Understanding the effects of disclosure of sponsored content on personal blogs

Hele tekst

(1)Running Head: EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. ! ! ! ! ! Understanding the effects of disclosure of sponsored content . on personal blogs. ! ! ! Master’s Thesis. ! Master’s program Communication Science - Persuasive Communication. Graduate School of Communication. University of Amsterdam. ! ! ! ! Student Name: . Lana Lisa Monique WAGNER. Student ID: . 10602100. Supervisor: . Sophie BOERMAN. Date of Completion: 24th June 2014 .

(2) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 2. Abstract. The marketing potential of the ever-growing blogosphere, which denotes the collective whole of all blogs, has long been recognized by many marketers and brands. Many bloggers are presented with free products, in return for a positive review. Recent regulations, however, recommend the use of disclosure of such third-party influence. Due to the recency of these directives, research on the effects of disclosures on blogs is scarce. The main aim of the present study was therefore to investigate whether different types of disclosures of sponsored blog content affect brand responses (i.e., brand attitude and purchase intention), and the potentially mediating role of perceived source credibility. For this purpose, three versions of a personal blog, containing a product review, were created. The results of an online experiment (N = 195) with three conditions (no disclosure vs. vague disclosure vs. obvious disclosure) showed no evidence for an effect of disclosure on source credibility or brand responses, and no significant mediating role of source credibility, for this specific type of blog. Source credibility was, nevertheless, found to significantly enhance brand attitude and purchase intention. The key to influencing brand responses thus seems to lie in the credibility of the blogger. This relationship appears unaffected by disclosures of sponsored blog content. . Keywords: disclosure of sponsored content; personal blogs; source credibility; brand. attitude; purchase intention. ! ! ! ! ! ! !.

(3) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 3. Understanding the effects of disclosure of sponsored content on personal blogs. The move from traditional media toward the Internet has led to a dramatic increase in usergenerated content (Hennig-Thurau, Malthouse, Friege, Gensler, Lobschat, Rangaswamy, & Skiera, 2010). Blogs, which are more formally known as weblogs, denote a chronologically reverse-ordered online journal, and are an important part of this contemporary development (Colliander & Erlandsson, 2013). Blogs create the possibility for anyone to share content, and thus seem designed to spread information through social interaction (McConnell & Huba, 2007). The conversational communication style, including written and visual appeals, enhances the possibility for readers to get to know and identify with the blogger (Halvorsen, Hoffmann, Coste-Manière, & Stankeviciute, 2013).. Meanwhile, many marketers have realized the marketing potential of the blogosphere,. and have started cooperating with bloggers, offering them, among others, free products in return for positive product reviews (Singh, Veron-Jackson, & Cullinane, 2008). Even though these sponsored reviews often seem casually integrated into the storyline, they represent elaborate paid positioning and integration of the product (Gupta & Gould, 1997; Van. Reijmersdal, Neijens, & Smit, 2007). The current popularity of sponsored blog content is mostly due to the assumption that consumer reviews are deemed more credible and useful than commercial campaigns (Bickart & Schindler, 2001), and bloggers are thus presumed to persuade their audience effortlessly. . Such covert techniques are, however, often seen as a deceptive form of advertising, as. their intent is not always clearly identifiable by the recipient (Cain, 2011; Nebenzahl & Jaffe, 1998). Given the many concerns that have been raised, the European Union (2009) created laws that require explicit disclosures, in order to explicitly inform audiences about the integration of persuasive content in audiovisual media (Teinowitz, 2008). Overall, disclosures are thus designed to guarantee fair communication. Although these regulations have recently.

(4) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 4. been expanded to also include blogs (FTC, 2013), these directives are not enforced as strictly, leaving a certain margin for the blogger. Nonetheless, learning that the author of a blog post has been influenced by a third party is likely to challenge the trustworthiness of the review and the blogger, which may, in turn, negatively affect the consumers’ attitude toward the placed brand and their purchase intention. Disclosures of sponsored blog content could thus undermine the apparent benefits of these concealed persuasive attempts. Similarly, product placement disclosures on television have been found to influence recipients in various, occasionally contradicting, ways (e.g., Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2012; Tessitore & Geuens, 2013; Van Reijmersdal, et al., 2007; Van Reijmersdal, Tutaj, & Boerman, 2013). . Due to the recency of these regulations for blogs, scientific research has not yet been. able to examine the full range of effects that accompany disclosures in this context, leaving thus a certain knowledge gap. The goal of the present thesis is therefore to provide insights into this area, resulting in important theoretical and practical implications. The following research question is hence introduced: . RQ: To what extent does disclosure of sponsored content on personal blogs influence. brand responses, i.e., brand attitude and purchase intention, toward the placed brand, compared to no disclosure of sponsored content? And is this effect mediated by perceived source credibility?. ! Theoretical Background. The Effects of Disclosure on Brand Responses. A disclosure of sponsored content can be seen as a forewarning of an impending. persuasive appeal. They are meant to help consumers understand the persuasive nature of embedded advertising and sponsored content, which is generally covert and not as easily recognizable as regular advertising (Boerman et al., 2012). In this study, we investigate the.

(5) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 5. effects of various types of disclosure of sponsored content on personal blogs on brand responses, that is, brand attitude and purchase intention. More specifically, respondents were exposed to a blog post that featured either a vague disclosure, an obvious disclosure, or no disclosure (i.e., no allusion at all to sponsored content was made). . Marketers generally assume that disclosures of sponsored content will undermine the. effectiveness of a recommendation (Carl, 2008; Kennett & Matthews, 2008). This assumption is based on studies that concluded that forewarnings of persuasive messages increase resistance toward the message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1977; Wood & Quinn, 2003). It has been shown that the mere awareness of the use of a marketing strategy on social media results in lower product attitude and purchase likelihood (Milne, Rohm, & Brahl, 2009). Petty and Wegener (1998) argue that, when a forewarning of an imminent persuasive appeal is perceived as a threat to the recipient’s existing attitudes and believes, he or she is likely to be resistant towards the message, and therefore to withstand the persuasive appeal. Further, Benoit (1998) showed that recipients who are exposed to a forewarning prior to the reception of the message are less persuaded than those who are not exposed to a forewarning. These results remain unchanged even when a number of moderators are introduced into the analyses, speaking thus to their robustness. Specific to blogs, Nekmat and Gower (2012) found that not disclosing a sponsorship on blogs results in the highest attitude towards the product, the highest brand credibility, and the strongest purchase intention. Research has thus provided some evidence for the assumption that disclosures of sponsored content negatively affect the persuasiveness of an appeal.. The activation of persuasion knowledge may be the mechanism underlying these. effects. Persuasion knowledge denotes the general comprehension of when, how, and why a recipient is confronted with persuasive attempts, and how to cope with them (Tessitore & Geuens, 2013). When consumers are alerted to the presence of a persuasive attempt, they may.

(6) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 6. see this as a threat to their autonomy and freedom of choice (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Consequently, they might react with skepticism towards the message, which is part of persuasion knowledge (Friestad & Wright, 1994), leading to resistance towards the persuasive attempt, and ultimately to less persuasion (Obermiller & Spangenberger, 2000). The findings by Wei, Fischer, and Main (2008) support this assumption; respondents that activate their persuasion knowledge when being exposed to covert marketing on the radio, evaluate the presented brand less favorably, than those who do not activate their persuasion knowledge. Moreover, Campbell, Mohr and Verlegh (2012), as well as Boerman et al. (2012) specifically concluded that disclosures of sponsorship evoke the use of persuasion knowledge for correction. Disclosures can thus be seen as a chance for respondents to recognize persuasive attempts, activate their persuasion knowledge, and eventually resist persuasion.. In light of the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994), we posit that. not disclosing sponsored blog content does not activate persuasion knowledge, as the recipient does not recognize the persuasive character of the message (Tessitore & Geuens, 2013). It is assumed that the recipient believes that the blog post is unbiased, since no allusions to third-party influence are made. The recipient is thus less resistant, resulting in more persuasion. Exposure to an obvious disclosure activates persuasion knowledge, as the recipient is able to identify the persuasive attempt. Along the lines of Brehm and Brehm’s (1981) and Obermiller and Spangenberger’s (2000) argumentation, sponsored blog content can be seen as a threat to the recipients’ autonomy and freedom of choice, leading the recipient therefore to be more resistance towards the message, and subsequently be less persuaded. Similarly, the vague disclosure induces moderate levels of persuasion knowledge, since the third-party influence is not as perceptible, resulting ultimately in moderate levels of persuasion. As brand attitude and purchase intention are major marketing objectives, persuasion, in this study, is operationalized as brand responses, i.e., brand attitude and.

(7) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 7. purchase intention. Being resistant to the message, and thus being less persuaded, consequently means that the recipient will have a more negative attitude toward the brand, and will be less likely to purchase their products. We hypothesize that (See Figure 1):. H1a: Obvious disclosure of sponsored blog content will yield the lowest brand attitude. score, while no disclosure will yield the highest brand attitude score. Vague disclosure will yield moderate scores.. H1b: Obvious disclosure of sponsored blog content will yield the lowest purchase. intention of the placed product, while no disclosure will yield the highest purchase intention. Vague disclosure will yield moderate scores.. The Effects of Disclosure on Source Credibility. Furthermore, the different types of disclosure may also influence the perceived. credibility of the blogger. Source credibility, which is defined as a quality that determines “whether sources of information inspire belief in their representations” (Beaulieu, 2001, p. 85), is typically measured by assessing the source’s expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Newell, 2002; Ohanian, 1990). Various types of disclosures are assumed to have different effects on source credibility. . The Multiple Inference Model is a relevant concept in this context; it helps apprehend. how consumers classify alternative motives, by taking into account different possible motives, situational cues, and previous knowledge (Reeder, Kumar, Hesson-McInnis, & Trafinow, 2002; Reeder, 2009). Behaviors are assumed to be driven by various underlying motives. Specifically, a product recommendation on a personal blog can be seen as driven by the fact that the blogger truly likes the product. However, it may also be seen as driven by ulterior motives, when the recipient is aware of the fact that the blogger is compensated in some form to write a positive review about the product. In light of this, disclosures of sponsored content are suggested to increase inferences of ulterior motives, since the source seems to be biased,.

(8) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 8. or seems to have external reasons for making the argument, which will ultimately lead to a decrease in credibility (Kelley, 1973; Tuk, Verlegh, Smidts, & Wigboldus, 2005; Verlegh, Ryu, Tuk, & Feick, 2013; Wiener, & Mowen, 1986). In line with this assumption, recipients who were aware of sponsored content have been found to be more likely to perceive the source as less credible, due to its self-interest in the message (Bambauer-Sachse, & Mangold, 2013). Nyilasy (2006) found that, within a word-of-mouth framework, disclosing an affiliation with a firm decreases perceived sincerity, and undermines campaign effectiveness. Moreover, these assumptions are in accordance with research about the Persuasion Knowledge Model; targets, who suspect agents of having an ulterior motive, are more likely to perceive this agent as less sincere (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000; Friestad & Wright, 1994; Tuk et al., 2005). Similarly, a recently published study on the effects of disclosure of thirdparty influence on a blogger’s credibility showed that respondents, who are exposed to an implicit, thus a rather vague, disclosure, evaluate the source as less credible, than those who read a blog post that does not allude to third-party influence (Carr & Hayes, 2014). Nekmat and Gower (2012) further concluded that blog posts that do not feature a disclosure of sponsorship are perceived as most credible.. In the context of this study, we assume that obvious disclosure generates the highest. amount of inferences about ulterior motives, yielding in the lowest perceived source credibility. No disclosure leads to the least amount of inferences about ulterior motives, resulting in the highest perceived source credibility. Vague disclosure leads to a moderate amount of inferences about ulterior motives, and subsequently to moderate levels of perceived source credibility. We thus propose the following hypothesis (See Figure 1):. H2: Obvious disclosure of sponsored content on personal blogs will yield the lowest. perceived source credibility, while no disclosure will yield the highest perceived source credibility. Vague disclosure will yield moderate scores..

(9) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 9. The Effects of Source Credibility on Brand Responses. Moreover, source credibility may influence consumers’ brand responses, i.e., brand. attitude and purchase intention. This effect can be explained by the signaling theory (Bambauer-Sachse & Mangold, 2013). Generally, signaling theory states that consumers have a tendency to use signals that bring forth information about the object to be evaluated, if such information is not clearly provided. This results in a decrease in information asymmetry and cognitive load, which occurs when wanting to assess quality (Pennanen, 2011; Tsao, Berthon, Pitt, & Parent, 2011). According to Gotlieb and Sarel (1992), source credibility can be used as a quality signal. Previous research is in line with these assumptions; information that is attributed to a highly credible source, in contrast to a less credible source, leads to stronger persuasion (Bambauer-Sachse & Mangold, 2013; Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994). . Furthermore, credible sources have been found to decrease the initiation of negative. cognitive responses (Harmon & Coney, 1982), as well as serving as a peripheral cue to develop behavioral intentions (Petty & Cacioppo, 1977). Messages sent by less credible sources are dismissed in several ways (Beaulieu & Rosman, 2003), whereas highly credible sources serve as compelling peripheral cue, and are therefore more likely to persuade the receiver of the message effortlessly (Gotlieb, Schlacter, & St. Louis, 1992). Credible sources are thus able to bias thoughts, by implying high message validity (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994); reliable sources are presumed to provide more valid argumentation, leading the consumer to process the message with a positive bias. This positive bias positively influences argument strength, message effectiveness (Tormala, Briñol, & Petty, 2007), as well as more favorable attitudes (Lafferty et al., 2002; Ohanian, 1990). With regard to the context of this study, this means that the more credible a blogger is perceived, the more the reader will be persuaded by the blog post. Results by Carr and Hayes (2014) support this supposition: the more a blogger was perceived to be credible, the higher his word-of-mouth influence. As.

(10) 10. EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. exemplified earlier, in this study, stronger persuasion will be translated to more positive brand attitude, and stronger purchase intention. Taking this into account, we propose the following hypotheses (See Figure 1):. H3a: Lower perceived source credibility will negatively affect brand attitude. . H3b: Lower perceived source credibility will negatively affect purchase intention.!. The Mediated Effect of Disclosure on Brand Responses. Drawing on the previously discussed theories and findings, we assume the following;. When a consumer reads a product review featuring a disclosure on a personal blog, he or she recognizes that the review is sponsored by the brand. As he or she may feel that the information is biased, he or she is more likely to use source credibility as a signal to evaluate the information validity. As exemplified, content that has been enabled by a company is more likely to be perceived as driven by the company’s self-interest and ulterior motives apart from impartial information distribution. Inferring an ulterior motive will lead the recipient to evaluate the blogger as less credible, and eventually be less persuaded by the message. If the review, however, does not feature a disclosure, the consumer will not scrutinize the source’s credibility as thoroughly, and will be more strongly influenced by the message. We thus introduce the following mediation hypothesis (See Figure 1): . H4: The effect of disclosure of sponsored content on personal blogs on brand. responses (i.e., brand attitude and purchase intention) will be mediated by perceived source credibility.. H2. Perceived source . credibility H4. + H3. Type of disclosure of sponsored content. -No disclosure. -Vague disclosure. -Obvious disclosure. Figure 1. Conceptual model.. -. !. H1. Brand responses. Brand attitude. & . Purchase intention.

(11) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 11. Method. Research Design. We used an online experiment with three conditions (no disclosure vs. vague. disclosure vs. obvious disclosure), which constituted the independent variable. The mediating effect of source credibility was analyzed on the dependent variable brand responses, i.e., brand attitude and purchase intention of the placed product. . The experiment was created using Qualtrics. The participants of the study were. recruited via the researcher’s social media platforms, as well as via e-mail, with the request to forward the experiment to their peers. Participants were thus recruited using a convenience sample and snowball technique. This method of data gathering seems particularly appropriate, as it did not only fit within the limited budget and timeframe of the study, but also because the main topic of the study was related to social media, namely blogs. . Sample. A total of 195 subjects voluntarily participated in the research, with 63 in the no. disclosure condition, 64 in the vague disclosure condition, and 68 in the obvious disclosure condition. The age of the respondents ranged between 18 and 57 years, with a mean of 24.7 years (SD = 5.42). Since bloggers are mostly below 30 (Viegas, 2005), and their readership largely falls into the same age group, the use of such a young sample seems appropriate. Within the total sample, 71% of the participants were female. Moreover, 77% of the respondents have a completed Bachelor’s Degree or higher (i.e., Master’s or doctoal degree). 52% of the participants resided in the Netherlands, while 24% resided in Luxembourg. . Pretest. The manipulation of the conditions was pretested, to guarantee that participants could. recall or recognize the disclosures. Within an online experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (vague disclosure vs. obvious disclosure). After seeing.

(12) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 12. the respective blog posts, which were identical to the ones used in the subsequent study, they had to answer questions regarding recall and recognition of the disclosure. A total of 32 subjects participated in the pretest. The sample, which consisted of 75% female respondents, fell into the same age group (M = 24.0, SD = 1.77) as the sample of the subsequent study, suggesting its appropriateness. 15 participants were exposed to the obvious disclosure, while 17 saw the vague disclosure. 11 out of 15 respondents indicated recalling the obvious disclosure, while all the respondents were able to recognize it. Regarding the vague disclosure, 10 out of 17 subjects recalled the disclosure, while 15 out of 17 recognized it. As a wide majority of the respondents showed correct memory of the respective disclosures, the results of the pretest suggest that the manipulation was successful. . Stimulus Material. Three versions of one blog were created, tending to the three varying conditions (see. Appendix C for complete stimulus material). On the respective blogs, the participants found a blog post reviewing a product. The text was adapted from existing blogs. The product constituted a low-involvement product, specifically an electric face cleaning brush. The product choice was made based on the fact that, in reality, bloggers are far more likely to get send a product with a low to medium value. Further, the brand was fictional, and thus unknown, preventing the possibility that respondents already held an attitude toward it. Aside the manipulation of the disclosure, the three blogs contained the same textual and visual appeals. The layout was kept consistent across all three blogs, in order to avoid that the attitude toward the presented brand and product might be influenced by the attitude toward the message characteristics, or presentation characteristics of the stimulus material (Van den Putte & Dhondt, 2005). To exclude interactive effects that may influence the outcomes, further functions, such as commenting, or hyperlinks to other blog posts or websites, were disabled (Zhu & Tan, 2007). .

(13) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 13. Since the study relied on the successful manipulation of three conditions, the Social. Media Marketing Disclosure Guide (WOMMA, 2013) was consulted to determine the exact wording of the disclosures. In the obvious disclosure condition, a disclaimer reading ‘Disclosure: For review purposes, Clearface sent me this product free of charge and without being subject to conditions. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are my own.’ was prominently placed at the top of the blog post. In the vague disclosure condition, the disclosure was integrated in the first paragraph of the text of the blog post. This was phrased as follows: ‘[…] Clearface approached me with the opportunity to try it […]’. In the no disclosure condition, no mention or allusion to sponsored content was made.. Procedure. Within the online experiment and prior to participation, the respondents signed an. informed consent in which anonymity and confidentiality of the data were guaranteed. To avoid uncovering the purpose of the study, and thus circumventing demand artifacts (Kellaris & Cox, 1989), the research was introduced to all the participants as a study on personal blogs. No reward was promised to the participants in return for participation in the experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. The online experiment consisted of several parts. First, the respondents were asked to provide information about their blog-reading behavior and general attitude towards blogs. Next, they were asked to read a blog post, reviewing a product by a new, previously unknown, brand. After exposure to the stimulus, the participants responded to questions regarding the dependent variables, brand attitude and purchase intention, and the mediator, source credibility. Subsequently, the participants that were randomly assigned to one of the disclosure conditions answered questions regarding their memory of the respective disclosure. Finally, all participants were asked to answer questions regarding several control variables.. The blocks of questions in the experiment were programed as force-response, and.

(14) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 14. were presented in a fixed order, in order to avoid priming effects (Grimes & Kitchen, 2007). Randomization and branch logic were employed where possible, including the assignment to the experimental condition. A progress bar was incorporated to give respondents an indication of their progression within the experiment. Lastly, respondents were thanked for their participation and were debriefed (‘The purpose of this research is to investigate the effects of disclosure of sponsored content on personal blogs on brand responses (i.e., attitude toward the placed brand, and purchase intention of the placed brand), and whether this effect is mediated by perceived source credibility.’). On average, it took the respondents ten minutes to complete the online experiment.! Measurement. Source credibility. As credibility has been found to be a multidimensional construct. (Bruner, 2009), it was measured on two distinct subscales; expertise and trustworthiness. Based on Ohanian (1990), the expertise scale and the trustworthiness scale are both composed of five items (e.g., not an expert/expert for expertise, insincere/sincere for trustworthiness), which were measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale (See Appendices A and B for complete scales, and how they were used in the online experiment). These ten items were subjected to a principal component analysis (PCA) to determine whether they load on the assumed factors. Using Varimax rotation, the analysis revealed the presence of two factors with an eigenvalue greater than one, reproducing Ohanian's (1990) findings (Component 1 ‘Expertise’ EV = 5.35, R2 = .53; Component 2 ‘Trustworthiness’ EV = 1.86, R2 = .18), accounting together for 72.13% of the variance. Moreover, reliability analyses generated a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .90 for the ‘expertise’ component, and a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .89 for the ‘trustworthiness’ component, suggesting internal consistency, and thus scale reliability. The mean score of the five items that loaded on the first component (i.e., not an expert/expert; inexperienced/experienced; unknowledgeable/knowledgeable;.

(15) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 15. unqualified/qualified;unskilled/skilled) was used as a measurement of expertise (M = 3.95, SD = 1.09). The mean score of the five items that loaded on the second component (i.e., insincere/ sincere; dishonest/honest; not dependable/dependable; not trustworthy/trustworthy; unreliable/reliable) was used as a measurement of trustworthiness (M = 4.07, SD = 1.15).. Purchase intention. To measure the dependent variable purchase intention of the. placed product, the Purchase Intention Toward the Product in the Ad (Lepkowska-White, Brashear, & Weinberger, 2003) was employed, with adapted wording. This scale is composed of three items (e.g., if I were looking for this type of product my likelihood of purchasing the product featured in this blog post would be high), which were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Principal component analysis revealed the presence of one factor with an eigenvalue greater than one (EV = 2.69, R2 = .89). All three items loaded strongly on the one factor, supporting the use of this scale. Moreover, a reliability analysis generated a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .94. The mean score of the three items was used as a measure of purchase intention (M = 4.06, SD = 1.43).. Brand Attitude. To measure the dependent variable brand attitude, the Attitude. toward the Product/Brand scale by Holbrook and Batra (1987) was adopted. This scale is composed of four bi-polar adjectives (e.g., positive/negative), which were measured on a 7point scale. Principal component analysis revealed the presence of one factor with an eigenvalue greater than one (EV = 3.51, R2 = .87). All four items loaded strongly on the one factor, supporting the use of this scale. Moreover, a reliability analysis generated a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .95. The mean score of the four items was used as a measurement of brand attitude (M = 4.24, SD = 1.16).. Control variables. Apart from demographics (i,e., age, gender, education, and country. of residence), a number of control variables were measured to assure that the effects of disclosure were not due to other differences between the experimental groups. Disclosure.

(16) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 16. memory was measured by assessing recall and recognition of the disclosure for each condition that featured a disclosure. The four separate variables were eventually combined to one variable, as a correct answer on either recall or recognition can be seen as correct disclosure memory. Of the 132 respondents that were exposed to a disclosure, 79% correctly recalled or recognized it. Advertising skepticism was assessed on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) using the nine items (e.g., advertising is generally truthful) of the SKEP Scale (Obermiller & Spangenberger, 1998). The mean score of the nine items is used as a measure of advertising skepticism (EV = 5.00; R2 = .55; Cronbach’s α = .89; M = 2.97; SD = 0.99). Skepticism towards sponsored content was measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) based on four items (e.g., deceptive) used by Boerman et al. (2012). The mean score of these items is used as a measure for skepticism towards sponsored content (EV = 2.69; R2 = .67; Cronbach’s α = .84; M = 4.99; SD = 1.13). Attitude towards blogs was measured on a 7-point scale, using the same four bi-polar adjectives as for brand attitude. The mean score of these items is used as a measure for attitude towards blogs (EV = 3.42; R2 = .85; Cronbach’s α = .94; M = 5.24; SD = 1.18). Blogreading frequency was assessed by asking how often participants read blogs (61% said once a month or more often), while blog-reading amount was measured by asking how many blogs they read regularly (52% said two or more). Based on Boerman et al. (2012), conceptual persuasion knowledge was measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), asking to what extent the respondents think the blog post was advertising (M = 5.27, SD = 1.43), while attitudinal persuasion knowledge was measured on a 7-point scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with five items. Due to low reliability, two items (i.e., biased, not credible) were excluded from the analysis. The mean score of the remaining three items (i.e., honest, trustworthy, convincing) is used as a measure of attitudinal persuasion knowledge (EV = 2.72; R2 = .54; Cronbach’s α = .87; M = 3.88; SD = 1.32). Based.

(17) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 17. on the persuasion knowledge model (Friestad & Wright, 1994), persuasive intent was measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not trying hard at all, 7 = trying very hard) by asking the respondents to indicate to what extent they believe a blog post reviewing a product with a clear brand name tries to accomplish five different effects (e.g., make you want the product). The mean score of the five items is used as a measure for persuasive intent (EV = 2.69; R2 = . 59; Cronbach’s α = .81; M = 5.15; SD = 0.96).. ! Results. Randomization Check. ANOVA and chi-square analyses were performed to check for differences between the. experimental groups, with respect to age, F(2, 192) = 0.44, p = .643; gender, χ2(2) = 0.02, p = .990; education, F(2, 192) = 0.97, p = .381; country of residence, χ2(18) = 12.95, p = .794; blog-reading frequency, F(2, 192) = 1.13, p = .325; blog-reading amount, F(2, 192) = 0.51, p = .599; attitude towards blogs, F(2, 192) = 1.21, p = .299; disclosure memory, χ2(2) = 2.14, p = .344; advertising skepticism, F(2, 192) = 1.03, p = .359; skepticism towards sponsored content, F(2, 192) = 0.86, p = .427; attitudinal persuasion knowledge, F(2, 192) = 0.17, p = . 847; conceptual persuasion knowledge, F(2, 192) = 0.81, p = .445; and persuasive intent, F(2, 192) = 0.10, p = .898. As the analyses did not produce any significant effects, we can conclude that no significant differences between the groups exist, and that randomization was thus successful. . Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis 1a, which predicted that the more obvious the disclosure, the lower the brand attitude, and hypothesis 1b, which predicted the same effect on purchase intention, were tested using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with brand attitude and purchase intention as dependent variables, and condition as fixed factor. Box’s test of Equality of.

(18) 18. EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. Covariance Matrices was non-significant (p = .594), indicating that the covariance matrices are roughly equal. Using Pillai’s Trace, no significant effects of condition on brand attitude and purchase intention were found, V = .02, F(4, 384) = 0.86, p = .491. Separate univariate ANOVAs on the outcome variables revealed non-significant effects of condition on brand attitude, F(2, 195) = 0.37, p = .692; and purchase intention, F(2, 195) = 1.52, p = .222. The means and standard deviations of the different conditions are summarized in Table 1 below. Assumptions of homogeneity have been met for brand attitude, Levene’s F(2, 192) = 1.06, p = .347; and purchase intention, Levene’s F(2, 192) = 0.95, p = .389. Overall, these results show that disclosure does not affect brand responses. Based on these findings, hypotheses 1a and 1b can be rejected.1 . Table 1 Means and standard deviations (between parentheses) of outcomes by condition No disclosure. Vague disclosure. Obvious disclosure. Purchase Intention. 3.80 (1.51). 4.16 (1.45). 4.20 (1.35). Brand Attitude. 4.15 (1.33). 4.33 (1.09). 4.25 (1.06). Expertise. 3.85 (1.12). 4.08 (1.18). 3.93 (0.99). Trustworthiness. 4.07 (1.13). 4.11 (1.17). 4.03 (1.01). Note. Nno disclosure = 63, Nvague disclosure = 64, Nobvious disclosure = 68. Different letter superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between conditions.. Hypothesis 2, which predicted that obvious disclosure of sponsored content would yield lower source credibility (i.e., expertise and trustworthiness), while no disclosure would yield higher source credibility, was tested using a MANOVA, with source expertise and trustworthiness as dependent variables, and condition as fixed factor. Box’s test of Equality of. 1. A separate multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted, including the control variables attitude towards blogs, advertising skepticism, attitudinal persuasion knowledge, conceptual persuasion knowledge and persuasive intent, as they were previously found to be correlated with the dependent variables (see Appendix D for correlation tables). However, the results remained nonsignificant, Pillai’s Trace V = .04, F(4, 372) = 1.68, p = .154..

(19) 19. EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. Covariance Matrices was non-significant (p = .277), indicating that the covariance matrices are roughly equal. Using Pillai’s Trace, no significant effects of condition on source credibility were found, V = .01, F(4, 384) = 0.43, p = .790. Separate univariate ANOVAs on the outcome variables revealed non-significant effects of condition on expertise, F(2, 195) = 0.70, p = .496; and trustworthiness, F(2, 195) = 0.09, p = .919. The means and standard deviations of the different groups are summarized in Table 1 above. Assumptions of homogeneity have been met for expertise, Levene’s F(2, 192) = 1.08, p = .343; and trustworthiness, Levene’s F(2, 192) = 2.35, p = .098. Overall, these results show that disclosure does not affect source credibility. We can thus reject hypothesis 2.2 . Hypothesis 3a predicted that lower perceived source credibility negatively affects brand attitude, while hypothesis 3b predicted the same effect on purchase intention. Since the two components of source credibility, expertise and trustworthiness, are strongly correlated (r = .49, p < .001), the hypotheses were tested using four separate linear regression analyses. The regressions all resulted in highly significant models, which can therefore be used to predict the effects on the outcome variables; expertise and brand attitude, F(1, 193) = 22.88, p < .001, R2 = .11; trustworthiness and brand attitude, F(1, 193) = 149.88, p < .001, R2 = .44; expertise and purchase intention, F(1, 193) = 41.00, p < .001, R2 = .18; as well as trustworthiness and purchase intention, F(1, 193) = 96.33, p < .001, R2 = .33. Expertise has a highly significant, moderately strong association with brand attitude, b* =. 2 A separate. MANCOVA was conducted, including the control variables education, attitude towards blogs, amount of blogs the respondent reads, advertising skepticism, skepticism towards sponsored content, attitudinal persuasion knowledge, and conceptual persuasion knowledge, as they were previously found to be correlated with the dependent variables. However, the results remained nonsignificant, Pillai’s Trace V = .015, F(4, 370) = 0.68, p = .603..

(20) 20. EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 0.33, t = 4.78, p < .001, 95% CI [0.17, 0.52].3 Trustworthiness has a highly significant, strong . association with brand attitude, b* = 0.66, t = 12.24, p < .001, 95% CI [0.54, 0.79].4 Expertise . has a highly significant, moderately strong association with purchase intention, b* = 0.41, t = 6.40, p < .001, 95% BCaCI [0.38, 0.72].5 Trustworthiness had a highly significant, strong . association with purchase intention, b* = 0.58, t = 9.82, p < .001, 95% CI [0.58, 0.86].6 For all . these effects other independent variables are assumed to be held constant. Overall, we can thus conclude that hypotheses 3a and 3b are supported; the higher the perceived credibility of the blogger, the more positive the brand attitude and the stronger the purchase intention, which, reversed, also means that the lower the perceived credibility, the more negative the brand attitude and the weaker the purchase intention. Hypothesis 4 predicted that the effect of condition on brand attitude and purchase intention is mediated by perceived expertise and trustworthiness of the blogger. Since the. 3. A separate multiple regression analysis was conducted, including the control variables attitude towards blogs, advertising skepticism, skepticism towards sponsored content, attitudinal persuasion knowledge, and conceptual persuasion knowledge, which were previously found to be significantly correlated with brand attitude, resulting in a significant model, F(6, 188) = 27.51, p < .001; with higher predictive power, R2 = .47. However, in this model, expertise is not significantly associated with brand attitude, b* = 0.01, t = 0.11, p = .913, 95% CI [-0.12, 13]. A separate 4. multiple regression analysis was conducted, including the control variables attitude towards blogs, advertising skepticism, skepticism towards sponsored content, attitudinal persuasion knowledge, and conceptual persuasion knowledge, resulting in a significant model, F(6, 188) = 32.19, p < .001, R2 = .47. In this model, trustworthiness had a significant, moderately strong association with brand attitude, b* = 0.34, t = 3.87, p < .001, 95% CI [0.17, 51]. 5. A separate multiple regression analysis was conducted, including the control variables attitude towards blogs, advertising skepticism, attitudinal persuasion knowledge, and persuasive intent, which were all previously found to be significantly correlated with the dependent variable purchase intention, resulting in a significant model, F(5, 189) = 21.77, p < .001, R2 = .37. In this model, expertise had a significant, but weaker association with purchase intention, b* = 0.18, t = 2.84, p = .005, 95% CI [0.07, 0.42]. 6 A separate. multiple regression was conducted, including the control variables attitude towards blogs, advertising skepticism, attitudinal persuasion knowledge, and persuasive intent, resulting in a significant model, F(6, 189) = 23.64, p < .001, R2 = .39. In this model, trustworthiness had a significant, moderately strong association with purchase intention, b* = 0.36, t = 3.78, p < .001, 95% CI [0.22, 69]..

(21) 21. EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. independent variable, condition, is multicategorical, and Hayes’ PROCESS macro (2013) only allows single independent variables that must be either continuous or dichotomous, it had to be recoded to three separate dummy variables; whereas before the variable ‘Condition’ had three categories (1 = no disclosure, 2 = vague disclosure, 3 = obvious disclosure), three dummy variables were computed to denote the three different conditions. Subsequently, the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013), model 4, was used to conduct OLS regressions to estimate direct and indirect effects in the mediator model. To test the differences between conditions, one of the condition variables was entered as independent variable, while a second one was included as covariate, making the excluded condition the reference category. Additionally, based on Hayes’s (2009) recommendation, 5000 bootstrap samples were implemented into the analysis, to estimate bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (BCBCI). Figure 2 below depicts the model that was tested for hypothesis 4. Perceived Source Credibility. (Trustworthiness & Expertise). a. Type of Disclosure. (No, vague, or obvious disclosure). !. b. Brand Responses. c, c’. (Brand attitude & Purchase intention). Figure 2. Mediation model.. For reasons of readability, only the significant effects are presented within the text, the remaining analyses are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3 below (which correspond to Figure 2). Overall, it can be concluded that most of the analyses resulted in non-significant effects. There was, however, a significant direct effect of obvious disclosure, compared to no disclosure, on purchase intention, when controlling for trustworthiness, b = 0.44, SE = 0.20, t = 2.13, p = .034, 95% CI [.03, .84]. Moreover, the paths from the mediator variables on the dependent variables were all highly significant; expertise on brand attitude, b = 0.34, SE = ..

(22) 22. EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 07, t = 4.70, p < .001, 95% CI [.20, .48]; trustworthiness on brand attitude, b = 0.66, SE = .05, t = 12.20, p < .001, 95% CI [.56, .77]; expertise on purchase intention, b = 0.54, SE = .09, t = 6.32, p < .001, 95% CI [.37, 71]; and trustworthiness on purchase intention, b = 0.72, SE = . 07, t = 9.90, p < .001, 95% CI [.58, .86]; lending thus further support for the hypotheses 3a and 3b. With regard to the indirect effects, the BCBCIs were assessed and Sobel tests were performed. However, no significant indirect effects were found, leading thus to the rejection of hypothesis 4; source credibility does not mediate the effect of type of disclosure on brand responses (i.e., brand attitude and purchase intention).7 . Table 2 Effect of sponsorship disclosure on brand attitude via source credibility (i.e., expertise and trustworthiness). Variable. (reference category). a. b. c (total). c’ (direct). Indirect effect. (95% BCBCI). Vague disclosure . (no disclosure). .23 (.20). .34 (.07)***. .18 (.21). .10 (.20). .08 (.07). [-.05, .24]. Obvious disclosure. (no disclosure). .08 (.19). .34 (.07)***. .09 (.20). .06 (.19). .03 (.07). [-.10, .17]. Obvious disclosure. (vague disclosure). -.15 (.19). .34 (.07)***. -.09 (.20). -.04 (.19). -.05 (.07). [-.21, .06]. Vague disclosure. (no disclosure). .04 (.21). .66 (.05)***. .18 (.21). .15 (.16). .02 (.15) . [-.26, .32]. Obvious disclosure. (no disclosure). -.05 (.20). .66 (.05)***. .09 (20). .12 (.15). -.03 (.14). [-.30, .26]. Obvious disclosure. (vague disclosure). -.08 (.20). .66 (.05)***. -.09 (.20). -.03 (.15). -.06 (.13). [-.29, .20]. Expertise. Trustworthiness. Note. Unstandardized b-coefficients (with boot SE between parentheses) correspond to the paths in Figure 2; BCBCI = Bias-corrected 5,000 bootstrap confidence interval; N = 195. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. 7 As. previous researchers have suggested that an effect of disclosure can only occur when the participants remember seeing the disclosure (Boerman et al., 2012), the mediation analyses were run again with a reduced sample consisting of the participants that had correct memory of the disclosure, and those in the no disclosure condition (N =167). This did, however, not affect the results of the analyses; the paths that were previously non-significant remained non-significant, while those that were previously significant remained significant as well. (See Appendix E for tables of these results.).

(23) 23. EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. Table 3 Effect of sponsorship disclosure on purchase intention via source credibility (i.e., expertise and trustworthiness). Variable. (reference category). a. b. c (total). c’ (direct). Indirect effect. (95% BCBCI). Vague disclosure . (no disclosure). .23 (.20). .54 (.09)***. .36 (.26). .23 (.23). .12 (.11). [-.07, .38]. Obvious disclosure. (no disclosure). .08 (.19). .54 (.09)***. .40 (.25). .36 (.23). .04 (.10). [-.16, .24]. Obvious disclosure. (vague disclosure). -.15 (.19). .54 (.09)***. .04 (.25). .13 (.23). -.08 (.11). [-.34, .11]. Vague disclosure. (no disclosure). .04 (.21). .72 (.07)***. .36 (.25). .33 (.21). .03 (.15) . [-.25, .36]. Obvious disclosure. (no disclosure). -.05 (.20). .72 (.07)***. .40 (.25). .44 (.20)*. -.03 (.15). [-.31, .26]. Obvious disclosure. (vague disclosure). -.08 (.20). .72 (.07)***. .04 (.25). .10 (.20). -.06 (.14). [-.34, .20]. Expertise. Trustworthiness. Note. Unstandardized b-coefficients (with boot SE between parentheses) correspond to the paths in Figure 2; BCBCI = Bias-corrected 5,000 bootstrap confidence interval; N = 195. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.. ! Discussion and Conclusion. The main aim of the present study was to examine the effects of different types of. disclosure of sponsored content on personal blogs on brand responses, i.e., brand attitude and purchase intention, and whether this effect is mediated by perceived source credibility. A model was proposed in which obvious disclosure was assumed to diminish source credibility, and ultimately brand responses, while no disclosure was presumed to enhance source credibility, and subsequently improve brand responses. In this specific context, however, no evidence was found for the effect of disclosure on brand responses, or the mediating role of source credibility. Nonetheless, source credibility has been shown to significantly enhance brand attitude and purchase intention. .

(24) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 24. To be more specific, no support was found for the first hypothesis, which predicted the. effect of disclosure on brand attitude and purchase intention. This finding is, overall, not in line with past research. Several studies have previously found that disclosures, in other contexts, negatively affect brand attitudes (An & Stern, 2011; Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2014; Lee, 2010). Although these studies did not specifically examine the effects of disclosure on blogs, a recent study by Nekmat and Gower (2012) found that not disclosing sponsored blog content enhances attitude towards the product, as well as purchase intention. A possible reason for the diverging results of Nekmat and Gower (2012) and the present study might be the product that was reviewed on the blog. We used a rather low-involvement product, with low financial risk, while the blog in the study by Nekmat and Gower (2012) reviewed a rental apartment, thus a high-involvement product, with a much greater financial risk. It might be that blog readers simply do not feel as concerned when a blogger is gifted an inexpensive product, as compared to when they are offered a rent-free apartment, or it might be that they do not wish to be influenced when considering high-involvement products, and are therefore more resistant towards disclosure of sponsored high-involvement products. As the results seem inconclusive, the relationship between disclosure of sponsored blog content and brand responses should be analyzed more thoroughly in future research, possibly taking into account different types of products.. The second hypothesis, predicting the effect of disclosure on source credibility, was. not supported either. Again, this seems to contradict previous research, as it has earlier been concluded that disclosures negatively affect credibility (Bambauer-Sachse, & Mangold, 2013; Nyilasy, 2006). To be more specific, it has been found that not disclosing sponsored blog content enhances the blogger’s credibility (Carr & Hayes, 2014), while implicit disclosures reduce credibility (Nekmat & Gower, 2012). Contrarily, however, Carr and Hayes (2014) found obvious disclosures to be the most credibility-enhancing, which was explained with the.

(25) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 25. reader’s perception of a complimentary endorsement effect; if a brand cooperates with a blogger, it speaks to the blogger’s knowledge and expertise, leading to a heightened perception of credibility (Carr & Hayes, 2014). However, the present study did not find any significant relation between disclosure and source credibility, although the samples of the mentioned studies are to a great extent similar to the one used in the present study. A possible explanation for the diverging results is the fact that, in their studies, Carr and Hayes (2014), as well as Nekmat and Gower (2012), used disclosures that varied greatly from the ones used in the present study. While Carr and Hayes (2014) distinguished, among others, between disclosures of impartial influence and disclosure of explicit influence on the blogger’s opinions, Nekmat and Gower (2012) varied the placement of the disclosures before or after reading the blog post. The disclosures in the present study, however, were placed in the first paragraph of the blog post, and were either obvious, or vague. Furthermore, the blogs that were used in the Nekmat and Gower (2012) study made a specific statement about who the blogger is; they included a side-bar with his or her name, as well as a bit of personal information, while the present study did not refer to the author of the blog. Nevertheless, this might have influenced the results, as receiving information about the blogger might have biased the participants in several ways, e.g., if they perceived the blogger as similar to them, they might have seen him or her as more credible (Chang, 2011). Future research should therefore replicate existing studies, while taking into account a greater variety of disclosure types, as well as a variation of anonymous and onymous blogs.. The third hypothesis, which, without taking disclosure into account, predicted the. effect of source credibility on brand responses, was supported; perceived expertise and trustworthiness of the blogger significantly enhance brand attitude and purchase intention. Overall, these findings support previous results; specific to blogs, Carr and Hayes (2014) concluded that credibility amplifies a blogger’s word-of-mouth influence. The present findings.

(26) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 26. are moreover in line with research on opinion leadership; credibility is one of the most crucial attributes when trying to diffuse ideas or behaviors (Richmond & McCroskey, 1975). . The last hypothesis predicted the mediated effect of disclosure on brand responses via. source credibility. However, no support was found for the proposed model; in the context of this specific combination of blog and disclosures, no significant mediation effect was apparent. We can thus conclude that, although credibility enhances brand responses, disclosure of sponsored blog content does not affect source credibility or brand responses. A number of limitations inherent in the present study may account for the insignificant and equivocal results, while pointing toward opportunities for future research. . Limitations and Directions for Future Research. Firstly, the present study was limited to three different conditions; no disclosure,. vague disclosure, and obvious disclosure. However, in reality, bloggers use a wide variety of different types of disclosures, employing many different types of wording, and sometimes even visuals to make clear that the content was influenced by a third party. Although no significant differences between various types of disclosures were found in this study, the possibility of such cannot be excluded based on the present results, as it is unclear whether the obvious and vague disclosures were perceived as such, and whether the respondents understood the meaning of the disclosures. Hence, further research is needed to investigate how people perceive different types of disclosures. . Secondly, a variety of confounding variables could be responsible for the insignificant. results. In this prospect, the effect of the disclosure on source credibility and brand responses could be affected by attitude towards the specific blog. Although general attitude toward blogs was controlled for, and the attributes of the different blogs were kept consistent across all conditions, the possibility of a negative attitude toward the used type of blog was not accounted for. Moreover, interest in the presented product, as well as familiarity with the.

(27) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 27. product type, could further have biased the results, as it is not clear if the experimental groups differed on these variables. Similarly, it would be interesting to see whether blog familiarity affects the impact of disclosures, as loyal readers might feel betrayed when a blogger, with whom they feel a connection, tries to persuade them. Future research should therefore take into account a wider range of confounding variables, while analyzing the possibly diverging effects of known versus unknown blogs.. Lastly, and somewhat related, only one imaginary and thus unfamiliar brand was used to examine the effects. The used product can be categorized as a low involvement product, which entails that the purchase decision involves minimal cognitive effort and minor risk (Van den Putte, 2008). Future research should investigate the effects of familiar versus unfamiliar brands and product types, as well as high and low involvement products, to gain a deeper understanding of the best criteria for sponsored content and disclosures. Implications for Theory and Practice. Notwithstanding these limitations, the present study has a number of important. theoretical and practical implications. The combination of previous findings and this study suggests that the relationship between disclosure, source credibility, and brand responses may be more complex than assumed. In view of the fact that blogs seem to exert increasing influence on the attitudes and behaviors of their readers, due to their enhanced credibility compared to traditional advertising (Johnson & Kaye, 2004), further research seems necessary. With regard to implications for theory, the present study indicates that the theories that are used to explain disclosure effects in other contexts cannot be used to clarify the impact of disclosure of sponsored content on personal blogs. Specifically, we assumed that the effects of disclosure on brand responses could be explained with the activation of persuasion knowledge (Friestad & Wright, 1994), while the effects of source credibility on brand responses were supposed to rely on the Multiple Inference Model (Reeder, Kumar, Hesson-.

(28) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 28. McInnis, & Trafinow, 2002). However, per confirmation of hypotheses 3a and 3b, we can conclude that signaling theory is appropriate to predict the effects of source credibility on brand responses. Future research, nevertheless, appears necessary to gain a full understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the effects of disclosure in various contexts on source credibility and brand responses.. The practical implications for marketers and bloggers are twofold; first, the findings. suggest that credibility is the key to being influential. Although disclosure of sponsored content does not affect the blogger’s credibility in the context of this study, credibility was found to enhance brand responses. Thus, bloggers should strive to be honest with their audience, as it seems beneficial not only to them, but also to the brand they review on their blog. As previously noted, Carr and Hayes (2014) concluded that full disclosure implies that the brand endorsed the blog author due to his knowledge of the respective topic, resulting in increased credibility. Second, in light of the impending enforcement of new regulations, disclosing any kind of third-party influence does not seem to entail the negative consequences marketers were previously apprehensive about. Brands can therefore continue cooperating with bloggers. Overall, disclosures do not diminish the positive outcomes of product reviews on blogs, as was previously assumed, but, as demonstrated in the present study, these positive effects are stronger the more credible the blogger is perceived to be. . Concerning the foreseen regulations, our results suggest that the disclosures that were. used in this study seem appropriate. Whereas previous studies on product placement found that disclosures enhance brand responses (e. g., Boerman et al., 2012; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2013), which, from a magisterial point of view, is a rather negative outcome, no evidence for such undesired effects was found in the present study. Regarding the intended outcomes of disclosures, it must be noted that they are a tool to protect the audiences from concealed persuasive attempts. This can, however, only occur, when the recipients are aware of the.

(29) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 29. disclosure. In this study, 79% of the participants had correct memory of the disclosure, indicating that the used disclosures were satisfactorily recognizable. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the meaning of the disclosures was truly understood. On that account, it seems important that researchers concentrate on clarifying the most appropriate types of disclosure. . To conclude, it can be retained that the present study is the first to demonstrate that. disclosure of sponsored blog content does not affect source credibility or brand responses. This annihilates important concerns of bloggers and marketing executives regarding the previously assumed detrimental effects of disclosure regulations.. ! References An, S., & Stern, S. (2011). Mitigating the effects of advergames on children. Do advertising. breaks work? Journal of Advertising, 40, 43–56. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367400103. Bambauer-Sachse, S., & Mangold, S. (2013). Do consumers still believe what is said in . online product reviews? A persuasion knowledge approach. Journal of Retailing and. Consumer Services, 20, 373-381. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.03.004. Beaulieu, P. R. (2001). The effects of judgments of new clients’ integrity upon risk . judgments, audit evidence, and fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, . 20(2), 85–99. doi:10.2308/aud.2001.20.2.85. Beaulieu, P. R., & Rosman, A. J. (2003). How does negative source credibility affect . commercial lenders’ decisions? Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 6, 79–. 94. doi:10.1016/S1474-7979(03)06004-6. Benoit, W. L. (1998). Forewarning and persuasion. In M. Allen & R. Priess (Eds.), . Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 159 184). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Press.. Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer.

(30) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 30. information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 31-40. doi:10.1002/dir.1014. Boerman, S.C., Van Reijmersdal, E.A., & Neijens, P.C. (2012). Sponsorship Disclosure: . Effects of Duration on Persuasion Knowledge and Brand Responses. Journal of . Communication, 62(6), 1047-1064. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01677.x. 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 and Marketing, 31(3), 214-224. . doi:10.1002/mar.20688. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and . control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.. Bruner, G. C. (2009). Marketing Scales Handbook. A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures . for Consumer Behavior & Advertising Research (Vol. 5). Carbondale, IL: GCBII . Productions.. Cain, R. M. (2011). Embedded advertising on television: Disclosure, deception and free. speech rights. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(2), 226–238. . doi:10.1509/jppm.30.2.226. Carl, W. J. (2008). The role of disclosure in organized word-of-mouth marketing programs.. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(3), 225-241. . doi:10.1080/13527260701833839. Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2014). The effect of disclosure of third-party influence on an . opinion leader's credibility and electronic word of mouth in two-Step flow. Journal of. Interactive Advertising, 14(1), 38-50. doi:10.1080/15252019.2014.909296. Campbell, M.C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The . effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent.. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83. doi:10.1086/314309.

(31) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 31. Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2012). 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 Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing:. Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude . judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460-473. . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460. Chang, C. (2011). Opinions from others like you: The role of perceived source similarity. . Media Psychology, 14(4,) 415-441. doi:10.1080/15213269.2011.620539. Colliander, J., & Erlandsson, S. (2013). 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, 1-15. doi:10.1080/13527266.2012.730543.. European Union (2009). Audiovisual media services directive: Product placement.. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/reg/tvwf/advertising/product/ . index_en.htm!. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with. persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31. . doi:10.1086/209380. FTC (2013, March). Dot com disclosures: How to make effective disclosures in digital . advertising. [pdf]. Retrieved from: http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus41-dot-. com-disclosures-information-about-online-advertising. Gotlieb, J. B., & Sarel, D. (1992). The influence of type of advertisement, price, and source. credibility on perceived quality. Journal of Academic Marketing Science, 20(3), . 253-260. doi:10.1007/BF02723412.

(32) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 32. Gotlieb, J. B., Schlacter, J. L., & St. Louis, R. D. (1992). Consumer decision making: A . model of the effects of involvement, source credibility, and location on the size of the. price difference required to induce consumers to change suppliers. Psychology and. Marketing, 9, 191–208. doi:10.1002/mar.4220090303. Grimes, A., & Kitchen, P. J. (2007). Researching mere exposure effects to advertising:. Theoretical foundations and methodological implications. International Journal of. Market Research, 49(2), 191-219.. Gupta, P. B., & Gould, S. J. (1997). Consumers' perceptions of the ethics and acceptability of. product placements in movies: Product category and individual differences. Journal of. Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 19(1), 37-50. . doi:10.1080/10641734.1997.10505056. Halvorsen, K., Hoffmann, J., Coste-Manière, I., & Stankeviciute, R. (2013). Can fashion . blogs function as a marketing tool to influence consumer behavior? Evidence from. Norway. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 4(3), 211-224. . doi:10.1080/20932685.2013.790707.. Harmon, R. R., & Coney, K. A. (1982). The persuasive effects of source credibility in buy. and lease situations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 255-260. . doi:10.2307/3151625. Hayes, A. F. (2009) Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new . millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420. . doi:10.1080/03637750903310360. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:. A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press. .

(33) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 33. Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschaft, L., Rangaswamy,. A., & Skiera, B. (2010). The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal. of Service Research, 13(3), 311-330. doi:10.1177/1094670510375460.. Holbrook, M. B. & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of . consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 404-420.. doi:10.1086/209123. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and. the internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. . Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 622-642. . doi:10.1177/107769900408100310. Kellaris, J. J., & Cox, A. D. (1989). The effects of background music in advertising: A. reassessment. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 113-118. doi:10.1086/209199. Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse,. H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins & B. Weiner, B. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving. the causes of behavior (pp. 79–94). Morristown: General Learning Press.. Kennett, J., & Matthews, S. (2008). What’s the buzz? Undercover marketing and the . corruption of friendship. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(2), 2-18. . doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00391.x. Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Newell, S. J. (2002). The dual credibility model: The . influence of corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions.. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10, 1–13.. Lee, S. Y. (2010). Ad-induced affect: The effects of forewarning, affect intensity, and prior. brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16, 225–237. . doi:10.1080/13527260902869038. Lepkowska-White, E., Brashear, T. G., & Weinberger, M. G. (2003). A test of ad appeal .

(34) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 34. effectiveness in Poland and the United States: The interplay of appeal, product and. culture. Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 57-67. doi:10.1080/00913367.2003.10639136. McConnell, B., & Huba, J. (2007). Citizen marketers: When people are the message. . Chicago, IL: Kaplan Publishing.. Milne, G. R., Rohm, A., & Bahl, S. (2009). If it’s legal, is it acceptable? Consumer reactions. to covert online marketing. Journal of Advertising, 38(4), 107-122. . doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367380408. Nebenzahl, I. D., & Jaffe, E. D. (1998). Ethical dimensions of advertising executions. Journal. of Business Ethics, 17(7), 805–815. doi:10.1023/A:1005850812845.. Nekmat, E., & Gower, K. K. (2012). Effects of disclosure and message valence in Online . word-of-mouth (eWOM) communication: Implications for integrated marketing . communication. International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, . 4(1). . Nyilasy, G. (2006). Word of mouth: What we really know - and what we don’t. In J. Kirby, &. P. Marsden (Eds.), Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz, and Word of Mouth . Revolution, (pp. 161-184). Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heineman. . Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer. skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159–186.. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03. Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2000). On the origin and distinctness of skepticism. toward advertising. Marketing Letters, 11(4), 311-322. . doi:10.1023/A:1008181028040. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure perceived celebrity. endorsers’ perceived expertise,trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of . Advertising, 19, 39–52. doi:10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191.

(35) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 35. Pennanen, K., (2011). Is interpersonal and institutional e-trustworthiness equally important in. consumer e-trust development? Implications for consumers' e-trust building . behaviours. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 233–244. doi:10.1002/cb.322. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1977). Forewarning, cognitive responding, and resistance to. persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 645-655.. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion . variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social . psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 323–390). Boston: McGraw-Hill.. Reeder, G. D., Kumar, S., Hesson-McInnis, M. S., & Trafimow, D. (2002). Inferences about. the morality of an aggressor: the role of perceived motive. Journal of Personality and. Social Psychology, 83, 789–803. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.789. Reeder, G. D. (2009). Mindreading: judgments about intentionality and motives in . dispositional inference. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 1–18. . doi:10.1080/10478400802615744. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1975). Whose opinion do you trust? Journal of. Communication, 25, 42-50. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1975.tb00604.x. Singh, T., Veron-Jackson, L., & Cullinane, J. (2008). Blogging: A new play in your marketing. game plan. Business Horizons, 51(4), 281–292. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2008.02.002. Teinowitz, I. (2008). Product placement scrutinized. Television Week, 27(5), 1–20.. Tessitore, T. & Geuens, M. (2013). PP for ‘product placement’ or ‘puzzled public’? The . effectiveness of symbols as warnings of product placement and the moderating role of. brand recall. International Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 419-442. . doi:10.2501/IJa-32-3-419-442. Tsao, H.-Y., Berthon, P., Pitt, L.F., & Parent, M. (2011). Brand signal quality of products in an. asymmetric online information environment: An experimental study. Journal of .

(36) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 36. Consumer Behaviour, 10(4), 169–178. doi:10.1002/cb.327. Tuk, M. A., Verlegh, P. W. J., Smidts, A., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2005). Activation of . salesperson stereotypes affects perceptions of word-of-mouth referral. Advances in. Consumer Research, 32(1), 256-257.. Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Multiple roles for source credibility under. high elaboration: It is all in the timing. Social Cognition, 25, 536–552. . doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.4.536. Van den Putte, B. & Dhondt, G. (2005). Developing successful communication strategies: A. test of an integrated framework for effective communication. Journal of Applied . Social Psychology, 35(11), 2399-2420. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02108.x. Van den Putte, B. (2008). Advertising strategies. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international Encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 1, pp. 108-112). Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishing. Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2007). Effects of television brand . placement on brand image. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 403–420. . doi:10.1002/mar.20166. Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Tutaj, K. & Boerman, S. (2013): The effects of product placement. disclosures on skepticism and brand memory. Communications. The European . Journal of Communication Research, 38(2), 127-146. . doi:10.1515/commun-2013-0008. Verlegh, P. W. J., Ryu, G., Tuk, M. A., & Feick, L. (2013). Receiver responses to rewarded. referrals: The motive inferences framework. Journal of Academic Marketing Science,. 41, 669-682. doi:10.1007/s11747-013-0327-8. Viegas, F. B. (2005). Bloggers’ expectations of privacy and accountability: An initial survey.. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). .

(37) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 37. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00260.x. Wei, M., Fisher, E., & Main, K. J. 2008. An examination of the effects of activating . persuasion knowledge on consumer responses to brands engaging in covert . marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 27(1), 34–44. . doi:10.1509/jppm.27.1.34. Wiener, J. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1986). Source credibility: On the independent effects of trust. and expertise. Advances in Consumer Research 13(1), 306–10.. WOMMA - Word of Mouth Marketing Association (2013). The WOMMA Guide to . Disclosure in Social Media Marketing. [pdf] Retrieved from: http://www.womma.org/. ethics/sm-disclosure-guide. Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analytic syntheses. of forewarning of influence appeals. Psychology Bulletin, 129(1), 119–138. . doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.119!. Zhu, J., & Tan, B. (2007). Effectiveness of blog advertising: Impact of communicator . expertise, advertising intent, and product involvement. ICIS 2007 Proceedings. Paper. 121. Retrieved from: http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2007/121. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !.

(38) EFFECTS OF DISCLOSURE OF SPONSORED BLOG CONTENT. 38. Appendix A Complete scales Source credibility (based on Ohanian, 1990) Expertise:. not an expert/expert inexperienced/experienced unknowledgeable/knowledgeable unqualified/qualified unskilled/skilled.. Trustworthiness:. insincere/sincere dishonest/honest not dependable/dependable not trustworthy/trustworthy unreliable/reliable. Purchase intention (based on Lepkowska-White,Brashear, & Weinberger, 2003) “If I were looking for this type of product my likelihood of purchasing the product featured in this blog post would be high” “If I were to buy this type of product, the probability that I would consider buying the product featured in this blog post would be high” “If had to buy this type of product, my willingness to buy the product featured in this blog post would be high” Brand attitude (based on Holbrook and Batra, 1987) good/bad I like it/I dislike it favorable/unfavorable.

No results found