Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 407

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cultural Differences and Geography as Determinants of Online Prosocial Lending1

Burtch, Gordon, Ghose, Anindya, Wattal, Sunil·2014·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze patterns of transaction between individuals using data drawn from Kiva.org, a global online crowdfunding platform that facilitates prosocial, peer-to-peer lending. Our analysis, which employs an aggregate dataset of country-to-country lending volumes based on more than three million individual lending transactions that took place between 2005 and 2010, considers the dual roles of geographic distance and cultural differences on lenders’ decisions about which borrowers to support. While cultural differences have seen extensive study in the Information Systems literature as sources of friction in extended interactions, here, we argue and demonstrate their role in individuals’ selection of a transaction partner. We present evidence that lenders do prefer culturally similar and geographically proximate borrowers. An analysis of the marginal effects indicates that an increase of one standard deviation in the cultural differences between lender and borrower countries is associated with 30 fewer lending actions, while an increase of one standard deviation in physical distance is associated with 0.23 fewer lending actions. We also identify a substitution effect between cultural differences and physical distance, such that a 50 percent increase in physical distance is associated with an approximate 30 percent decline in the effect of cultural differences. Considering approaches to overcoming the observed cultural effect, we offer some empirical evidence of the potential of IT-based trust mechanisms, focusing on Kiva’s reputation rating system for microfinance intermediaries. We discuss the implications of our findings for prosocial lending, online crowdfunding, and electronic markets more broadly.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2014/38.3.07

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 407

Metadata

Authors
Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2014-09-01
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
773-794
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W3125005799
Cited by
407
References
11
FWCI
59.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cultural Differences and Geography as Determinants of Online Prosocial Lending1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.25300/misq/2014/38.3.07
The paper
Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2014). Cultural Differences and Geography as Determinants of Online Prosocial Lending1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2014/38.3.07

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.