Effects of Sponsorship Disclosure on Brand Attitude via Resistance Strategies under Moderation of Review Valence in Online Consumer Reviews
Xintong Han 12316946
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme Communication Science
Supervisor: Ivana Bušljeta Banks 31 January 2020
Abstract
Online consumer reviews (OCRs) have become important persuasive messages in influencing consumers’ brand responses, and marketers are turning to employ sponsorship practice to encourage review writing. However, limited research has examined how consumers process sponsorship disclosure in the context of OCRs. This study aims to investigate the effects of exposure to online consumer reviews with a sponsorship disclosure on brand attitude, through the use of resistance strategies of counterarguing and source derogation. Also, the moderating role of review valence on the use of resistance strategies was examined. To answer these questions, an online experiment with a two (sponsorship disclosure: disclosure vs. no disclosure) by two (review valence: positive vs. negative) between-subjects design was conducted. In total, responses from 256 participants were used in the analysis. The results showed online consumer reviews containing a sponsorship disclosure lead to more negative brand attitude, compared to the reviews with no disclosure. However, the mediating effect of counterarguing and source derogation was not supported, although the presence of sponsorship disclosure did evoke the use of more resistance strategies. The results showed a significant interaction effect between sponsorship disclosure and review valence on source derogation, and no significant interaction between
sponsorship disclosure and review valence on counterarguing. The findings of this study provide implications for practitioners in employing sponsored online consumer reviews.
Introduction
With the development of e-commerce, online consumer reviews (OCRs) have become an important source of information that can affect consumers’ attitudes towards products and brands (Baek, Ahn, & Choi, 2012). OCRs are defined as “user-generated product evaluations posted on the websites of companies or third-party websites” (Mudambi & Schuf, 2010, p.186). As a form of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), OCRs allow consumers to access and share personal experiences and opinions about different products or services online (Hernandez-Ortega, 2019). Compared to marketer-generated content, OCRs provide more information from consumers’ perspective, such as usage situations, and tend to be perceived as more credible due to the implied non-commercial nature of their authors (Bickart & Schindler, 2001; Willemsen, Neijens, Bronner, & De Ridder, 2011).
Marketers have recognized the impact of OCRs on marketing outcomes, and employed sponsored online reviews by incentivizing consumers with free samples, discounts or other forms of compensation to generate a large number of consumer reviews (Kim, Maslowska, & Tamaddoni, 2018). Previous studies found that the volume of online reviews positively influences sales, and an increasing number of positive reviews improves consumers’ brand attitude (Archak, Ghose, & Ipeirotis, 2011; Doh & Hwang, 2009). In terms of linguistic characteristics, sponsored reviews tend to be more positive, more likely to recommend the product, and receive less helpfulness, compared to the reviews with no sponsorship disclosure (Costa, Gurreiro, Moro, & Henriques, 2019; Kim et al., 2018). The sponsorship practice in the context
of OCRs, however, has raised concerns that some sponsored reviews may be biased, and consumers might not be sufficiently informed about the sponsored nature of such reviews. Regulators, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), developed
endorsement guidelines that urged companies to disclose the material connection between the reviewer and the company in sponsored reviews so as to prevent the consumers from being misled (FTC, 2017). Despite the increased concerns about sponsored consumer reviews, companies still constantly use incentivization to encourage review writing (Kim et al., 2018). Therefore, it is of great importance for marketers to fully appreciate the effects of exposure to sponsorship disclosure in online reviews and the mechanisms underlying such effects. However, research findings so far are scarce and mixed, calling for additional studies to examine the effects of sponsorship disclosure in the context of OCRs.
The effect of sponsorship disclosure on brand attitude in online consumer reviews may partly be explained by the use of resistance strategies. According to Knowles and Linn (2004, p.4), resistance is “a reaction against change”. If people recognize the reviewer received an incentive to create a consumer review, they may doubt about the motivation of the reviewer and the possible persuasive messages that bias the review, even if the reviewer provided honest opinions. Different resistance strategies such as counterarguing and source derogation might be used to counter persuasive intents, and mitigate persuasion (Fransen, Verlegh, Kirmani, & Smit, 2015).
OCRs is review valence, which refers to whether the evaluation is positive, neutral or negative (Purnawirawan, De Pelsmacker, & Dens, 2012). Review valence has been frequently studied as a factor which influences consumer’ responses (Lee & Koo, 2012). However, evidence is mixed concerning which type of valence has the
strongest impact. While some studies claimed, positive reviews have more effects on consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention (Doh & Huang, 2009), others found negative reviews have a greater influence on product evaluation (Lee, Park, & Han, 2008).
To summarize, little research has investigated the mechanisms underlying the effects of sponsorship disclosure on brand attitude in the context of OCRs, and insights into precise strategies that people use to resist sponsored online reviews are lacking (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2016). This study seeks to add theoretical insights into the effects of exposure to OCRs containing a sponsorship disclosure by testing the mediating role of use of resistance strategies (counterarguing and source
derogation). Moreover, this study aims to explore review valence as a moderator on the use of resistance strategies, and provide insights for practitioners about the effects of sponsorship disclosure when review valence varies. This study will provide
implications for practitioners to make more informed decisions when employing sponsored OCRs.
Taken it all together, the research question of this study is proposed: What is the effect of exposure to online consumer reviews that include sponsorship disclosures on brand attitude, can this effect be explained by the use of resistance strategies of
counterarguing and source derogation, and what, if any, role does review valence have in this context?
Theoretical framework
Effects of online consumer reviews and sponsored online consumer reviews There is a growing body of research investigating the effects of OCRs, given its important role in consumers’ decision-making process (Trenz & Berger, 2013). For example, previous studies found a positive relationship between the volume of online reviews and sales (Archak et al., 2011; Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006). Change in brand attitude is an important measurement of OCRs’ effectiveness in terms of the role as recommenders (Purnwirawan, Eisend, De Pelsmacker, & Dens, 2015). With regard to the effects of review valence, research findings showed the increasing number of positive reviews in a set of reviews improves brand attitude and purchase intention (Doh & Hwang, 2009). Also, the effect of review valence on brand attitude is stronger when the brand is unfamiliar, which suggests consumers might rely more on OCRs to obtain information about unknown brands compared to the brands that they are familiar with (Purnwirawan et al., 2015). Perceived usefulness also has been
examined as a persuasive outcome, which reflects online reviews’ performance with regard to the role as informants (Purnwirawan et al., 2015). Previous research findings suggested that OCRs are more likely to be regarded as helpful when the qualities of the product are difficult to be evaluated before purchase (Purnwirawan et al., 2015).
sponsored reviews with the hope that more reviews with positive valence would be generated, to achieve positive responses such as positive brand attitude and higher helpfulness, and ultimately increase sales (Kim et al., 2018). However, the research that investigated effects of OCRs is scarce. A recent study showed sponsorship practice contribute to increasing number of reviews with a more positive sentiment (Petrescu, O’Leary, Goldring, & Mrad, 2018). Another study focused on the effect of incentivization on reviewers’ attitude change, and showed that engaging in writing positive sponsored reviews leads to a positive attitude towards the product, and the number of positive reviews written by the reviewer links positively with the reviewer’s brand attitude. (Kim, Naylor, Sivadas, & Sugumaran, 2016).
Effects of sponsorship disclosure
Sponsored content is increasingly adopted as a marketing strategy by integrating persuasive messages into traditionally non-commercial contents
(Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, 2014). The use of sponsorship disclosure assists the viewers to recognize the persuasive nature and distinguish the commercial
contents from editorial contents (Boerman et al., 2014; Campbell, Mohr, & Verlegh, 2013). A number of previous studies (e.g. Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, 2015; Boerman, Willemsenc, & Van der Aa, 2017; Hwang & Jeong, 2016) have examined the effects of sponsored contents in different media, such as television, blogs, and social media, however, the findings are mixed. Hwang and Jeon (2016), for example, found that a sponsorship disclosure in a blog post that stresses “honest opinion”
benefits source credibility and blog attitude, compared to a blog post with simple disclosure, whose source credibility and blog attitude is not better than a blog post that do not include a disclosure. However, more studies found a negative effect of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion – disclosing the sponsored nature of a blog post, for example, can negatively influence brand recall, attitude, and credibility (Campbell et al., 2013; Colliander & Erlandsson, 2015). Moreover, the negative effect of
sponsored contents on persuasion can be explained by recognition of the sponsored nature, and leads to the critical processing of the information as well as the use of different types of resistance strategies (Boerman et al., 2017; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2016).
Effects of sponsorship disclosure in online consumer reviews
When OCRs are under consideration, existing studies found a negative effect of exposure to sponsorship disclosure on persuasive impacts. For example, consumer reviews that contain a sponsorship disclosure have a negative effect on brand attitude and purchase intention (Kim et al., 2018), and are regarded as less helpful than the reviews that do not include a sponsorship disclosure (Du Plessis, Stephen, Bart, & Goncalves, 2016). However, when the sponsored reviews originally sampled from Amazon. com were evaluated in the absence of disclosure, they were perceived as more helpful than non-sponsored reviews, which indicates that the presence of sponsorship disclosure triggers the negative effect on helpfulness (Du Plessis et al., 2016). Based on previous research, and to replicate previous findings on the effects of
disclosure on brand attitude in the context of OCRs, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Exposure to an online consumer review that includes a sponsorship disclosure will lead to more negative brand attitude than exposure to a review with no sponsorship disclosure.
Mediation via resistance strategies: counterarguing and source derogation The negative effect of sponsored reviews may be explained by the use of resistance strategies. According to the reactance theory, people have a fundamental need for autonomy, and when they feel that their freedom is being limited, “an uncomfortable state of reactance results” (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Knowles & Linn, 2004, p.6). Thus, it is assumed that people tend to resist persuasion attempts by using different strategies when they recognize persuasive intents (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2016). According to the cognitive responses approach, people mainly respond to persuasive messages with cognitions, and counterarguing is an effective and often used cognitive resistance strategy in response to persuasive messages (Jacks & Cameron, 2003; Petty, Ostrom, & Brock, 1981). Counterarguing refers to “a thought process” that decreases agreement with the persuasive arguments, and people who engage in counterarguing scrutinize the arguments in order to refute them (Fransen et al., 2015, p.9). A previous study investigated the underlying mechanism of effects of sponsorship disclosure in blogs, and found that participants in the disclosure condition
activated persuasion knowledge, which in turn evoked the use of counterarguing to mitigate persuasion (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2016). In the context of OCRs, the recognition that the reviewers received incentives may lead the viewers to refute the recommendations, and results in negative brand attitudes.
Another resistance strategy that is likely to be used in the context of OCRs is source derogation, which occurs when individuals dismiss the validity of the source, for instance, questioning the source’s expertise, trustworthiness, or motives (Jacks & Cameron, 2003). Source derogation serves as a substitute for counterarguing requiring less effort compared to counterarguing, and arises mostly as a response to a biased source. (Wright, 1973). The findings that sponsored reviews evoke more negative brand attitudes and suspicions of ulterior motives behind the reviewer’s
recommendation suggest that viewers may use source derogation to resist the sponsored reviews (Kim et al., 2018). Also, source derogation could effectively induce message derogation, which prompts negative attitudes towards messages (Jenkins & Dragojevic 2011). Based on previous research, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 2: a) Exposure to an online consumer review that includes a sponsorship disclosure will lead to the use of more counterarguing, which will, consequently, b) result in more negative brand attitude than exposure to a review with no sponsorship disclosure.
Hypothesis 3: a) Exposure to an online consumer review that includes a sponsorship disclosure will lead to the use of more source derogation, which will,
consequently, b) result in more negative brand attitude than exposure to a review with no sponsorship disclosure.
Moderation via review valence
Previous research has shown a positive relationship between review valence and brand attitude. The increasing number of positive reviews has a positive effect on brand attitude, and as the proportion of negative reviews increases, attitude become more unfavorable (Doh & Hwang, 2009; Lee at al., 2008). However, negative online reviews are regarded as more credible and useful than positive reviews, especially when the product could be classified as an experience product (Kusumasondjaja, Shanka, & Marchegiani, 2012; Willemsen et al., 2011). These findings are assumed to be explained by the diagnosticity theory (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989), which demonstrates that negative information is more diagnostic and useful when evaluating product quality and performance. A meta-analysis summarized this evidence and showed that that positive review sets that include few negative reviews generate the most positive attitudes, while negative review sets that include few positive reviews showe the strongest effect on perceived helpfulness
(Purnawirawan et al., 2015). In the context of OCRs, it is possible that viewers process the reviews containing a sponsorship disclosure differently when the review valence is different.
Previous research examined review valence as a moderator in the context of sponsored OCRs, and found a significant interaction effect between sponsorship
disclosure and review valence on brand attitude (Kim et al., 2018). When the review is negative, the presence of sponsorship disclosure does not have a negative influence on brand attitude; however, when the review is positive, sponsorship disclosure significantly decreases consumers’ brand attitude (Kim et al., 2018). Moreover, sponsored reviews, especially when they are positive, often cause readers to suspect possible ulterior motivations, which indicates that positive sponsored reviews are more likely to evoke the use of resistance strategy of source derogation (Kim et al., 2018). Moreover, Park, Yi, and Kang (2019), have found that a positive sponsored review results in lower credibility than a two-sided one. Thus, it is possible that positive sponsored reviews tend to evoke the use of resistance strategies of counterarguing.
According to diagnosticity theory, consumers are more likely to trust negative reviews than positive ones (Herr et al., 1991). When consumers learn the reviewer received an incentive for the review, and still provided a negative diagnostic opinion, they are less likely to apply resistance strategies to refute the review or the source. However, when the review is positive, sponsored reviews may evoke the use of resistance strategies of counterarguing and source derogation. In line with this reasoning, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4: Exposure to an online consumer review containing a sponsorship disclosure will result in counterarguing only when the review is positive; when the review is negative, this effect will not exist.
disclosure will result in source derogation only when the review is positive; when the review is negative, this effect will not exist.
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the thesis.
Methods Experimental design and sample
An online experiment was conducted with a two (Sponsorship disclosure: disclosure vs. no disclosure) by two (Review valence: positive vs. negative) between-subjects design. The selection criteria for participants was that they are at least 18 years old and have some experience with online shopping. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Condition one showed a positive consumer review with a sponsorship disclosure (n=65), condition two showed a positive consumer review with no sponsorship disclosure (n=65), condition three showed a negative consumer review with a sponsorship disclosure (n=62), and condition four showed a negative consumer review with no sponsorship disclosure (n=64).
This study used social networking sites (Facebook and WeChat) and online survey platforms (SurveySwap and SurveyCircle) to recruit participants. A total of
328 responses were recorded. 72 participants were excluded, because they did not give their informed consent, did not complete the survey, or had no online shopping experience. The analysis was conducted on a final sample of 256 participants, with 170 females (66.4%), and 84 males (32.8%), aged between 18 and 53 (M = 26.0, SD = 6.5). Most of the participants came from Europe (60.5%) or Asia (23.0%). 51.6% of the participants had a bachelor’s degree, and 29.3% of the participants had completed a master’s degree.
Procedure
The participants firstly saw the introduction, where they were told that this is a study about online consumer reviews, including a privacy and anonymity guarantee. Then an informed consent was shown to ask if they consent with the information. The participants who agreed on the informed consent were directed to the next page where they were asked to imagine that they were looking for new headphones online, and an online consumer review of the headphones would be shown. Next, participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental groups. Then, brand attitude, as well as resistance strategies of counterarguing and source derogation were measured. The questionnaire ended with manipulation checks and demographic questions. Finally, the participants were debriefed.
Stimulus materials
pilot study was conducted to ask respondents the extent to which they were familiar with a list of fictitious brand names of electronic products, and DTronics was chosen as the most appropriate unfamiliar brand name. In each of the conditions, participants saw a consumer review of the same headphones product of the fictitious brand
DTronics. The reviews in the four conditions differed in terms of the presence of sponsorship disclosure and review valence. In the sponsorship disclosure conditions, there was a disclaimer that stated: “This reviewer received a free product to write this review, and this review represents the reviewer’s honest opinions” at the end of the review. In the no disclosure conditions, there was no disclaimer in the review. In the positive review valence conditions, participants saw a 5-star review, while in negative review valence conditions, participants saw a 1-star review. The review texts were adapted from existing reviews. The same aspects of headphones, such as sound quality were discussed, and the only difference was in the adjective used to describe the product (see Appendix A).
Measures
Mediator variable: Counterarguing. This variable was measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A total of four items were used: “While reading, I doubted the information in this review; While reading, I refuted the information in this review; While reading, I contested the
information in this review; While reading, I countered the information in this review” (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2016). A principal axis factor analysis was conducted with the
four items. Based on Eigenvalue-criterion, one factor was retained (Eigenvalue=3.02), which explained 75.4% of the variance in the four items. The value of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89, which suggested a reliable scale. Counterarguing was, thus, computed by calculating the mean of the four items, with a higher score representing the use of more counterarguing (M= 3.32, SD = 1.27).
Mediator variable: Source derogation. This variable was measured with a four-item Likert-scale adapted from previous studies including “the reviewer is honest; the reviewer is reliable; the reviewer is motivated to exaggerate the
performance of this product; the reviewer has an ulterior motive to write this review” ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2011; Kim, Maslowska, & Tamaddoni, 2018). The first two items were reverse coded, then a principal axis factor analysis was conducted with the four items, and one factor was retained (Eigenvalue=2.34), explaining 58.4% of the variance in the four items. The four items formed a reliable scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76). For further analysis, source derogation was computed by calculating the mean of the four items, with a higher score indicating the use of more source derogation (M = 3.84, SD = 1.00).
Dependent variable: Brand attitude. Brand attitude was measured with a seven-point semantic differential scale with six statements: “I think DTronic (the brand) is bad-good, unpleasant-pleasant, unfavorable-favorable, negative-positive, dislike-like, poor quality-high quality” (Bruner, 2009). A principal axis factor analysis showed that the variable consisted of one factor (Eigenvalue = 5.57; explained
was computed by calculating the mean of the six items, with a higher score on this scale indicating more positive brand attitude (M = 3.93, SD = 2.13).
Control variables. Multiple control variables were included in this experiment to ensure results were not caused by possible differences between the groups. Four demographic variables were measured in the questionnaire: age, gender, educational level, and nationality. Moreover, the extent to which the participants were familiar the brand on a scale ranging from 1 (not unfamiliar at all) to 7 (very familiar) (M = 1.34,
SD = .94) was also measured, to ensure than the brand was, indeed, perceived as
unfamiliar. Online shopping frequency were asked, and 36.3% participants in this experiment shop online several times per month, followed by 24.6% who shop online once per month.
Manipulation checks. It was checked if the participants saw the disclaimer in the review, indicating that the reviewer had received an incentive to write this review. Therefore, participants were asked to the best of their recollection if there was a disclaimer saying that this reviewer received a free product to write the review (Yes, No, or I don’t know). It was also checked if the participants recognized the valence of the review by asking: “is this online review a 5-star review or a 1-star review” (Yes, No, or I don’t know).
Results Randomization check
across the four conditions, F (3, 252)=2.15, p=.095. A Chi-square analysis showed that the four conditions did not differ significantly in terms of gender, χ2 (6,
256)=2.40, p=.879, education, χ2 (12, 256)=8.20, p=.769, or nationality, χ2 (6,
256)=4.31, p=.635. Thus, the randomization of participants across the four experimental groups was successful in terms of age, gender, education, and nationality.
Manipulation check
To check if the participants perceived the review that they were exposed to was a review containing a sponsorship disclosure indicating the sponsored nature or a review with no disclosure, a Chi-square analysis was conducted with sponsorship disclosure as an independent variable, and respondents’ recollection of a sponsorship disclaimer as a dependent variable. The results showed that the responses were significantly different between the participants in the disclosure conditions and no disclosure conditions, χ2 (2, 256) = 105.42, p <.001, τ= .26. Namely, 61.4% of the
participants in the disclosure conditions perceived that they were presented with a review including a sponsorship disclaimer, and 76% of the participants in no disclosure conditions perceived the review as a non-sponsored review.
In order to check if the manipulation of review valence was successful, a Chi-square analysis was conducted with review valence as an independent variable, and participants’ recall of the star-rating of the review as a dependent variable. The results showed that 86.2% of the participants in the positive review conditions perceived the
review as positive, and 88.1% of the participants in the negative review conditions perceived the review as negative. The responses were significantly different between the participants in positive review conditions and negative review conditions, χ2 (2,
256) = 183.89, p <.001, τ =.59.
Main analysis
To test the hypotheses in this study, a moderated parallel mediation analysis was conducted by using PROCESS model 7 (5,000 bootstraps; Hayes, 2018). In this analysis, sponsorship disclosure functioned as an independent variable, review valence as a moderator, resistance strategies of counterarguing and source derogation as mediators, and brand attitude as a dependent variable (See Appendix B).
H1 proposed that exposure to an online consumer reviews that includes a sponsorship disclosure will lead to more negative brand attitude than exposure to reviews with no sponsorship disclosure. The results showed a significant negative effect of exposure to online consumer reviews with a sponsorship disclosure on brand attitude, b = -.40, p = .004, 95% CI [-.68, -.13], meaning that participants in the sponsorship disclosure conditions (M = 3.56, SD = 2.02), on average, had more negative brand attitude than participants in no sponsorship disclosure conditions (M = 4.31, SD = 2.19), after controlling for other variables in this model. Thus H1 was supported.
H2 proposed that a) exposure to an online consumer review that includes a sponsorship disclosure will lead to the use of more counterarguing, which will,
consequently, b) result in more negative brand attitude than exposure to a review with no sponsorship disclosure. The indirect effect of exposure to a review with a
sponsorship disclosure via counterarguing on brand attitude was not significant, no matter when the review is positive (indirect effect = .06, SE = .05, 95% CI [-.03, .18]) or negative (indirect effect = .02, SE = .03, 95% CI [-.02, .09]). More specifically, participants in the sponsorship disclosure conditions used significantly more
counterarguing than the participants in no disclosure conditions, b = .26, p <.001, 95% CI [.11, .41]. However, there was no significant effect on the use of counterarguing on brand attitude, b = .16, p =.190, 95% CI [-.08, .40]. Thus H2a was supported, but H2b was rejected.
H3 proposed that a) exposure to an online consumer review that includes a sponsorship disclosure will lead to the use of more source derogation, which will, consequently, b) result in more negative brand attitude than exposure to a review with no sponsorship disclosure. The results illustrated that the use of source derogation was not a significant mediator in the relationship between the presence of sponsorship disclosure and brand attitude, no matter when the review is positive (indirect effect = -.00, SE = .02, 95% CI [-.04, .03]) or negative (indirect effect = -.02, SE = .08, 95% CI [-.20, .13]). Taking a closer look at the two direct effects involved, participants who were presented with a sponsored review used significantly more resistance strategy of source derogation than participants who saw a review with no disclosure, b = .30, p <.001, 95% CI [.19, .42]. However, the use of source derogation did not have a significant effect on brand attitude, b = -.05, p = .774, 95% CI [-.36, .27]. Thus,
while H3a was supported, H3b was rejected.
H4 proposed that exposure to an online consumer review containing a
sponsorship disclosure will result in counterarguing only when the review is positive; when review is negative, this effect will not exist. From the results, the interaction effect between sponsorship disclosure and review valence on the use of
counterarguing was not significant, b= .11, p = .148, 95% CI [-.04, .26]. Thus, H4 was rejected.
H5 proposed that exposure to an online consumer review containing a sponsorship disclosure will result in source derogation only when the review is positive; when review is negative, this effect will not exist. A significant interaction effect between sponsorship disclosure and review valence on the use of source derogation was confirmed, b = .23, p <.001, 95% CI [.12, .34]. Specifically, when the review was positive, participants in sponsorship disclosure condition were
significantly more likely to employ source derogation than the participants in the no disclosure condition, b = .54, p < .001, 95% CI [.38, .69]. When the review was negative, however, there was no significant difference between participants in disclosure and no disclosure conditions in the use of source derogation, b = .07, p = .374, 95% CI [-.09, 23]. Thus, H5 was supported.
Figure 2. Tested moderated parallel mediation model. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 1: Summary of hypotheses results
Hypothesis Outcome
H1: Exposure to an online consumer review that includes a sponsorship disclosure will lead to more negative brand attitude than exposure to reviews with no sponsorship disclosure
Supported
H2: a) Exposure to an online consumer review that includes a sponsorship disclosure will lead to the use of more counterarguing, which will, consequently, b) result in more negative brand attitude than exposure to a review with no sponsorship disclosure.
H2a supported; H2b rejected
H3: a) Exposure to an online consumer review that includes a sponsorship disclosure will lead to the use of more source derogation, which will, consequently, b) result in more negative brand attitude than exposure to a review with no sponsorship disclosure.
H3a supported; H3b rejected
H4: Exposure to an online consumer review containing a sponsorship disclosure will result in counterarguing only when the review is positive; when review is negative, this effect will not exist.
Rejected
H5: Exposure to an online consumer review containing a sponsorship disclosure will result in source derogation only when the review is positive; when review is negative, this effect will not exist
Supported
Conclusion and discussion
This study investigated effects of sponsorship disclosure on brand attitude via the use of resistance strategies (counterarguing and source derogation), and explored
whether review valence (positive or negative) moderates the use of resistance
strategies in the context of online consumer reviews. The results showed a significant negative effect of exposure to online consumer reviews with sponsorship disclosure on brand attitude. Accordingly, participants who were exposed to OCRs with sponsorship disclosure, on average, expressed a more negative brand attitude than those exposed to OCRs with no disclosure. This is in line with previous studies that sponsorship disclosure in online consumer reviews has negative effects on persuasion, such as leading to less review helpfulness, more negative brand attitude, and lower purchase intention (Du Plessis et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2018).
With regards to investigating use of resistance strategies as an underlying mechanism, the results showed that neither the resistance strategy of counterarguing nor of source derogation mediates the relationship between sponsorship disclosure and brand attitude. More specifically, the participants who were shown a consumer review containing a sponsorship disclosure indeed employed more both strategies, compared to those who were exposed to a review with no disclosure. However, the use of counterarguing and source derogation did not affect participants’ brand
attitudes. This finding contradicts that of Van Reijmersdal et al. (2016) in which they found the activation of persuasion knowledge leads to the use of counterarguing, and consequently mitigates the efficiency of persuasion. A possible explanation is that only 61.4% of the participants in the disclosure conditions perceived that they were presented with a review including a sponsorship disclaimer, the rest of participants in the disclosure conditions might evaluate the review and the brand based on other
factors such as review valence instead of considering the sponsorship disclosure. Moreover, counterarguing is mainly focused on rebuttal of the arguments in a message, and source derogation focuses on questioning trustworthiness of the source (Jack & Cameron, 2003; Wright, 1975). Another possible explanation of the
insignificant mediations could be that the use of resistance strategies does not always affect an attitudinal change in persuasion. A previous study by Du Plessis et al. (2016) provided evidence for this argument since they identified the boundary conditions of this effect. The study found a negative indirect effect of exposure to a positive consumer review with sponsorship disclosure on product evaluation, through uncertainty in trustworthiness, only among the participants who spent more time reading the review. However, among the participants who spent less time elaborating the review, though disclosing sponsorship increased uncertainty in trustworthiness, no significant indirect effect was found in the relationship between disclosure and
product evaluation via uncertainty in trustworthiness (Du Plessis et al., 2016). In other words, the findings showed that the relationship between sponsorship disclosure and brand attitude through uncertainty in trustworthiness only applies to some of the participants who read the materials carefully. Notably, in their study, uncertainty in trustworthiness was measured by the items including “the review was biased”, “the reviewer had an ulterior motive”; these item relates to the concepts of counterarguing and source derogation. In the present study, the minimum time of reading the
manipulated review was not set. Therefore, it is possible that some of the participants only spent a minimal amount of time reading the material, which was not in line with
the necessary condition to elicit the mediation roles of the two resistance strategies. As predicted, the interaction effect between sponsorship disclosure and review valence on the use of source derogation was found. Specifically, participants who were presented with a positive sponsored review expressed higher source derogation than participants who saw a positive review without sponsorship disclosure. However, when the review is negative, there was no significant difference in the use of source derogation between the participants in disclosure condition and no disclosure
condition. This is in line with previous findings that sponsored reviews evokes higher suspicions of ulterior motives, especially when the reviews are positive (Kim et al., 2018). This finding also provided evidence for the argument that source derogation tends to be frequently used in situations where the source is easily biased (Wright, 1973).
Last, this study found no significant interaction between sponsorship disclosure and review valence on the use of counterarguing, despite both sponsorship disclosure and positive review valence significantly evoke the use of more counterarguing. A possible explanation could be that counterarguing as a cognitive effortful strategy, requires a considerable amount of cognitive resources, while positive sponsored reviews may not active extra use of counterarguing in the context of OCRs (Jack & Cameron, 2003).
This study contributes to the literature of persuasive effects of exposure to sponsored content by investigating how sponsorship disclosure affects brand attitude. Little research has examined the underlying mechanisms of effect of exposure to
sponsored consumer reviews on brand responses, and present study explored the use of resistance strategies as mediators. Contrary to the research findings that disclosure of persuasive intent leads to resistance, and consequently reduces persuasion (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2016), no significant negative indirect effect of exposure to
disclosure on brand attitude via use of resistance strategy of counterarguing or source derogation was found in this study. The results showed that exposure to sponsored reviews evoked resistance, but use of resistance strategies did not affect persuasion, which suggests that the use of resistance strategies does not necessarily harm attitudes, and provides a different perspective regarding the outcome of resistance when exposed to sponsored contents. Furthermore, this study investigated review valence as a moderator in the use of resistance strategies, and found that source derogation is likely to be used when participants were exposed to positive sponsored online reviews.
As for practical implications, the findings provide insights for companies to make a more informed decision in using sponsored reviews. Though many companies use incentivization to encourage consumers to post reviews, from the current study, it is clear that sponsored reviews could actually mitigate a review’s persuasiveness. Additionally, positive sponsored reviews are likely to evoke consumers’ derogation in reviewers’ trustworthiness and motivation, and thus practitioners should improve their way of presenting consumer reviews so as to make source derogation less effective (Jack & Cameron, 2003). For example, a reviewer badge or other forms of
experience of the reviewer. On the other hand, the findings suggest that regulators should provide more detailed and effective guidelines on sponsorship disclosure in OCRs to achieve higher recognition of sponsorship disclosure among the consumers, as 38.6% of the participants in this study who were shown a review with a disclaimer disclosure failed to recognize the presence of the disclaimer.
Limitations of this study should be mentioned. 38.6% of participants exposed to a disclosure in the experiment did not recognize the disclosure. This relatively high percentage is in line with previous studies about sponsorship disclosure (e.g. Boerman et al., 2017). Further research could analyze the responses from the participants who pass the manipulation check, and compare the results. Besides, one product type was examined in this study, and the findings may not be generalized to other types of product. Future research is needed to compare the effects of exposure to sponsored consumer reviews of different types of product.
In order to explore review valence as a moderator in the context of online consumer reviews, this study only compared positive review and negative reviews. Previous research showed that consumers tend to have more positive attitudes towards two-sided reviews than one-sided reviews (Park et al., 2019). Future research is needed to explore the effects of sponsored reviews with different review valences. Additionally, previous studies found that different explicitness of sponsorship disclosure may influence persuasive effects (Boerman et al., 2014). Currently, different types of sponsored disclosure in online consumer reviews are adopted on various platforms. Future research could investigate the effect of different types of
sponsorship disclosure in OCRs.
Lastly, this study found that the use of counterarguing or source derogation does not affect brand attitude. Future studies are needed to further investigate the
underlying mechanisms of the effect of exposure to sponsored reviews on persuasion. Various persuasive effects including purchase intention, perceived helpfulness, and intention to engage in eWOM should be further investigated in the context of OCRs.
To conclude, sponsored online reviews are increasingly employed by companies to optimize eWOM and achieve marketing outcomes. Sponsorship disclosure in online reviews is required to inform consumers about the sponsored nature. This study showed that exposure to online reviews with a sponsorship disclaimer has a detrimental effect on brand attitude, and evokes resistance towards both the reviewer and review contents. Moreover, the study showed that positive sponsored online reviews evoke more doubts on reviewers’ motivation and
trustworthiness. The findings of this study provide insights for practitioners to take the possible negative effects into account and make a more informed decision in employing sponsored online reviews. It is also suggested that further research is needed to investigate how to effectively disclose sponsorship to increase consumers’ awareness of the sponsored nature in sponsored online reviews.
References
Archak, N., Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2011). Deriving the pricing power of product features by mining consumer reviews. Management Science, 57(8),
1485–1509. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1370
Baek, H., Ahn, J., & Choi, Y. (2012). Helpfulness of online consumer reviews: Readers’ objectives and review cues. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 17(2), 99–126. doi: 10.2753/JEC1086-4415170204
Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31–40. doi: 10.1002/dir.1014
Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2014). Effects of
sponsorship disclosure timing on the processing of sponsored content: A study on the effectiveness of European disclosure regulations. Psychology &
Marketing, 31(3), 214–224. doi: 10.1002/mar.20688
Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2015). Using eye tracking to understand the effects of brand placement disclosure types in television programs. Journal of Advertising, 44(3), 196-207. doi:
10.1080/00913367.2014.967423
Boerman, S. C., Willemsen, L. M., & Van der Aa, E. (2017). “This post is sponsored” Effects of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion knowledge and electronic word of mouth in the context of Facebook. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 82-92. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2016.12.002
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom
and control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
for consumer behavior & advertising research. Fort Worth, Texas: GCBII
Productions, LLC.
Campbell, M. C, Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2013). Can disclosures lead
consumers to resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 483–495. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2012.10.012
Chevalier, J. A., Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 345–354. doi:
10.3386/w10148
Colliander, J., & Erlandsson, S. (2015). The blog and the bountiful: Exploring the effects of disguised product placement on blogs that are revealed by a third party. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(2), 110-124. doi:
10.1080/13527266.2012.730543
Costa, A., Guerreiro, J., Moro, S., & Henriques, R. (2019). Unfolding the characteristics of incentivized online reviews. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 47, 272-281. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.12.006
Doh, S. J. & Hwang, J., S. (2009). How consumers evaluate eWOM (electronic word-of-mouth) messages. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 12(2), 193-197. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0109
Du Plessis, C., Stephen, A. T., Bart, Y., & Goncalves, D. (2016). When in doubt, elaborate? How elaboration on uncertainty influences the persuasiveness of consumer-generated product reviews when reviewers are incentivized. Saïd
Business School Working Papers. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/98205
Federal Trade Organization (2017, September). The FTC’s Endorsement Guides. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides
Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W., Kirmani, A., & Smit, E. G. (2015). A typology of consumer strategies for resisting advertising, and a review of mechanisms for countering them. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 6-16. Doi: 10.1080/02650487.2014.995284
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis : a regression-based approach (Second edition.). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Hernandez-Ortega, B. (2019). Not so positive, please!: Effects of online consumer reviews on evaluations during the decision-making process. Internet
Research, 29(4), 606–637. doi:10.1108/INTR-07-2017-0257
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective.
The Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 454–462. doi: 10.1086/208570
Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S. (2016). “This is a sponsored blog post, but all opinions are my own”: The effects of sponsorship disclosure on responses to sponsored blog posts. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 528–535.
Jacks, J. Z., & Cameron, K. A. (2003). Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 145-161. doi:
10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5
Jenkins, M. & Dragojevic, M. (2011). Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion: A politeness theory-based approach. Communication Research,
40(4), 559–590. doi: 10.1177/0093650211420136
Kim, J., Naylor, G., Sivadas, E., & Sugumaran, V. (2016). The unrealized value of incentivized eWOM recommendations. Marketing Letters, 27(3), 411–421. doi:10.1007/s11002-015-9360-3
Kim, S., J., Maslowska, E., & Tamaddoni, A. (2018). The paradox of (dis)trust in sponsorship disclosure: The characteristics and effects of sponsored online consumer reviews. Decision Support Systems, 116, 114-124. doi:
10.1016/j.dss.2018.10.014
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). The importance of resistance to persuasion. In E. S. Knowles, & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 3-9). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kusumasondjaja, S., Shanka, T., Marchegiani, C., Crotts, J., Magnini, V., & Zehrer, A. (2012). Credibility of online reviews and initial trust: The roles of reviewer’s identity and review valence. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 18(3), 185–195. doi: 10.1177/1356766712449365
Lee, K., & Koo, D. (2012). Effects of attribute and valence of e-WOM on message adoption: Moderating roles of subjective knowledge and regulatory
focus. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1974–1984. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.018
Lee, J., Park, D., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 7, 341-352. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2007.05.004
Mudambi, S. M., Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200.
doi:10.2307/20721420
Park, J., Yi, Y., & Kang, D. (2019). The effects of one-sided vs. two-sided review valence on electronic word of mouth (e-WOM): The moderating role of sponsorship presence. Asia Marketing Journal, 21 (2), 1-19. doi:
10.15830/amj.2019.21.2.1
Petrescu, M., O’Leary, K., Goldring, D., & Mrad, S. B. (2018). Incentivized reviews: Promising the moon for a few stars. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 41, 288-295. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.04.005
Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasive
communications: A text in attitude change. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Purnawirawan, N., De Pelsmacker, P., & Dens, N. (2012). Balance and sequence in online reviews: How perceived usefulness affects attitudes and
intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 244–255. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2012.04.002
of the role of valence in online reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 31, 17-27. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2015.05.001
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in
impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 17–22. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131
Trenz, M., & Berger, B. (2013). Analyzing online consumer reviews-An
interdisciplinary literature review and research agenda. ECIS 2013 Completed
Research, 83. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2013_cr/83
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Fransen, M. L., Van Noort, G., Opree, S. J., Vandeberg, L., Reusch, S., … Boerman, S. C. (2016). Effects of disclosing sponsored content in blogs: How the use of resistance strategies mediates effects on persuasion.
American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1458-1474. doi:
10.1177/0002764216660141
Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., Bronner, F., & De Ridder, J. A. (2011). ‘Highly Recommended!’ The Content Characteristics and Perceived Usefulness of Online Consumer Reviews. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
17(1), 19–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01551.x
Wright, P. (1975). Factors affecting cognitive resistance to advertising. Journal of
Consumer Research, 2(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1086/208610
Appendix A Stimulus material
Condition 1 showed a positive online consumer review with a sponsorship disclosure.
Condition 2 showed a positive online consumer review with no sponsorship disclosure.
Appendix B
Table 2. Summary of moderated mediation analysis via PROCESS model 7
Independent variable b SE p CI Counterarguing (mediator) Disclosure .26 .08 <.001*** .11, .41 Valence .16 .08 .041* .01, .31 Disclosure * Valence .11 .08 .148 -.04, .26
Source derogation (mediator)
Disclosure .30 .06 <.001*** .19, .42
Valence .17 .06 .002** .06, .29
Disclosure * Valence
.23 .06 <.001*** .12, .34
Brand attitude (dependent variable)
Disclosure -.40 .14 .004** -.68, -.13
Counterarguing .16 .12 .190 -.08, .40
Source derogation
-.05 .16 .774 -.36, .27
Conditional effect of sponsorship disclosure on brand attitude Counterarguing Indirect effect SE CI
Negative .02 .03 -.02, .15 Positive .06 .05 -.03, .18 Source derogation Indirect effect SE CI Negative -.00 .02 -.04, .03 Positive -.02 .08 -.20, .13 Note: *p < .05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
