The influence of video reviews : effects of source expertise (expert reviewer vs. layperson reviewer), sponsoring and percieved credibility on consumers' attitude

(1)

The influence of video reviews:

Effects of source expertise (expert reviewer vs. layperson reviewer), sponsoring and perceived credibility on consumers’ attitude

Jennifer L. Westoby 10294694 Master's Thesis University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science

Supervisor: Young-Shin Lim

02-02-2017

(2)

Abstract

This study examines the influence source expertise (expert reviewer vs. layperson reviewer) on viewers’ attitude towards the product by looking at sponsoring, manipulated expertise, perceived trustworthiness and perceived expertise. Video blogs, or vlogs in short, are blogs in video form instead of textual form. The persons making these vlogs are called vloggers. Perceived expertise is defined as the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of valid assertions, and trustworthiness is defined as the degree of confidence in the communicators’ intention to

communicate the assertions he considers most valid. For this study an online experiment was conducted. Participants watched a video review with manipulated sponsoring with either an expert reviewer or a layperson reviewer and filled in a questionnaire. Results revealed that; source

expertise neither influences perceived trustworthiness of the review, perceived expertise of the review nor attitude toward the product; that sponsoring negatively influences perceived

trustworthiness of the review; and that perceived trustworthiness of the review and perceived expertise of the review positively influence attitude towards the product. Overall, this study reveals that whenever a vlogger is perceived as being trustworthy, the attitude of viewer will be positively influenced. Potential explanations include that consumer generated media is considered more credible because it is perceived as non-commercial advertising.

Keywords: Vlog, video review, source expertise, expert reviewer, layperson, sponsoring, credibility, perceived trustworthiness, perceived expertise, and attitude

(3)

The influence of video reviews:

Effects of source expertise (expert reviewers vs. laypersons), sponsoring and perceived credibility on consumers’ attitude

Media is continuously changing and where marketers used to promote their products, nowadays a lot of 'ordinary' people are promoting products. And according to Kaplan and Haenlein (2011) the most effective influence on consumers' behaviour towards a brand/product is when consumers share brand- or product-related content with one another. These online product reviews and/or recommendations produced by consumers are known as consumer generated media (CGM). The fast development of social media has enabled consumers to share their purchases and product use experiences (Henning-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004). One of the biggest social media websites is YouTube. This video-based social media platform is the third most visited website all over the world (Donchev, 2017). Making and sharing videos online has become immensely popular. Each minute around 300 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube (Donchev, 2017).

YouTube is an excellent platform for consumers to communicate with other consumers or to watch/make videos. CGM like blogs and vlogs (video blogs) have grown rapidly in the past 10 years. Video blogs, or vlogs in short, are blogs in video form instead of textual form. The persons making these vlogs are called vloggers. Most vloggers document certain aspects of their life or happenings and post them on YouTube. One of the common activities of vloggers is making review videos of devices, make-up products, toys or other gadgets. Schivinski and Dąbrowski (2015) examined why CGM is judged as more credible compared to traditional or firm-created media and they suggested that CGM is perceived as a non-commercial advertising, whereas media generated by firms is perceived as commercial advertising. Because vlogs are CGM, vlogs ought to be perceived as credible. As a result of vloggers' objectiveness, their opinion can have a big effect on the purchase intention of their viewers (Mir & Rehman, 2013). Like the theory of reasoned action

(4)

predicts, attitude plays a significant role in predicting consumers’ behaviour: a more positive

attitude will result in higher behaviour intention. Following this theory, video reviews that influence the attitude of viewers, also influence the behavioural intention of the viewers.

Sponsoring is another phenomenon that frequently takes place in video reviews and other CGM. Some vloggers are sponsored by companies to review items. The vlogger will receive a certain item that they have to review in a video. Having sponsored a vlogger, the company expects more consumers to buy this item. The policy of YouTube demands that when someone is sponsored by a brand/company they have to clearly state this in their video. A drawback of sponsoring is that it may influence the consumers’ opinion in a negative way. Sponsoring may be perceived as

commercial advertising which, as mentioned above, is perceived as less credible compared to non-commercial advertising. Consumers are sceptical about the motives of a brand/company when they sponsor an event/person (Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004). Although it is unlikely that consumers know the specific motives behind the sponsoring of a vlog review, consumers are likely to

understand that most companies exist due to consumer purchases, something that can raise resistance toward the brand/company (Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004).

Another factor that may influence the perceived credibility is source expertise. Vloggers that have more experience with reviewing products may be perceived as more credible. The word expertise is defined as skillful in a particular field (Jacoby, Troutman, Kuss, & Mazursky, 1986). A specialist in a certain field can tell more useful specifications about the product when reviewing it, whereas someone who has low source expertise may only talk about what the product looks like and that it is easy to use.

There have many been studies that researched the credibility of different types of advertisements (Fogg et al., 2001; Adjei, Noble, & Noble, 2010; Bae & Lee, 2011; Hautz et al., 2013). Most credibility research has been done on traditional media, like newspapers and radio. Material of CGM credibility research in relation to video reviews is scarce. In this regard, based on

(5)

previous research, the present study investigates how people process vlog reviews. It is important to research video reviews to get a better understanding of what matters for a consumer when they are searching for reviews of a product they want to buy.

Marketers can also use this information to their advantage when searching for a new marketing campaign. A vlogger reviewing their product may result in a better attitude towards the brand/product which can lead to a higher purchase intention. This study therefore not only shows how consumers perceive video reviews but also if video reviews can influence consumers’ attitude. The information from this study can be used by vloggers or companies when making a video review.

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of sponsoring and source expertise on the attitude of the viewers towards the product that has been reviewed in the vlog and how

perceived credibility of the review (consisting of perceived trustworthiness and perceived expertise) mediates this effect. The main research question of this study is: “What effects do sponsoring and source expertise have on the attitude of consumers towards a product when they watch a video review, and how does perceived credibility mediates this effect?”

Theoretical Framework

Video Reviews

The central components in this study are video reviews. Vlogs are video collections that serve both as an audio-visual life documentary and as a means of communication and interaction on the Internet. (Biel & Gatica-Perez, 2010). The persons making these vlogs are called vloggers. A review is a report that gives someone's opinion about the quality of a book, performance, product, etc. Video reviews are vlogs in which a product is being tested and reviewed by the vlogger. Videos can “aid communication by increasing communication richness, empowering those who develop

(6)

their own videos and encouraging identity formation among users” (Molyneaux, O’Donnell, Gibson, & Singer, 2008, p. 2). A lot of consumers rely on online reviews in making decisions

ranging from what movie to watch to what car to buy. Videos resemble face-to-face communication; users can read emotional expressions and gazes. When developed by video technologies,

communication richness can contribute to better development of trust between the vlogger and the viewer (Bekkering & Shim, 2006). Molyneaux et al. (2008) analysed different vlogs and asked viewers to give insight in what made the vlog good or bad. Viewers indicated that film location (bedroom, in the car), gender of the vlogger, humour and subject of the vlog all influenced their opinion of the vlog. Johnson and Kaye (2004) investigated how weblog users judge the credibility of blogs compared to traditional media as well as other online sources. They found evidence that blogs are perceived as more credible compared to traditional sources. Blogs provided more depth and thoughtful analysis than other media, and blogs were perceived as more opinionated, analytical, independent and personal. This study is interested in the influence of sponsoring and source

expertise.

Perceived Credibility

Credibility can be defined as “the attitude towards a source of communication held at a given time by a receiver” (McCroskey, 1997, p. 82). Perceived credibility can be seen as a very important criterion for evaluating the quality of information or the communicators’ qualities (Bae & Lee, 2011; Perloff, 2013).

Credibility has been looked at as a factor responsible for communication outcomes like attitude change, but credibility has also been examined as a communication outcome itself and to determine what causes credibility to increase or decrease (Littlejohn, 1972).

According to research of McCroskey, Hamilton and Weiner (1974) credibility has indicated to be positively related to obtaining information from communication; receivers learn more from sources they perceived as credible compared to sources that are they perceived as less credible. The

(7)

same study also concluded that credibility can influence through communication; receivers will be persuaded more by sources they perceived as credible compared to less credible sources

(McCroskey, Hamilton, & Weiner, 1974). Many studies have been done on the credibility of websites (Fogg et al., 2001), textual review websites (Adjei, Noble, & Noble, 2010) and the

difference in credibility between user-generated content (UGC) and brand generated content (Bae & Lee, 2011; Hautz et al., 2013). Previous studies have concluded that high perceived credibilitycan eventually lead to favourable attitudes toward the brand/product (Erdogan, 1999; Friedman & Friedman, 1979). Schivinski and Dąbrowski (2015) examined the credibility of CGM compared to traditional or firm-created media and they suggested that CGM is perceived as a non-commercial advertising, whereas media generated by firms is perceived as commercial advertising. Because vlogs are CGM, vlogs ought to be perceived as credible.

Perceived credibility is compiled of two components, expertise and trustworthiness. Perceived expertise is “the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of valid assertions,” (Ohanian, 1990, p. 41). Perceived trustworthiness is defined as "the degree of

confidence in the communicators’ intention to communicate the assertions he considers most valid." (Ohanian, 1990, p. 41). Trust has also been defined as a general disposition toward others (Rotter 1971), a characteristic of social systems (Barber 1983), a rational decision about cooperative

behaviour (Dasgupta 1988), and an affect based evaluation about another person (McAllister 1995). Although credibility has been used in many studies as one construct, in this study the two components of credibility will be examined independently from each other. Video reviews may have a reputation of having expertise, but may lack trustworthiness. Or the review may be perceived as trustworthy, but lacking expertise.

Sponsoring

Sponsorship involves the investment of a brand or organization in activities with the goal of achieving marketing or corporate objectives such as enhancing corporate reputation or enhancing

(8)

brand equity (Ruth & Simonin, 2003). Another definition of sponsoring by Ruth and Simonin (2003) is that sponsoring is an exchange between sponsors and an event or activity, whereby the latter receives a fee and the former obtains rights to associate with the event and to advertise that association. Sponsoring has been researched in many studies. Sponsoring can take on many

different forms, from sponsoring a football team to banner advertising on websites. Sponsorship has been acknowledged as one of the newest and most popular forms of Internet advertising (Rodgers, 2003).

Recent studies have concluded that consumers rate the credibility of brand-related CGM significantly more highly than content made by marketers and commercial sources (Hautz, Füller, Hutter, & Thürridl, 2014). Consumers are sceptical about the motives of brand/companies when an event/person is sponsored (Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004). As previously mentioned this

resistance towards a brand or company arises because consumers are aware that most companies rely on consumer purchases (Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004). The hypothesis is based on the conclusion of the study of Johnson and Kaye (2004) that blogs are more credible compared to traditional media, and on the study of Schivinski and Dąbrowski (2015) that UGC is perceived as non-commercial advertising, and sponsoring would imply commercial advertising, and thus perceived as less credible.

H1: Sponsored video reviews are perceived as having (a) less trustworthiness and (b) less expertise compared to non-sponsored video reviews.

Source Expertise: Expert Reviewer vs. Layperson Reviewer

Source expertise is derived from knowledge of the subject; someone with high expertise will have more knowledge about the product/brand than someone with low expertise (Goldsmith,

Lafferty, & Newell, 2000). Source expertise also refers to the extent that the speaker is perceived as capable of making correct assertions (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Pornpitakpan (2004) concluded that a source that has high expertise, compared to a source with low expertise, contributes to positive

(9)

attitudes towards the communicator and the advertisement.

In terms of credibility not all reviewers are equal to each other. Layperson reviewers are vloggers who claim to have little knowledge of the product they are reviewing, whereas an expert-reviewer knows about a product as part of their profession (Mackiewicz, 2010). A study of English, Sweetser, and Ancu (2011) provided results that persuasion is influenced by source expertise in a public health video. In their study, the video with a former surgeon as a spokesperson was perceived as a very credible source in contrast to the video where a ‘minority’ female was the spokesperson. In face-to-face settings experts have been perceived as more credible laypersons (DeBono & Harnish, 1988). However, in online settings, some studies found experts to be perceived more credible than laypersons, and other studies found laypersons to be more credible than experts (Schindler & Bickart, 2005; Smith, Menon, & Sivakumar, 2005; Wang, 2005)

For source expertise the following hypothesis and research question were constructed: H2: A video review made by an expert reviewer is perceived as having (a) more perceived

trustworthiness and (b) more perceived expertise of the review compared to a video review made by a layperson reviewer.

RQ1: Does sponsoring of the video review interact with source expertise in affecting (a) the perceived trustworthiness and (b) the perceived expertise of the video review?

Attitude Towards Product

In marketing and advertising research attitude is an important variable because it is considered to be a stable and persistent predisposition in predicting consumer behaviour (Mitchell & Olson, 1981). There are numerous definitions of attitude defined in many studies. Fishbein and Azjen (1975) define attitude as “a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favourable or unfavourable manner with respect to a given object” (p. 6). They developed the expectancy-value approach, which claims that attitude consists of the components cognition (i.e. beliefs) and affect (i.e. evaluation) (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). Attitude can influence judgements, shape perceptions,

(10)

and predict behaviour (Perloff, 2013). The theory of reasoned action explains that a person's behavioural intentions depend on their attitude and social norms of performing this behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). When a consumer shows a positive attitude towards a product or brand, this will result in having a positive influence on intended behaviour (Mosavi & Ghaedi, 2012).

The source credibility theory states that the likeliness of consumers being persuaded by a message or show behavioural compliance will be higher if the source itself is perceived as credible (Hautz et al., 2014). The research of Mir and Rehman (2013) showed that perceived credibility positively influences a consumers’ attitude toward UGC. These results are in line with the study done by McCroskey, Hamilton, and Weiner (1974) that receivers of communication will be more persuaded by sources they perceived as credible compared to less credible sources.

For attitude towards the product the following hypotheses were made:

H3: (a) Perceived trustworthiness and (b) perceived expertise of the review are positively related to attitude towards the product.

H4: Sponsored video reviews have an indirect effect on attitude towards the product through (a) perceived trustworthiness and (b) perceived expertise of the review.

H5: Source expertise has an indirect effect on attitude towards the product through (a) perceived trustworthiness and (b) perceived expertise of the review.

Figure 1. Conceptual model Sponsoring

Source expertise: expert reviewer

vs. layperson reviewer

Perceived credibility of the review: - Perceived trustworthiness

- Perceived expertise

Attitude towards the product

(11)

Methodology

Participants

Samples were drawn by using a convenience sampling procedure by posting the

questionnaire link on different Facebook pages. In total 88 participants completed the questionnaire. Participants were between the ages of 17 and 63 (M = 26.07, SD = 6.47). In total 47 participants were male (53.4%). 49 participants were from the Netherlands (55.7%) and 21 from Belgium

(23.9%). Other countries mentioned were the United States of America, New Zealand, Finland, Italy and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Of the 88 participants, 53 have a Bachelor's degree or a higher level of education completed.

Manipulation

For this study a short vlog review was used. The length of the video was 2 minutes and 5 seconds or 2 minutes and 11 seconds. In the vlog, noise-cancelling, in-ear headphones from iLepo were tested and reviewed. In total this study examined four different vlog reviews in a 2

(sponsoring: yes or no) x 2 (source expertise: expert reviewer vs. layperson reviewer) research design. The conditions of the videos were: sponsored + expert reviewer, sponsored + layperson reviewer, not-sponsored + expert reviewer, and not-sponsored + layperson reviewer.

Source expertise was operationalised in terms of knowledge and performance based indices. In this study this was done by giving the vlogger a 'title' that indicated his knowledge and skill in reviewing an electronic device. For expert reviewer this title was “Wired Magazine, Tech product reviewer”. For layperson reviewer the title was “Unboxing reviewer”. Wired Magazine is one of the biggest, if not the biggest magazine that focuses on how emerging technologies affect culture, the economy, and politics. A reviewer for this magazine would be perceived as a better expert than an “unboxing reviewer”.

(12)

vlogger to some extent in making the vlog review. In the sponsored videos, the reviewer would say that iLepo has sent him the product, and a written disclaimer is shown that the video is sponsored by iLepo. In the not-sponsored videos the sentence and written disclaimer are removed from the video.

Procedure

Participants received an explanation of the study aims and they were informed that their participation would be completely voluntarily and that their anonymity was guaranteed. The participants were asked to watch and listen to a short video and answer questions about it in approximately ten minutes. After participants agreed to the informed consent document, they watched one of the four different videos in this study, which were randomly assigned to the participant. The questionnaire first addressed perceived trustworthiness and perceived expertise of the review. Then the questionnaire turned to attitude towards the product, purchase intention, if the participant noticed that the video was or was not sponsored and if they knew the reviewer (which no one answered positively). In the last section of the questionnaire the participants were asked about their demographic information, including sex, age, highest level of education and what country they are from. Of the 144 participants that opened the questionnaire, 88 have completed the whole questionnaire. Because the questionnaire has also been distributed via 'snowballing' it is unclear what the exact response rate is.

Measurement

Perceived credibility.

Perceived credibility was measured using the two 7-point semantic differential scales for trustworthiness and expertise from Ohanian (1990). The trustworthiness scale consisted of dependable – undependable, honest – dishonest, reliable – unreliable, sincere – insincere, and

(13)

trustworthy – untrustworthy, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .93 (M = 4.43, SD = 1.30). The higher the score, the more trustworthy the person is perceived. The expertise scale consisted of expert - amateur, experienced – inexperienced, knowledgeable – unknowledgeable, qualified – unqualified, and skilled – unskilled, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .95 (M = 4.12, SD = 1.31). The higher the score, the more the reviewer was perceived as an expert.

Attitude towards the product.

Attitude towards the product was measured using the 7-point semantic differential scale of Ajzen, Joyce, Sheikh and Cote (2011), with a Cronbach’s alpha of .95 (M = 4.60, SD = 1.27). The scale consisted of 5 semantic differential word pairs: unpleasant – pleasant, dislike – like, negative – positive, undesirable – desirable, and bad – good. A higher score on this scale indicates a more positive attitude towards the product.

Results Preliminary test results of this study can be found in table 1.

Table 1. Correlations, means and standard deviations of the measured variables (N = 88)

1 2 3 4 5 M SD

1. Sponsoring 1 .48 .50

2. Source expertise .09 1 .50 .50

3. Perceived trustworthiness of the review -.34** -.09 1 4.43 1.3 4. Perceived expertise of the review .01 .10 .48** 1 4.12 1.31 5. Attitude towards the brand -.25* -.01 .66** .47** 1 4.59 1.27 Note. *p < .01. **p < .05

(14)

The manipulation check for sponsoring showed that participants that watched a sponsored video rated the video (M = 2.02, SD = .68, on a 1 (strongly disagree the video is sponsored) to 7 (strongly agree the video is sponsored) scale) significantly higher compared to participants that watched a not-sponsored video (M = .80, SD = .36), F(1, 86) = 113.64, p < .001, η2 = .57.

Two 2 x 2 ANOVAs were conducted to test hypotheses 1 and 2, and research question 1. A regression analysis was used for hypothesis 3. PROCESS macro analysis (Hayes, 2013) was used for hypotheses 4 and 5.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that sponsored video reviews would have a (a) lower perceived trustworthiness and (b) lower perceived expertise of the review compared to not-sponsored video reviews. Hypothesis 1a was supported. There is a significant average effect of sponsoring on perceived trustworthiness of the review, F(1, 84) = 10.84, p = .001, η2 = .11. Participants that watched a sponsored video judged the perceived trustworthiness lower (M = 3.97, SD = 1.41) compared to participants that watched a not-sponsored video (M = 4.86, SD = 1.04).

Hypothesis 1b was rejected. There is no significant effect of sponsoring on perceived expertise of the review, F(1, 84) = .001, p = .971. Participants that watched a sponsored video judged the perceived expertise higher (M = 4.13, SD = 1.33) compared to participants that watched a non-sponsored video (M = 4.11, SD = 1.30).

Hypothesis 2 predicted that video reviews with an expert reviewer would be perceived as having (a) more perceived trustworthiness and (b) more perceived expertise compared to video reviews with layperson reviewer. Hypothesis 2a and 2b were both rejected. There is not a

significant effect for source expertise on perceived trustworthiness of the review, F(1, 84) = .30, p = .582. Participants that watched a video with an expert reviewer scored lower for perceived

trustworthiness (M = 4.32, SD = 1.37) than participants that watched a video with a layperson reviewer (M = 4.55, SD = 1.23). A significant effect of source expertise on perceived expertise of the review was not found, F(1, 84) = .93, p = .340. Participants that watched a video with an expert

(15)

reviewer scored higher for perceived expertise (M = 4.25, SD = 1.46) than participants that watched a video with a layperson reviewer (M = 4.00, SD = 1.13).

Research question 1 wondered if there was an interaction between sponsoring and source expertise in the effect on (a) the perceived trustworthiness and (b) the perceived expertise of the review. Research question 1a was answered negatively, an interaction effect between sponsoring and source expertise on perceived trustworthiness of the review was not found, F(1, 84) = .33, p = .570. Research question 1b was also answered negatively, an interaction effect between sponsoring and source expertise on perceived expertise of the review was also not found, F(1, 84) = 2.12, p = .151.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that (a) perceived trustworthiness and (b) perceived expertise of the review are positively related to attitude towards the product. Based on the results hypothesis 3a has been supported and hypothesis 3b rejected. A regression model with attitude towards the product as dependent variable and perceived trustworthiness and perceived expertise of the review as

independent variables is significant, F(2, 85) = 14.89, p < .001. This regression model is therefore useful to predict attitude towards the product. The prediction is mediocre, 25.9% of the differences can be predicted based upon perceived trustworthiness of the review and perceived expertise of the review (R² = .43). Perceived trustworthiness of the review, b* = .42, t = 3.95, p < .001, 95% CI [.27, .83] has a significant, strong relation with attitude towards the product. With every point on the scale of perceived trustworthiness, which ranges from 1 (low) to 7 (high), attitude towards the product increases with .55 points. Perceived expertise of the review, b* = .15, t = 1.43, p = .160, 95% CI [-.08, .47] does not have a significant relation with attitude towards the product.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that sponsoring has an indirect effect on attitude towards the product through the mediators (a) perceived trustworthiness and (b) perceived expertise.

Hypothesis 4a and 4b have been accepted. Bootstrap results indicated the indirect coefficient was significant, b = -.46, SE = .20, 95% bootstrap [-.90, -.11]. Sponsoring proved to be a significant

(16)

predictor of attitude towards the product (b = -0.63, t(85) = -2.38, p = .020), as well as the mediator perceived expertise of the review (b = .21, t(83) = 2.32, p = .023) and the mediator perceived trustworthiness of the review (b = .52, t(83) = 5.36, p < 0.001). Sponsoring was no longer a significant predictor of attitude towards the product after controlling for the mediators perceived expertise and perceived trustworthiness (b = -0.18, t(83) = -.81, p = .421), which is consistent with full mediation.

Hypothesis 5 predicted the indirect effect of source expertise on attitude towards the product through the mediators (a) perceived trustworthiness and (b) perceived expertise of the review. Both hypotheses 5a and 5b were not supported. Bootstrap results indicated the indirect coefficient was not significant, b = -.03, SE = .19, 95% bootstrap [-.38, .35]. Source expertise is not a significant predictor of attitude towards the product, b = .03, t(85) = .11, p = .910. Nor has source expertise a significant effect on perceived trustworthiness (b = -.15, t(85) = -.58, p = .564) or on perceived expertise (b = .25, t(85) = .89, p = .376). Source expertise remained a non-significant predictor of attitude towards the product after controlling for the mediators perceived expertise and perceived trustworthiness (b = .06, t(83) = .28, p = .782).

Discussion and Conclusion

The goal of this study was to examine what influences the attitude of viewers when watching a vlog review. Overall the results show that there are influences on viewers' attitude toward the product when they watch a video review.

Hypothesis 1a was supported, sponsored video reviews are perceived as less trustworthy compared to non-sponsored video reviews. This result is in line with the study of Rifon, Choi, Trimble, and Li (2004) that consumers are sceptical about the motives of a brand/company when they sponsor an event/person. And with the results of Schivinski and Dąbrowski (2015) and Johnson and Kaye (2004) that sponsoring would present CGM as a commercial advertising, thus

(17)

being perceived as less trustworthy. A vlogger therefore cannot gain trust with its viewers when they are being sponsored. Unfortunately hypothesis 1b could not be supported due to a non-significant result. It is unclear if sponsoring has either a positive or negative effect on perceived expertise of the review. This can be a result of the low statistical power due to a small sample size.

The same applies to hypotheses 2a and 2b and research question 1a and 1b. All of the analyses gave non-significant results. Most likely these results were affected by the sample size of this study. The effects of source expertise on perceived trustworthiness of the review and perceived expertise of the review, as well as a potential interaction between source expertise and sponsoring are undefinable.

Hypotheses 3a was supported. Perceived trustworthiness of the review is of significance in video reviews. Perceived trustworthiness positively influences viewers’ attitude towards the product. When a vlogger is perceived as being trustworthy the attitude towards the product will increase. This result matches previous research results about websites, blogs and other content being more persuasive and influence consumers’ attitude more positively when source credibility is high (Erdogan, 1999; Friedman & Friedman, 1979; Hautz et al., 2014; Mir & Rehman, 2013). However, hypothesis 3b was not supported; perceived expertise of the review proved not to have a significant influence on attitude towards the product. Of perceived credibility, perceived

trustworthiness has the biggest influence on attitude towards the product.

Hypotheses 4a and 4b were supported as well. Sponsoring has an indirect effect on attitude toward the product through perceived trustworthiness and perceived expertise. Although sponsoring has a negative direct effect on attitude towards the product, this effect is lessened when mediated by perceived trustworthiness or perceived expertise.

Hypotheses 5a and 5b were rejected due to non-significant results. Again it can be said that these outcomes can be the result of the low statistical power of the study due to a small sample size.

(18)

Limitations

This study has some limitations that need to be addressed for future research. Each of the limitations will be examined in further detail below.

First of all the manipulation-check for expertise was missing in the questionnaire. It is unclear if participants noticed the manipulation text of expertise. If the text was not noticed, participants that watched a video with an expert reviewer may have perceived the vlogger as a layperson reviewer. This may have affected the results of source expertise on perceived

trustworthiness of the review, perceived expertise of the review and attitude toward the product. The second limitation is the video that was used in this study. The manipulations for source expertise and sponsoring could have been better implemented in the video. If the video was made from scratch, it may have been easier to implicate all the manipulations. Before these manipulations are to be added in a video, it would be wise to know beforehand what influences these

manipulations. A pre-test could give more insight in what people perceive as a high expertise. Working with a pre-made video that has been altered afterwards may not have been the right way to handle this study.

The third limitation is the amount of participants. The sample size in this study was not large enough. Future research has to make sure that this requirement is met when attempting similar research. A small sample size means low statistical power, the change of discovering effects is low. Low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect. A small sample size also reduces the change of generalizing the results to the population.

The fourth limitation is that different kind of variables could have influenced the outcome. There are many other variables that can influence how viewers perceive the vlog. According to the uncertain reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975), the amount of communication is correlates positively to liking. A more likable source can bring more positive feelings to the audience which can transfer to the message as well (Perloff, 2013). A vlogger who is known to the public may have

(19)

a different influence than an unknown vlogger.

The findings of this study have important implications for vloggers. Vloggers should try to increase their perceived trustworthiness if they want to influence their viewers. Being sponsored will result in less trust and is therefore recommended to be avoided.

Even though this study gave new insights of the influence of CGM on consumers, more research is recommended. Future research not only has the opportunity to fix the limitations discussed above, but also to incorporate other factors that may affect viewers' attitude.

In sum, from the results of this study the answer to the main question of this study, “What effects do sponsoring and source expertise have on the attitude of consumers towards a product when they watch a video review, and how does perceived credibility mediates this effect”, is: sponsoring proved to be a negative influence on perceived trustworthiness of the review and on attitude towards the product which is positively mediated by perceived trustworthiness and perceived expertise of the review. Source expertise does not have a significant effect on attitude towards the product.

(20)

References

Adjei, M. T., Noble, S. M., & Noble, C. H. (2010). The influence of C2C communications in online brand communities on customer purchase behavior. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 38(5), 634–653. Ajzen, L., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Azjen, I., Joyce, N., Sheikh, S., & Cote, N. G. (2011). Knowledge and the prediction of behavior: The role of information accuracy in the theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 101-117. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2011.568834

Bae, S., & Lee, T. (2010). Gender differences in consumers' perception of online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research, 11(2), 201-214.

Bae, S., & Lee, T. (2011). Product type and consumers' perception of online consumer reviews. Electronic Markets, 21(4), 255-266. doi: 10.1007/s12525-011-0072-0

Barber, B. (1983). The Logic and Limits of Trust. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2003). And now, a word from our sponsor--a look at the effects of sponsored

content and banner advertising. Journal of Advertising, 32(2), 17-32. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2003.10639130

Bekkering, E., & Shim, J. P. (2006). “i2i Trust in Videoconferencing.” Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 103-107.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99-112.

Biel, J. I., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2010). Voices of vlogging. Proc. AAAI Int. Conf. Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM)

Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. D. Gambetta, ed. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Basil Blackwell, New York, 49–72.

(21)

Daugherty, T., Eastin, M. S., & Bright, L. (2008). Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-generated content. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 16-55.

DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 55, 541-546. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.541

Donchev, D. (2017). 36 Mind blowing YouTube facts, figures and statistics. Retrieved from https://fortunelords.com/youtube-statistics/.

English, K., Sweetser, K. D., & Ancy, M. (2011). YouTube-ification of political talk: An

examination of persuasion appeals in viral video. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(6), 733-748. doi: 10.1177/0002764211398090

Erdogan, Z. B. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(3), 291-314.

Fazio, R. H. (1986). How Do Attitudes Guide Behavior? In Sorrentino. R. M., & Higgins, E.T. (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (pp. 204-243). New York, NY: Guilford. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory

and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fogg, B.J., Marshall, J., Kameda, T., Solomon, J., Rangnekar, A., Boyd, J., & Brown, B. (2001). Web credibility research: a method for online experiments and early study results. In Proc. CHI '01 Extended Abstracts. ACM Press, New York, NY, 295-296.

Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. (1979). Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of Advertising Research, 19, 63-71.

Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43-54. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2000.10673616

(22)

impact of video source and quality on consumers' perceptions and intended behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(1), 1-15.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., and Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52.

Jacoby, J., Troutman, T., Kuss, A., and Mazursky, D. (1986). Experience and expertise in complex decision making. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 469-472.

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 & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622-642. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100310

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2011). Two hearts in three-quarter time: How to waltz the social media/viral marketing dance. Business Horizons, 54(3), 253-263.

Littlejohn, S. (1971). A bibliography of studies related to variables of source credibility. Bibliographic Annual in Speech Communication, 2, 1-40.

Mackiewicz, J. (2010). Assertions of expertise in online product reviews. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24, 3-28. doi:10.1177/1050651909346929

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Management J., 38, 24–59.

McCroskey, J. C. (7th ed). (1997). An introduction to rhetorical communication. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

McCroskey, J.C., Hamilton, P.R., & Weiner, A.M. (1974).The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Human Communication

(23)

Research, 1, 42-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1974.tb00252.x

Mir, I. A., & Rehman, K. U. (2013). Factors affecting consumer attitudes and intentions toward user-generated product content on YouTube. Management & Marketing, 8(4), 637-654. Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising

effects on brand attitude? JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318.

Molyneaux, H., O’Donnell, S., Gibson, K., & Singer, J., (2008). Exploring the gender divide on youtube: an analysis of the creation and reception of vlogs. American Communication Journal, 10(2).

Mosavi, S. A. & Ghaedi, M. (2012). An examination of the effects of some factors on behavioral intentions (A new model). Global Advanced Research Journal of Management and Business Studies, 1(5), 163-172.

Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39-52.

Perloff, R. (5th Ed). (2013). The Dynamics of Persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.

Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H., (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: the mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 30-42. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2004.10639151

Rodgers, S. (2003). The effects of sponsor relevance on consumer reactions to internet sponsorship, Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 67-76. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2003.10639141

Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. Amer. Psychologist, 26, 443– 452

(24)

multiple sponsors' influence on consumers' attitudes toward sponsored events. Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 19-30. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2003.10639139

Schindler, R. M., & Bickart, B. (2005). Published “word of mouth”: Referable, consumer-generated information on the Internet. In C. P. Haugtvedt, K. A. Machleit & R. F. Yalch (Eds.), Online consumer psychology: Understanding and influencing behavior in the virtual world (pp. 35-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schivinski, B., & Dąbrowski, D. (2015). The impact of brand communication on brand equity dimensions and brand purchase intention through Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 9(1), 31-53. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-02-2014-0007 Smith, D., Menon, S., & Sivakumar, K. (2005). Online peer and editorial recommendations, trust,

and choice in virtual markets. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19, 15–37. doi:10.1002/dir.20041

Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66.

van Noort, G., Voorveld, H. A. M. & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Interactivity in Brand Web Sites: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Responses Explained by Consumers' Online Flow Experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 223–34.

Wang, A. (2005). The effects of expert and consumer endorsements on audience response. Journal of Advertising Research, 45, 402-412. doi:10.1017/S0021849905050452

(25)

Appendix A.

Questionnaire Dear,

With this letter I kindly would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be

conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, which is a part of the University of Amsterdam.

The title of the study for which I am requesting your cooperation is ‘Vlog reviews’. In the online survey, a video review will be shown. After the video, several questions will be asked about the video. The goal of this research is to generate insight into what people think about video product reviews.

The study will take about 10 minutes. Please make sure you can watch the video and listen to the audio of the video at the same time.

As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:

1. your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express permission for this;

2. you can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research; 3. participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or

discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material;

(26)

you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.

For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact the project leader Jennifer via jennifer.westoby@student.uva.nl at any time.

Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐ secr‐ fmg@uva.nl.

Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.

We hope that we have provided you with sufficient information. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which we greatly appreciate.

Kind regards, Jennifer Westoby

- I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the email invitation for this study. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time. If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission. If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Jennifer Westoby at

(27)

jennifer.westoby@student.uva.nl. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG

Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐ secr‐ fmg@uva.nl.

 I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study. (1)

Story: Sinterklaas and Christmas are right around the corner and you have to buy a gift for your best friend. Your best friend asked for a set of in-ear, noise cancelling headphones. You search the

internet about in-ear, noise cancelling headphones and find a review video about the product. The video will be shown to you on the next page. Please watch the whole video and answer some questions about it afterwards. Make sure you can watch the video and listen to the audio of the video.

***VIDEO SHOWN***

Q1 The following questions are about the review video you just watched. On the scales below, indicate your feelings about the review video. Read each of the adjective-opposite pairings, and then choose the point that best describes your feelings toward the review video.

Dependable        Undependable

Honest        Dishonest

Reliable        Unreliable

Sincere        Insincere

(28)

Expert        Amateur Experienced        Inexperienced Knowledgeable        Unknowledgeable

Qualified        Unqualified

Skilled        Unskilled

Q2 The following scales are about the product in the video, the iLepo, in-ear, noise cancelling headphones. On the scales below, indicate your feelings about the review video. Read each of the adjective-opposite pairings, and then choose the point that best describes your feelings toward the product in the video.

Unpleasant        Pleasant

Dislike        Like

Negative        Positive Undesirable        Desirable

Bad        Good

Q3 Please indicate your feelings/thoughts about purchasing the iLepo, in-ear noise cancelling headphones for your friend.

Never        Definitely

(29)

Low purchase interest        High purchase interest

Definitely will not buy it

       Definitely will buy it

Probably will not buy it

       Probably will buy it

Q4 Answer the following questions based on the video review you watched. How much do you agree with the following statements?

1 Strongly disagree

7 Strongly agree

There was a text saying the video was