Face Value in Equity Crowdfunding: Experimental Evidence on Founder Attractiveness and Retail Investor Judgments
-
Ádám Putz
,
Zsófia Vörös
Abstract
Equity crowdfunding (ECF) platforms rely heavily on visual information while operating under pronounced information asymmetries, raising the question of whether founder facial attractiveness functions as a consequential signal in retail investors’ decision making. Drawing on signaling theory and dual-process/thin-slice accounts, we investigate whether and why founder facial attractiveness influences perceived venture success, investment amounts, and expectations of reciprocity. Using an eight-round, incentive-compatible ECF-like task, 229 lay investors evaluated AI-generated founder portraits that were rigorously pretested to manipulate facial attractiveness while holding perceived leadership suitability constant, thereby isolating the effect of attractiveness. Investor decisions were analyzed using generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and to control for individual risk propensity and demographic characteristics. Across outcomes, founders depicted as more attractive elicited higher expectations of venture success, larger investment amounts, and stronger expectations of reciprocity. These effects were robust and did not vary as a function of founder or investor sex. The findings advance signaling theory in entrepreneurial finance by demonstrating that non-diagnostic visual cues can systematically shape investor judgments when information is sparse and cognitive elaboration is constrained. In the image-forward, retail-investor context of ECF, facial attractiveness operates as a powerful platform-visible signal despite lacking intrinsic diagnostic value. Practically, the results suggest that platforms should surface diagnostic information earlier and consider debiasing prompts, while founders should complement professional imagery with verifiable signals of quality. More broadly, the study highlights the importance of ethics-by-design approaches to visual presentation in entrepreneurial finance environments involving retail investors.
Funding source: Nemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovációs Alap
Award Identifier / Grant number: TKP2021-NKTA-19
-
Funding research: Funding was supported by Nemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovációs Alap (Award No. TKP2021-NKTA-19).
-
Data availability statement: The experimental data that support the findings of this study are available in OSF under the link: https://osf.io/enr52/?view_only=4f2efd1bb2eb49e891189c51521ffbff.
Appendix A: Baseline GEE Model Results Assuming an Independent Working Correlation Structure
Results of GEE predicting perceived success.
| Parameters | β | SE | 95 % wald confidence interval | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Success expectationsa | Bankrupt | −2.440 | 0.3716 | −3.169 | −1.712 | 0.000 |
| Break even | −0.512 | 0.3462 | −1.190 | 0.167 | 0.139 | |
| Double profit | 1.488 | 0.3520 | 0.798 | 2.178 | 0.000 | |
| Non-attractive faceb | −0.465 | 0.0776 | −0.617 | −0.313 | 0.000 | |
| Male facec | −0.075 | 0.0964 | −0.264 | 0.114 | 0.435 | |
| Male participantd | −0.140 | 0.1282 | −0.392 | 0.111 | 0.274 | |
| Age | 0.006 | 0.0044 | −0.003 | 0.014 | 0.201 | |
| SES | 0.069 | 0.0662 | −0.061 | 0.199 | 0.297 | |
| Risk propensity | −0.024 | 0.0217 | −0.067 | 0.019 | 0.269 | |
-
aTriple profit reference category. bAttractive face reference category. cFemale face reference category. dFemale participant reference category. SES, socioeconomic status.
Results of the GEE predicting participants’ investments.
| Parameters | β | SE | 95 % wald confidence interval | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| Intercept | 586.268 | 73.3291 | 442.546 | 729.991 | 0.000 |
| Non-attractive facea | −59.432 | 10.8781 | −80.752 | −38.111 | 0.000 |
| Male faceb | −18.295 | 12.5254 | −42.845 | 6.254 | 0.144 |
| Male participantc | −24.921 | 31.3343 | −86.335 | 36.493 | 0.426 |
| Age | 1.516 | 0.9613 | −0.368 | 3.400 | 0.115 |
| SES | 5.398 | 16.0520 | −26.064 | 36.859 | 0.737 |
| Risk propensity | −5.367 | 5.1785 | −15.516 | 4.783 | 0.300 |
| Model QICC | 176136773.84 | ||||
-
aAttractive face reference category. bFemale face reference category. cFemale participant reference category. SES, socioeconomic status.
Results of the GEE predicting expected reciprocity.
| Parameters | β | SE | 95 % wald confidence interval | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Expected profit shareda | 0 | −2.570 | 0.852 | −4.241 | −0.899 | 0.003 |
| 25 % | −0.761 | 0.848 | −2.424 | 0.902 | 0.370 | |
| 50 % | 0.094 | 0.850 | −1.572 | 1.761 | 0.912 | |
| 75 % | 1.474 | 0.859 | −0.209 | 3.157 | 0.086 | |
| Non-attractive faceb | −0.789 | 0.129 | −1.041 | −0.536 | 0.000 | |
| Male facec | 0.261 | 0.081 | 0.102 | 0.420 | 0.001 | |
| Male participantd | 0.306 | 0.217 | −0.119 | 0.731 | 0.158 | |
| Age | 0.007 | 0.008 | −0.008 | 0.022 | 0.364 | |
| SES | −0.040 | 0.143 | −0.321 | 0.240 | 0.778 | |
| Risk propensity | −0.021 | 0.045 | −0.108 | 0.067 | 0.643 | |
-
a100 % reference category. bAttractive face reference category. cFemale face reference category. dFemale participant reference category. SES, socioeconomic status.
References
Ahlers, G. K. C., D. Cumming, C. Günther, and D. Schweizer. 2015. “Signaling in Equity Crowdfunding.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39 (3): 955–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12157.Search in Google Scholar
Allison, T. H., B. C. Davis, J. W. Webb, and J. C. Short. 2017. “Persuasion in Crowdfunding: An Elaboration Likelihood Model of Crowdfunding Performance.” Journal of Business Venturing 32 (6): 707–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.09.002.Search in Google Scholar
Bapna, S., and M. Ganco. 2021. “Gender Gaps in Equity Crowdfunding: Evidence from a Two-Stage Model.” Management Science 67 (5): 2679–710. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3644.Search in Google Scholar
Berg, J., J. Dickhaut, and K. McCabe. 1995. “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History.” Games and Economic Behavior 10 (1): 122–42. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027.Search in Google Scholar
Block, J. H., L. Hornuf, and A. Moritz. 2018. “Which Updates During an Equity Crowdfunding Campaign Increase Crowd Participation?” Small Business Economics 50 (1): 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9876-4.Search in Google Scholar
Butticè, V., and S. Vismara. 2022. “Inclusive Digital Finance: the Industry of Equity Crowdfunding.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 47 (4): 1224–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09875-0.Search in Google Scholar
Cho, M., and G. Kim. 2017. “A Cross-Cultural Comparative Analysis of Crowdfunding Projects in The United States and South Korea.” Computers in Human Behavior 72: 312–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.013.Search in Google Scholar
Dion, K., E. Berscheid, and E. Walster. 1972. “What is Beautiful is Good.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24 (3): 285–90.10.1037/h0033731Search in Google Scholar
Duarte, J., S. Siegel, and L. Young. 2012. “Trust and Credit: The Role of Appearance in Peer-To-Peer Lending.” Review of Financial Studies 25 (8): 2455–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhs071.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T., and K. E. Stanovich. 2013. “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3): 223–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685.Search in Google Scholar
Generated Photos. n.d. Academic Dataset by Generated Photos. Available from https://generated.photos/.Search in Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., and E. Mollick. 2017. “Activist Choice Homophily and the Crowdfunding of Female Founders.” Administrative Science Quarterly 62 (2): 341–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216678847.Search in Google Scholar
Holt, C. A., and S. K. Laury. 2002. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” The American Economic Review 92 (5): 1644–55. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024700.Search in Google Scholar
Hornuf, L., and A. Schwienbacher. 2018. “Market Mechanisms and Funding Dynamics in Equity Crowdfunding.” Journal of Corporate Finance 50: 556–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.08.009.Search in Google Scholar
Kerzel, D., N. Prigoda, and O. Renaud. 2024. “Do You Look Longer at Attractive Faces? It Depends on what you are Looking for.” Perception 15 (5): 20416695241286413. https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695241286413.Search in Google Scholar
Kolbe, M., S. Mansouri, and P. P. Momtaz. 2022. “Why do Video Pitches Matter in Crowdfunding?” Journal of Economics and Business 122: 106081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2022.106081.Search in Google Scholar
Kuwabara, K., and S. Thébaud. 2017. “When Beauty Doesn’t Pay: Gender and Beauty Biases in a Peer-To-Peer Loan Market.” Social Forces 95 (4): 1371–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox020.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, S., M. Pitesa, M. M. Pillutla, and S. Thau. 2015. “When Beauty Helps and When it Hurts: An Organizational Context Model of Attractiveness Discrimination in Selection Decisions.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 128: 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.02.003.Search in Google Scholar
Mahmood, A., J. Luffarelli, and M. Mukesh. 2019. “What’s in a Logo? The Impact of Complex Visual Cues in Equity Crowdfunding.” Journal of Business Venturing 34 (1): 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.09.006.Search in Google Scholar
Meoli, M., and S. Vismara. 2021. “Information Manipulation in Equity Crowdfunding: Withdrawals and Funders’ Behavior.” Journal of Corporate Finance 66: 101805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101866.Search in Google Scholar
Mollick, E. 2014. “The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Business Venturing 29 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.06.005.Search in Google Scholar
Nakamura, K., and H. Kawabata. 2014. “Attractive Faces Temporally Modulate Visual Attention.” Frontiers in Psychology 5: 620. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00620.Search in Google Scholar
Oosterhof, N. N., and A. Todorov. 2008. “The Functional Basis of Face Evaluation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (32): 11087–92. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105.Search in Google Scholar
Patel, P. C., M. T. Wolfe, and A. S. Manikas. 2021. “Logic is (Somewhat) Overrated: Image-Based Versus Concept-based Rhetoric in Crowdfunding Narratives.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 45 (6): 1508–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720976370.Search in Google Scholar
Ronen, J., T. Ronen, M. J. Zhou, and S. E. Gans. 2023. “The Informational Role of Imagery in Financial Decision Making: a New Approach.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 40: 100851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2023.100851.Search in Google Scholar
Scheaf, D. J., B. C. Davis, J. W. Webb, J. E. Coombs, J. Borns, and G. Holloway. 2018. “Signals’ Flexibility and Interaction with Visual Cues: Insights from Crowdfunding.” Journal of Business Venturing 33 (6): 720–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.04.007.Search in Google Scholar
Spence, M. 1973. “Job Market Signaling.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 87 (3): 355–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010.Search in Google Scholar
Stoet, G. 2010. “PsyToolkit: A Software Package for Programming Psychological Experiments Using Linux.” Behavior Research Methods 42 (4): 1096–104, https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096.Search in Google Scholar
Stoet, G. 2017. “PsyToolkit: A Novel Web-Based Method for Running Online Questionnaires and Reaction-Time Experiments.” Teaching of Psychology 44 (1): 24–31, https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643.Search in Google Scholar
Todorov, A., C. Y. Olivola, R. Dotsch, and P. Mende-Siedlecki. 2015. “Social Attributions from Faces: Determinants, Consequences, Accuracy.” Annual Review of Psychology 66: 519–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143831.Search in Google Scholar
Vismara, S. 2018. “Information Cascades Among Investors in Equity Crowdfunding.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 42 (3): 467–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12261.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, D., and J. Prokop. 2025. “Gender Homophily and Local Bias in Equity Crowdfunding.” Small Business Economics 64: 805–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-024-00949-5.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, R. K., and C. C. Eckel. 2006. “Judging a Book by its Cover: Beauty and Expectations in the Trust Game.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (2): 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900202.Search in Google Scholar
Zhan, J., M. Liu, O. G. Garrod, C. Daube, R. A. Ince, R. E. Jack, et al.. 2021. “Modeling Individual Preferences Reveals that Face Beauty is Not Universally Perceived Across Cultures.” Current Biology 31 (10): 2243–52.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.013.Search in Google Scholar
© 2026 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
