A. Hayward. 2006. “Celebrity Firms: The Social Construction of Market Popularity.” Academy of Management Review 31, no. 1: 50–71. Sargeant, A. 2001. “Relationship Fundraising: How to Keep Donors Loyal.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership 12, no. 2: 177–192. Saxton, G. D., and L. Wang. 2014. “The Social Network Effect: The Determinants of Giving Through Social Media.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43, no. 5: 850–868. Scharf, K., and S. Smith. 2016. “Relational Altruism and Giving in Social Groups.” Journal of Public Economics 141, no. 9: 1–10. Schmidt, A. F., and C. Finan. 2018. “Linear Regression and the Normality Assumption.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 98: 146–151. Sepehri, A., R. Duclos, K. Kristofferson, P. Vinoo, and H. Elahi. 2021. “The Power of Indirect Appeals in Peer- To- Peer Fundraising: Why “s/ he” can Raise More Money for me Than “I” Can for Myself.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 31, no. 3: 612–620. Smith, S., F. Windmeijer, and E. Wright. 2015. “Peer Effects in Charitable Giving. Evidence From the (Running) Field.” The Economic Journal 125, no. June: 1053–1071. Spence, M. 2002. “Signaling in Retrospect and the Informational Structure of Markets.” American Economic Review 92, no. 3: 434–459. Stank, T. P., D. A. Pellathy, J. In, D. A. Mollenkopf, and J. E. Bell. 2017. “New Frontiers in Logistics Research: Theorizing at the Middle Range.” Journal of Business Logistics 38, no. 1: 6–17. 587 Taj, S. A. 2016. “Application of Signaling Theory in Management Research: Addressing Major Gaps in Theory.” European Management Journal 34, no. 4: 338–348. Thomas, D. M., and S. Mathur. 2019. “Data Analysis by Web Scraping Using Python.” In 3rd International Conference on Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology, 450–454. ICECA. Uberti, L. J. 2017. “Stata tip 128: Marginal Effects in Log- Transformed Models: A Trade Application.” The Stata Journal 17, no. 3: 774–778. van Teunenbroek, C., C. Dalla Chiesa, and L. Hesse. 2023. “The Contribution of Crowdfunding for Philanthropy: A Systematic Review and Framework of Donation and Reward Crowdfunding.” Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing 28, no. 3: e1791. https://doi.org/10.1002/ nvsm.1791. Weick, K. E. 1989. “Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination.” Academy of Management Review 14, no. 4: 516–531. Woodside, A. G. 2003. “Middle- Range Theory Construction on the Dynamics of Organizational Marketing- Buying Behavior.” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 18, no. 4/5: 309–335. 588 Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2025 Appendix A Selected literature on peer- to- peer fundraising Author Peer Donor View Peer Fundraiser View Private Context Collaboration Context Antecedent Mediator/Moderator Outcome Method Key finding Meer(2011) X X (1) Social ties Shared (2) characteristics of solicitor and donor Probability of making a gift Amount of the gift Empirical Data from university alumni giving • Strong social ties between peer fundraisers and peer donors lead to higher donations • Peer fundraiser's request is more effective if they share sociodemographic characteristics with the potential donor Smith, Windmeijer, and Wright(2015) X X (1) Information on earlier donations on the platform (1) Target amount on fundraising page Amount donated online Total online raised per page Empirical Data from 12,000 fundraising pages • £10 increase in the mean of past donations increases giving by £2.50, on average • If the peer platform signals an overall fundraising goal, peer donors are more likely to donate Scharf and Smith(2016) X X (1) Group size (2) Charity characteristics (3) Controls: fundraiser characteristics (gender, age, and income), fundraising event type, year/ month Main outcome: Individual donation amount Other outcomes: Total number of donations to one fundraising page Total amount raised by the fundraiser Empirical Data from 35,571 individual online fundraising pages in the UK • The size of fundraisers' online social networks is positively associated with more but smaller donations raised by fundraisers • This effect is explained by donors caring about the fundraiser's success 589 Author Peer Donor View Peer Fundraiser View Private Context Collaboration Context Antecedent Mediator/Moderator Outcome Method Key finding Chapman, Masser, and Louis(2019) X X (1) Fundraiser identification with the nonprofit organization (1) Solicitation: Emailed everyone, email reminders, asked in person (2) Investment: Update page, shared reason, uploaded photo (3) Efficacy: Donation impact, fundraising impact, shared charity information, specific donation (4) High fundraising target Actual funds raised by each peer fundraiser Empirical Survey and behavioral data from 1647 peer- to- peer fundraisers • Peer fundraisers who identify more with the cause, realize more actions, and are therefore more successful • Actions signaling the peer fundraisers' investment are more important than actions signaling the efficacy of the nonprofit organization Priante et al.(2021) X X (1) Centrality in social media communication networks (2) Participation in fundraising groups (3) Group network size Control: (1) Individual fundraiser characteristics (gender, income, experience, group captain status) (2) Social media activity (3) Fundraising tactics — Total amount of collected donations of each fundraiser Empirical Data on 3295 peer fundraisers participating in the Movember campaign on Twitter • Fundraisers with a moderate level of centrality, who participate in peer- to- peer fundraising groups collect more donations • A curvilinear effect of group size on donations amount exist • Being male, having a high income, being more experienced in the campaign, being a group captain, having a higher volume of activity positively influences the donation amount collected Sepehri et al.(2021) X X (1) Indirectness of fundraising appeals: Use of personal pronouns (1) Perceived appeal credibility Amount donated toward a campaign page Empirical (4 studies) Data from 9017 fundraising appeals posted on GoFundMe and experimental design with 200 participants via online panel • Indirect appeals lead to higher fundraising success than direct appeals • Direct appeals are associated with less credibility which negatively effects the donation amount 590 Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2025 Author Peer Donor View Peer Fundraiser View Private Context Collaboration Context Antecedent Mediator/Moderator Outcome Method Key finding Hesse and Boenigk(2023) X X (1) Source of inspiration (cause, fundraiser, both) (2) Controls: Donor characteristic and fundraiser characteristics (1) Inspirational Intensity Individual donation amount donated by peer donor Conceptual and empirical Direct observable web scraping data from 8697 peer donors • Peer donors become inspired by a source, most likely peer fundraisers, to donate to a social cause • Inspiration is a driver of peer donations, whereby donors who are inspired by both the peer fundraiser and the social cause show higher average donations Our own study X X (1) Peer fundraiser's individual fundraising page characteristics (individualized text message, personalized visuals, personalized fundraising target) (2) Peer fundraisers personal effort (Initiation of additional actions, selfdonation) (3) Peer fundraisers professional reputation — Peer fundraiser success (overall donation amount) Conceptual and empirical Direct observable web scraping data from 1899 peer fundraisers • Personalizing the individual's online fundraising page is an important factor for overcoming the barrier of receiving no donations • Personal efforts to initiate additional actions and peer fundraiser's professional reputation within the peer community drive the donation raised 591 Appendix B Example peer fundraiser page for workout for water (Source: https://www.worko utfor water.org/fundr aiser s/racha elnew sham/worko utfor- water - nz) 592 Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2025 Appendix C Correlation matrix Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1Personalized text 1.00 2Personalized visual 0.15** 1.00 3Personalized fundraising target (ln) 0.15** 0.29** 1.00 4Additional challenge 0.30** 0.14** 0.21** 1.00 5Self- donation 0.16** 0.28** 0.34** 0.18** 1.00 6Professional reputation 0.17** 0.22** 0.22** 0.30** 0.16** 1.00 7Total donations raised 0.22** 0.20** 0.26** 0.45** 0.20** 0.46** 1.00 Note: Pairwise correlation of explanatory variables *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01, Spearman– Rho correlation.