Drivers of non-fungible token (NFT) investment intention: the roles of innovativeness, knowledge, subjective norms and perceived value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study explores key factors influencing individuals' intentions to invest in NFTs, focusing on personal innovativeness, reward sensitivity, knowledge, subjective norms, perceived value and perceived risk. The aim is to provide insights into what motivates investors within this emerging market, addressing a gap in the understanding of NFT adoption from an investor perspective. Design/methodology/approach An online survey collected data from 272 participants in China and Hong Kong. The research employs partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to assess the relationships between various individual, social and market factors and NFT investment intentions. Findings The results suggest that personal innovativeness, reward sensitivity, NFT knowledge, subjective norms and perceived value positively impact NFT investment intentions. Additionally, age and income moderate the effects of subjective norms and perceived value on investment intentions, highlighting demographic influences. Practical implications For practitioners, insights into investor motivators can inform strategies to promote NFT investments, such as promoting the high reward potential, enhancing investor knowledge, leveraging social proof and emphasizing NFTs' perceived value. For academics, the findings open pathways for further research into investor psychology and the evolving dynamics of NFT and traditional investment markets. Originality/value This study advances NFT literature by identifying determinants of NFT investment behavior, a relatively uncharted area. By incorporating theories from investment behavior and technology adoption, it provides a new framework to understand the psychological and social drivers specific to NFT investments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".