THESIS
The Instagram Influencer Bubble: A study on the effects of influencer marketing vs. user-generated content on consumer’s perceptions and attitudes
Lara Weiskopf 11354178
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Persuasive Communication
Supervision: Dr. Sandra Zwier February 2nd 2018
Abstract
Native advertising on social media through influencer marketing is becoming increasingly popular amongst brands, but skepticism among consumers is rising due to influencers’ overexposure and lack of proper disclosure of paid sponsorships. This experimental study (N = 110) explored effects of exposure to branded content placed by Instagram influencers in comparison to branded content placed by regular Instagram users. The focus was in particular on how exposure impacted perceptions of the Instagram account holder’s credibility
(perceived source credibility) and attitude toward the brand, and how people’s skepticism toward influencer marketing impacts this effect. Analyses showed that when participants were more skeptical of influencer marketing, they saw the Instagram account holder as less credible and had a more negative attitude toward the brand. Furthermore, branded content by
influencers caused a lower perceived source credibility than user-generated branded content, but only when participants’ skepticism was high and not when their skepticism was relatively low. These findings suggest that the increasing skepticism among consumers will
significantly reduce the effectiveness of influencer marketing consumers perception and could eventually lead to an implosion of the influencer bubble. Theoretical and managerial
implications are discussed.
Introduction
A lot of brands nowadays have turned to native advertising on social media such as Instagram, to be seen by consumers and to stay relevant in today’s exceptionally competitive markets. Native advertising describes any form of paid advertising that resembles editorial content from the publisher itself (Wojdynski & Evans, 2016). On social media platforms, this mostly involves social influencers with rather large and engaged audiences, who are paid to post about a brand or its products.
Previous research found that forms of native advertising such as influencer marketing can be very effective (Allsop, Bassett, & Hoskins, 2007), as consumers trust social
influencers and perceive their recommendations as more credible than traditional advertising (Johnson & Kaye, 2004). This is especially demonstrated by a recent survey in which 75 percent of social media users reported having purchased something they saw on social media (Sprout Social, 2016). However, while the growth of native advertising in recent years is exceptional, consumers are also becoming increasingly skeptical and mistrusting toward influencer marketing. This is mostly due to the fact that while social influencers’
recommendations were originally perceived to be unbiased (Johnson & Kaye, 2004), they are now mostly being perceived as advertising. Especially with consumers’ growing persuasion knowledge and influencers’ tendency to not properly disclose sponsored content (Lee, Kim, & Ham, 2016), influencers’ credibility is diminishing and people are becoming more trusting of non-influencers, i.e. “a person like yourself” (Edelman Intelligence, 2017). While the general opinion still sees influencer marketing as highly successful and a credible marketing tool, the extensive use thus can backfire and negatively impact a brand’s image. That is why marketing practitioners should closely follow the recent developments in the public perception of
influencer marketing.
Accordingly, the research at hand aimed to investigate to what extent non-influencers, i.e. general user’s branded content on Instagram, is more effective in terms of perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand than paid branded content by influencers, and how a consumer’s skepticism toward influencer marketing impacts this effect. As previous research about this topic is very limited and has not taken into account consumer’s
skepticism, this research will shed more light on the topic of influencer marketing and
consumer’s perception of it and how this form of marketing can either benefit or hurt a brand. Theoretical Framework
The advent of social media has significantly altered the communication landscape and had a great impact on marketing communication. As social media platforms have become a highly valuable source of information for consumers and exert an important influence on a
brand’s success (Bruhn, Schoenmueller, & Schäfer, 2012), marketers have widely recognized social media’s capabilities for connecting with consumers (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). With consumers spending an increasing amount of time in the social media realm, marketing campaigns as well as brand-related interactions progressively take place within the social media environment. Furthermore, this is transforming consumers from passive participants into more active players and creators (Kozinets, Hemetsberger, & Schau, 2008; Gensler, Völckner, Liu-Thompkins, & Wiertz, 2013), additionally shifting some of the power over brands directly to the consumer. Hence, traditional one-way communication has been reconstructed into multidimensional two-way peer-to-peer communication (Berthon, Pitt, & Campbell, 2008).
The new marketing communication reality with purchase decisions being more and more influenced by social media also calls for new forms of marketing, as consumers rely on their social networks to a great extent (Hutter, Hautz, Dennhardt, & Füller, 2013). Some even claim that a so-called “word-of-mouth revolution” has been brought about (Dellarocas, 2003). Over the last decade the ways in which consumers communicate with each other, and
moreover how consumers collect and exchange information about brands and products, have been changing dramatically, as consumers themselves can now actively contribute to public information provision about products and services (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010).
Theoretical approaches from a communication science perspective
Communication science theory and literature allows us to model the above-described developments in a number of ways. First, traditionally a distinction was drawn between mass communication, which is the process by which an individual or an organization creates a message that is transmitted through some type of medium to a large and anonymous audience, and interpersonal communication that takes place within smaller groups of individuals that are interdependent and have knowledge of each other (Littlejohn & Foss, 2009). On social media platforms however, a blending of the two can be witnessed, as communication on social
media integrates both. Thus, modern technology allows individuals that post brand-related content online to communicate with their closest friends and a large group of strangers at the same time. Social media thereby enables people to have a potential reach at least as wide as the audience mass media alone could once reach (Neubaum & Krämer, 2017).
Further, according to Katz and Lazarsfeld’s two-step flow theory (1955), certain individuals can be identified as so-called “opinion leaders” that interpret information they receive by the media and later relay to others. Hence, according to this model opinion leaders play an important role in interpreting and shaping the effects that the media tend to have on people. Bloggers that are nowadays mostly considered as “digital influencers”, act quite similarly to the offline opinion leaders identified in the two-step flow theory (Uzunoğlu & Kip, 2014). Thus, this theory emphasizes why social influencer marketing has grown so powerful in the past couple of years, since digital social influencers act as a source of brand-related information that is assumed to be credible and trustworthy for the consumer.
Third, consumers can interact with social influencers through so-called parasocial interaction (PSI). PSI describes the illusion of an interpersonal relationship with a media personality as if they are present, hence recipients feel as if they are engaging in direct two-way-conversations with media personalities. In this way, a level of intimacy can be achieved that opens routes to interpersonal influence, as receivers believe they know the media
personality in the same way they know their friends (Horton & Wohl, 1956). PSI can be fostered through the online environment and brings recipients closer to a social influencer, celebrity or even brand. Moreover, the internet differs from traditional PSI environments as it makes direct two-way communication between an individual and social influencers as media personalities technically possible (Labrecque, 2014; Thorson & Rodgers, 2006).
In sum, this section addressed theoretical approaches from communication science explaining the important role of social influencer marketing nowadays, as a form of marketing where mass and interpersonal communication merge, and social influencers can take up the
role of opinion leaders and sources of engagement to impact consumer engagement with brands.
Main effect of type of content on perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand
While online consumers might be susceptible to social influencers’ judgments, the relationship is fairly vulnerable, as it is of high importance that the social influencer is seen as unbiased and as a credible source of information. In eWOM recommendations there is thus considerable weight on the sender of the message to ensure credibility in the eyes of
consumers. This is particularly important in settings where the consumer has no choice but to trust a source, for instance while online shopping, where products cannot be directly tested. A social influencer’s credibility therefore is an essential part of the consumer’s attitude about a promoted brand online (Colliander & Dahlén, 2011).
With a recent rise in consumer empowerment and increasingly skeptical and marketing-savvy consumers (Arnhold, 2010; Friestad & Wright, 1994), consumers have started questioning the credibility of celebrities and social influencers endorsing products (Smith, Fischer, & Yongjian, 2012). This development is evoked through the overexposure of some influencers endorsing several products or companies and the consumer’s awareness about the content being paid for. Consumers seem to be turning to “real people” more as un-biased and trustworthy third-party sources that further leverage their need for social proof (Amblee & Bui, 2011). While there has been a loss in credibility for social influencers, real customers are increasingly seen as the ultimate in authority and credibility (Brown & Hayes, 2008). Allowing “real” consumers to communicate on behalf of brands and participating in creating brand images constitutes evidence of consumer perceptions and positively influences consumer’s brand attitudes (Ertimur & Gilly, 2012). User-generated content is seen as neutral and independent of company influence, hence other consumers recognize it as external
validation of a brand’s attractiveness, further supported by the content being published on a public platform as a confirmation (Bruhn et al., 2012).
Key motivations for “real customers” to create branded content have been found to be entertainment, expressing identity, connecting to others or empowerment (Muntinga,
Moorman & Smit, 2011). As there is no commercial motive behind the majority of consumer-generated branded content and it is believed to communicate a consumer’s true beliefs and experiences, it provides authenticity and credibility, which ultimately affects persuasiveness (Ertimur & Gilly, 2012).
Most prior research into user-generated content focuses heavily on product reviews generated by real customers and how consumer decision making is influenced by them. For instance, it has been shown that consumers rely heavily on user-generated content when it comes to making purchasing decisions and place more trust in it than they do in traditional advertisements (MacKinnon, 2012). This is supported by other findings that suggest consumer-generated advertising benefits from increased trustworthiness over traditional advertising, when considering source credibility as well as perceived authenticity and
benevolence of the source (Lawrence, Fournier, & Brunel, 2013). Moreover, it has been found that when consumers recognize an Instagram post as advertising and additionally remember a disclosure, this significantly impacts their attitudes toward a brand negatively (Evans, Phua, Lim, & Jun, 2017).
All in all, based on these findings, we expect that user-generated branded content will result in a higher perceived source credibility and a more positive attitude toward the brand than content by social influencers, as we assume that posts that evidently show features of sponsored content to be perceived as advertising. The following hypotheses are formulated:
H1a: User-generated branded content causes a higher perceived source credibility than branded content by social influencers.
H1b: User-generated branded content causes a more positive attitude toward the brand than branded content by social influencers.
Moderating effect of skepticism toward influencer marketing
The present section will address the role of skepticism toward social influencer marketing in the above-discussed attitudinal responses. Social influencer marketing, much as other forms of native advertising, tends to be less obtrusive than more traditional advertising because it resembles non-sponsored content. But this characteristic also leads to influencer marketing being perceived as potentially manipulative and misleading (Lee et al., 2016). An example is the use of deceptive photo captions on social media platforms, i.e. Instagram, that make use of hashtags which are not always fully understood by the recipient, such as “#sp” or “#partner”, or are hidden at the bottom of a post. Another example is social influencers vaguely disclosing partnerships by for instance “Thanks brand”, which can be understood ambiguously and not explicitly as a recognition of paid sponsorship by the consumer.
Since 2009 the American Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires influencers to disclose sponsorship information in social media posts that originate in any way from a material in-kind relationship between an individual and a brand (FTC, 2013). In response to the circumstances of many influencers ignoring this regulation, social media platforms such as Instagram are continuously introducing new tools in order to enforce more transparency about sponsored posts. The newest addition is a branded content tool which Instagram first introduced in June 2017 and that allows users to identify posts that are paid for by advertisers. With this tool Instagram is creating a standardized format where posts are identified on the top as a „Paid partnership with” a brand, while also establishing a platform-wide policy that requires all branded content to be published using the tool (Ha, 2017). As the tool is a quite recent development, there is no knowledge available yet on how it will affect users. It could either bring about higher skepticism as it appeals to consumer’s persuasion knowledge, but it
could also decrease the level of skepticism as influencers act more transparent toward their audience.
Persuasion knowledge is a widely discussed concept within all forms of advertising, as it concerns consumer’s awareness of a persuasion attempt and has been proven to affect individuals’ reaction to a persuasive message. The outcome is predominantly negative and can evoke skepticism (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Skepticism commonly describes an inclination to disbelieve an argument, in this case for instance a social influencer’s
recommendation for a product or brand. Skepticism is characterized as a cognitive response that is dependent on the content and context of communication. Audiences generally practice skepticism about advertising and have doubts about its credibility, since advertising as well as sponsored content tends to merely emphasize positive brand aspects (Obermiller &
Spangenberg, 2000). In terms of credibility consumers usually meet word-of-mouth with less skepticism and more trust than advertisements (Wang & Chien, 2012; Evans et al., 2017).
While there is very little research on the topic of skepticism toward influencer
marketing, a previous study considering five different sources of product information, found advertising to be the least believable in the eyes of consumers (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 2000). Another study found that consumers’ ad skepticism as well as persuasion knowledge are negatively related to their attitude toward social influencer marketing (Lee et al., 2016). Furthermore, a study investigating individuals’ skepticism to blog product reviews found that skepticism reduced the credibility of a message, which then negatively influenced consumer’s product attitude (Wang & Chien, 2012). Altogether, these findings indicate that ad skepticism is negatively associated with attitudinal responses of the consumer.
With Instagram’s new tool, social influencer posts are believed to be increasingly perceived as advertising rather than word-of-mouth sharing. Based on this we hypothesize that skepticism toward influencer marketing will negatively impact perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand, as well as moderate the effect of user-generated
versus social-influencer generated content on perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand:
H2a: A higher level of skepticism toward influencer marketing causes a lower perceived source credibility than a lower level of skepticism toward influencer marketing.
H2b: A higher level of skepticism toward influencer marketing causes a less positive attitude toward the brand than a lower level of skepticism toward influencer
marketing.
H3a: Branded content by social influencers causes a lower perceived source credibility than user-generated branded content, and this effect will be more
pronounced when recipients are more skeptic toward influencer marketing than less skeptic toward influencer marketing.
H3b: Branded content by social influencers causes a less positive attitude toward the brand than user-generated branded content, and this effect will be more pronounced when recipients are more skeptic toward influencer marketing than less skeptic toward influencer marketing
Proposed theoretical model
In sum, type of content and skepticism toward influencer marketing are the theoretical concepts of this study. We hypothesize that type of content and skepticism toward influencer marketing will both have a direct effect on perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand. Further, we expect skepticism toward influencer marketing to moderate the relationships between type of content and the two outcome variables. Figure 1 depicts these expected relationships in terms of a conceptual model.
Skepticism toward influencer marketing
Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model: Effect of type of content on attitude toward the brand and perceived source credibility via skepticism toward influencer marketing.
Method Design
The research was conducted as an online-based experiment with Type of branded content as between-subjects variable (2 levels, namely user-generated branded content and paid branded content) and Skepticism toward influencer marketing as quasi-experimental variable (2 levels, namely lower vs. higher).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions (N = 51 in user-generated condition; N = 59 in paid condition), and the experiment was embedded in a self-completion questionnaire. A randomization check showed that participants were evenly distributed over experimental conditions in terms of age, gender or nationality (see Appendix 2).
Participants
Due to limited resources and to stay in the scope of this research, data was gathered from convenience sampling by recruiting participants over social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn and e-mail using the researcher’s private network as well as various student groups on Facebook. The target group consisted of young adults aged 18-35 that are mostly students, as they are using social networks comparatively frequent and thus are accustomed to seeing Type of content
User-generated branded content Branded content by influencer
Perceived source credibility
Attitude toward the brand H1a & H1b
H2a & H2b H3a & H3b
advertising and sponsored posts on social networks, such as Instagram. Furthermore, this target group was chosen because they have a certain level of persuasion knowledge when it comes to social media advertising and sponsored posts. Various demographic questions were asked which showed the following output:
A total of N = 147 respondents entered the experiment. Participants were excluded when they did not complete the majority of the survey questions, with 74.83% completing the survey (N = 110). 58.2% females and 39.1% males were recorded, with an overall
participant's mean age of M = 29.52 years (N = 110, SD = 12.24). Most respondents in this study where from Germany (56.4%) and the Netherlands (12.7%), while in total 19
nationalities were represented.
84 of the 110 respondents (76.4%) indicated to have an Instagram account. These respondents check Instagram on average 7 times a day (M = 7.29, SD = 12.17) and spend 32 minutes a day on Instagram (M = 32.31, SD = 31.43) with answers ranging from 0 minutes to 180 minutes a day.
Stimuli
In order to effectively introduce the experimental manipulation stimuli two different mock-up Instagram posts with different characteristics according to the two conditions were developed. Both mock-up Instagram posts consisted of an identical photo, which shows a hand holding a cup and a watch on the wrist. The watch served as the brand-related factor, as the brand’s logo was clearly visible (see Appendix 1, Figure 2). The post in the paid content condition further included a statement on top of the photo stating “Paid partnership with Daniel Wellington (brand)”. Further, a comparatively high number of likes (“21.355 likes”) and photo description with hashtags (#ad, #sponsored) indicating that the post was paid for. On the other hand, the Instagram post in the user-generated content condition was identical to the post in the paid content condition, but included none of these hashtags and further showed a quite low number of likes (“21 likes”), suggesting the photo was posted by an average user
(see Appendix 1, Figure 3). The post description texts were inspired by original posts on Instagram.
Moderating variable
Skepticism toward influencer marketing was defined as the tendency toward
disbelieving a social influencer’s recommendation for a product or brand, and it was assessed using nine items adapted from an existing advertising skepticism scale (Obermiller &
Spangenberg, 1998). Example items are as follows: “Social media influencers' aim is to inform the consumer.”, “In general, social media influencers present a true picture of the product being advertised.” and “Most social media influencers' posts provide consumers with essential information.”. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (M = 2.88, SD = 1.04). The scale proved highly reliable (Cronbach’s α = .908). A full overview of the items can be found in Appendix 3.
In order to test the moderator variable skepticism toward influencer marketing, the participants were divided into two groups (namely lower and higher skepticism) on the basis of their score on the scale. The groups were divided based on the Median value (Mdn = 2.78) of the scale, which resulted in 58 participants in the higher skepticism group (M = 2.14, SD = 0.61) and 52 participants in the lower skepticism group (M = 3.71, SD = 0.75).
Outcome variables
The first outcome variable in this research was Perceived source credibility which usually consists of several dimensions. The present research however focused on how trustworthy and ethical the source is perceived by the respondents (Bühlmann & Gisler, 2006), as these dimensions are most consistent with the aim of the research. For that reason, the dependent variable of perceived source credibility was measured by a trustworthiness scale (McCroskey, & Teven, 1999) which includes a six-item 7-point semantic differential scale asking the participants to indicate their feeling about the person who posted the Instagram photo they had seen (M = 4.05, SD = 1.12). Items included adjectives about both
trustworthiness and ethics, such as “Immoral – Moral”, “Unethical” – “Ethical” or
“Untrustworthy” – “Trustworthy” (see Appendix 3 for an overview of all items). The scale proved highly reliable (Cronbach’s α = .899).
Attitude toward the brand is described in this research as the recipient’s evaluation of the brand. In order to assess the recipient’s attitude toward the brand the Spears and Singh (2004) five-item 7-point semantic differential scale was used, as it has been widely used and validated in former research about similar topics. The scale includes items such as
“Unpleasant” – “Pleasant” or “Unfavorable” – “Favorable” (M = 4.38, SD = 1.37) and proved highly reliable (Cronbach’s α = .970). All items can be found in Appendix 3.
Manipulation Check
A manipulation check was carried out to check if the experimental manipulations were perceived as intended by the participants. Respondents were asked to respond on a 7-point Likert scale, running from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”, whether or not they agreed with the statement that the brand paid to be shown and mentioned in the Instagram post. The response mean in the user-generated content condition was lower (M = 5.04, SD = 1.66, N = 51) than in the paid content condition (M = 6.07, SD = 1.51, N = 59). An
independent samples t-test showed that the difference between these two means was
statistically significant (t (108) = 3.405, p = .001). This means that, in line with the intended manipulation, participants in the paid content condition agreed more that the brand likely paid for being shown in the Instagram post than participants in the user-generated content
condition. Mind though, that while the means of both groups differed significantly, the response mean in the user-generated content condition indicates that these participants also somewhat agreed with the statement that the brand paid to be shown in the post.
Procedure
All participants were invited to partake in this experimental study via an anonymous web link. The link led the respondent to the survey platform Qualtrics. Once started, an
introduction briefing informed the participant about the topic and purpose of the research, and also anonymity and informed consent were granted. The next section was the random
allocation to one of the two manipulation conditions, where participants were forced to spend a minimum of ten seconds watching an Instagram post.
The following blocks asked respondents about the Instagram post they had seen; there were six items measuring the dependent variable perceived source credibility, five items measuring the dependent variable attitude toward the brand, and nine items measuring the moderating variable skepticism toward influencer marketing introduced.
Several subsequent blocks included nine questions in total to serve as control variables asking for demographic characteristics (gender, age, nationality and education level), brand familiarity and Instagram usage. Finally, the debriefing explained that the presented
Instagram posts were created and altered for this research. After the statement respondents left the experiment. The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix 4.
Results
The effects of type of branded content and skepticism toward influencer marketing on perceived source credibility
To test Hypothesis 1a, 2a and 3a a two-way ANOVA was run in SPSS to test the effects of type of content and skepticism toward influencer marketing on perceived source credibility. No significant difference in perceived source credibility was found between those exposed to the Instagram post with paid branded content (M = 4.01, SD = 1.20) and those exposed to the Instagram post with user-generated branded content (M = 4.09, SD = 1.03); F (1, 106) = 0.01, p = .937. This means that being exposed to an Instagram post explicitly disclosing that a company paid the post, did not impact people’s judgements of the credibility of the Instagram account holder. This result does not support Hypothesis 1a, which suggests that user-generated branded content causes a higher perceived source credibility than branded content by social influencers.
The results further indicated a moderate significant effect of skepticism toward
influencer marketing on perceived source credibility (F (1, 106) = 12.26, p = .001, η2 = .104). Participants with higher skepticism toward influencer marketing scored significantly lower on perceived source credibility (M = 3.70, SD = 1.16) than participants with lower skepticism (M = 4.43, SD = 0.93) (see Table 2). This means that consumer’s opinion about marketing that integrates social influencers and sponsored posts on social networks and more particularly how doubtful a person is about this type of marketing, impacted their judgement of the
credibility of the account holder, as a more doubtful person trusted an account holder less than a less doubtful person. This result supports Hypothesis 2a, suggesting that a higher level of skepticism toward influencer marketing causes a lower perceived source credibility than a lower level of skepticism toward influencer marketing.
Further, the results in Table 2 for the interaction of both independent variables
indicated a significant effect on perceived source credibility (F (1, 106) = 7.29, p = .008, η2 = .064). The means in Table 1 show that participants with higher skepticism in the paid content condition scored lower on perceived source credibility than participants in the user-generated content condition. For participants in the lower skepticism group the results were reversed, as participants in the user-generated content condition scored lower on perceived source
credibility than those in the paid content condition. This means that being exposed to an Instagram post explicitly disclosing that a company paid the post, had a negative impact on trust in the Instagram account holder among those people who were skeptic toward influencer marketing. On the other hand, when people were less skeptic about influencer marketing, disclosing that a company paid the post had a positive impact on trust in the Instagram account holder. This result supports Hypothesis 3a, suggesting that branded content by social influencers causes a lower perceived source credibility, and this effect will be more
pronounced when recipients are more skeptic toward influencer marketing than less skeptic toward influencer marketing.
Table 1
Perceived source credibility
Skepticism Type of content Mean
Higher UGC 4.007
Paid content 3.485
Lower UGC 4.167
Paid content 4.720
Table 2
The effects on perceived source credibility
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
Type of content .007 1 .007 .006 .937 .000 Skepticism 13.128 1 13.128 12.263 .001 .104 Type of content * Skepticism 7.802 1 7.802 7.288 .008 .064 Error 113.476 106 1.071 Total 1937.528 110
The effects of type of branded content and skepticism toward influencer marketing on attitude toward the brand
To test Hypothesis 1b, 2b and 3b a two-way ANOVA was run in SPSS to test the effects of type of content and skepticism toward influencer marketing on attitude toward the brand. No significant difference in attitude toward the brand was found between those exposed to paid branded content (M = 4.18, SD = 1.34) and those exposed to user-generated branded content (M = 4.60, SD = 1.38); F (1, 106) = 1.80, p = .183. This means that being
exposed to an Instagram post explicitly disclosing that a company paid the post, did not impact people’s opinion about the featured brand. This result does not support Hypothesis 1b, which suggests that user-generated branded content causes a more positive attitude toward the brand than branded content by social influencers.
The results further indicated a moderately strong significant effect of skepticism toward influencer marketing on attitude toward the brand (F (1, 106) = 7.74, p = .006, η2 = .068). The means show that participants with higher skepticism toward influencer marketing scored significantly lower on attitude toward the brand (M = 4.02, SD = 1.46) than
participants with lower skepticism (M = 4.77, SD = 1.14). This suggests that consumer’s feelings and their doubts about marketing that integrates social influencers and sponsored posts on social networks, did impact their opinion about the featured brand, as more doubtful people thought less of the featured brand than less doubtful people. This result supports Hypothesis 2b, suggesting that a higher level of skepticism toward influencer marketing causes a less positive attitude toward the brand than a lower level of skepticism toward influencer marketing.
Finally, the results in Table 3 for the interaction of both independent variables indicated no significant effect on attitude toward the brand (F (1, 106) = .01, p = .905). This means that being exposed to an Instagram post explicitly disclosing that a company paid the post, did impact people’s opinion about the featured brand, regardless whether their opinion about marketing that integrates social influencers on social media was skeptic or not. This result does not support Hypothesis 3b, which suggests that branded content by social influencers causes a less positive attitude toward the brand than user-generated branded content, and this effect will be more pronounced when recipients are more skeptic toward influencer marketing than less skeptic toward influencer marketing.
The effects on attitude toward the brand
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
Type of content 3.137 1 3.137 1.798 .183 .017 Skepticism 13.504 1 13.504 7.740 .006 .068 Type of content * Skepticism .025 1 .025 .014 .905 .000 Error 184.928 106 1.745 Total 2310.120 110
Conclusion & Discussion
Since paid branded content by influencers on social media is a frequently used marketing tool by brands and believed to be highly effective, examination of consumers’ perceptions and attitudes toward influencer marketing is important. This study used an online-based experiment with type of branded content as between-subjects variable and skepticism toward influencer marketing as quasi-experimental variable, examining the effect on
perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand among a sample of 110 respondents.
First, the study showed that type of branded content in Instagram posts had no
significant effect on either perceived source credibility or attitude toward the brand, which is contrary to Hypothesis 1a and 1b. Thus, whether respondents viewed paid branded content or user-generated branded content, their perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand remained unaffected. As the means for both outcome variables were situated close to the mid-point of the scale, it can be concluded that participants had a rather neutral opinion about both the Instagram account holder’s credibility and the brand. Hence, though the paid nature of the branded content was disclosed and the manipulation check confirmed that participants in the paid content conditions indeed believed that the brand likely paid for being
shown in the Instagram post more than participants in the user-generated content condition, consumers in the paid content condition did not have a more negative attitude toward the Instagram account holder that posted the branded content or toward the featured brand than when the branded content was user-generated. These results are in contrast to previous findings suggesting that consumers place more trust in user-generated content than they do in advertisements (MacKinnon, 2012), and that consumer-generated content benefits from increased trustworthiness over traditional advertising (Lawrence, Fournier, & Brunel, 2013). When considering the paid content condition as advertising, the effect in this study on perceived source credibility thus is inconsistent with previous research. The results at hand are also inconsistent with previous findings when looking at the attitude toward the brand. Evans et al. (2017) found that when consumers recognize an Instagram post as advertising and remember a disclosure this negatively affected their attitude toward the brand. One possible explanation for these results could be a poor persuasion knowledge amongst
participants in the present study. Participants might have misunderstood the stimulus material and possibly perceived the user-generated content condition as paid content that is not
properly disclosed by the influencer, which then resulted in similar attitudinal responses as in the paid content condition.
Second, a significant relationship was found between skepticism toward influencer marketing and perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand, which is in line with Hypothesis 2a and 2b. When consumers have a rather skeptical view of influencer marketing, they were more likely to perceive the source as less credible and have a more negative attitude toward the brand. These results are consistent with previous studies that found that
individuals’ skepticism toward blog product reviews reduced the credibility of a message, which then negatively influenced their product attitude (Wang & Chien, 2012) and that advertising skepticism had a negative effect on perceived advertising value (Tutaj & van Reijmersdal, 2012). While the listed outcome variables are not exactly the same, they are
comparable to the outcome variables in this study, as all of them suggest that skepticism toward advertising is negatively associated with attitudinal responses of the consumer. Furthermore, consumers with high skepticism have been found to have a tendency to
disbelieve information from online reviews without considering other factors, such as source credibility (Sher & Lee, 2009).
Finally, this study also examined the interaction effect of type of content and skepticism toward influencer marketing on perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand. The results showed that there was a significant interaction effect on perceived source credibility but not on attitude toward the brand. Specifically, branded content by social influencers caused a lower perceived source credibility, but only when participants’
skepticism was high and not when skepticism was relatively low. These results are to some extent consistent with previous studies which found that consumers’ ad skepticism as well as persuasion knowledge are negatively related to their attitude toward social influencer
marketing (Lee et al., 2016).
From a communication science perspective our findings shed light on at least two classical theories from the discipline earlier referred to in the Theoretical Framework to this study, namely the two-step flow theory (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955) and the concept of parasocial interaction or “PSI” (Horton & Wohl, 1956) referring to relationships between social influencers and social media users. While the two-step flow theory suggests that
opinion leaders are typically held in high esteem by those who consume their opinion (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955), the present study suggests that with increasing content branding and
increasing skepticism among consumers, social influencers as opinion leaders are losing some of their importance in shaping the effects media have on people. Also, as influencers often share many details from their private lives online, individuals establish illusions of an interpersonal relationship with them quite easily, typically referred to as “parasocial
share of sponsored content, however, influencers become less trustworthy and consumers doubt the truthfulness of things they post online. On that account, while the online
environment fosters PSI, consumers’ increasing skepticism toward influencers could reverse this development (Labrecque, 2014).
All in all, with regard to the research question we can say that in our study user-generated branded content on Instagram did not prove more effective in terms of perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand than paid branded content by influencers, but consumers’ skepticism toward influencer marketing negatively impacted both the attitude toward the sender and toward the brand.
Limitations and Future Research
It is important to note that the current study is not without limitations. First, while the manipulation check did show that participants in the paid content conditions believed that the brand likely paid for being shown in the Instagram post more than participants in the user-generated content condition, this finding was not unambiguous. The means namely showed that, although less so, participants in the user-generated content condition also tended to agree that the brand likely paid to be shown in the Instagram post. As mentioned above, participants possibly misinterpreted the user-generated content as content that is not properly disclosed by a social influencer. Thus, future research might use different stimuli that are more conclusive to participants in terms of whether or not posts’ content was sponsored.
When dividing participants into two groups based on their score on the skepticism scale, the means of both groups (lower and higher skepticism) illustrated that many
participants in this study were generally skeptical and had a negative view toward influencer marketing. Therefore, the findings do not necessarily extend to segments of the population with a generally low level of skepticism toward influencer marketing.
Another drawback is the use of an experiment as research design as it is by nature quite low in external validity. Only one isolated Instagram photo was shown to participants in
the present study, which does not closely resemble how social media users usually view and perceive Instagram content among a multitude of other posts. Furthermore, Instagram is a photo sharing application that is mostly used via mobile devices, but in our study, participants used mobile phones as well as computers to respond to the survey.
Another opportunity for future research relates to an earlier finding of Bruhn et al. (2012), which suggests that consumers who are highly involved with a specific product or brand are more likely to create user-generated content. Hence, investigating the different effects of low and high product and brand involvement of consumers on their perception of branded content by social influencers and user-generated branded content might be of relevance. Also, while we believe that our results can be applied to the broader context of some other types of persuasive content, it is uncertain and an opportunity for further
investigations whether consumers will be skeptical toward persuasive content that promotes charitable causes or campaign messages for health information.
Most brands that work with influencers on Instagram do have their own official Instagram accounts and also make extensive use of all the different possibilities Instagram offers for brands to advertise. Hence, Instagram users often encounter photos or stories posted by a brand or different advertisements on the platform. Accordingly, another possibility for future research would be comparing user-generated content to a brand-generated post on an official Instagram account or to an advertisement that was placed by a brand on Instagram. While the current findings offer insight into how consumers perceive user-generated branded content in contrast to paid content by social influencers in the context of perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand, future research might examine additional factors such as advertising recognition, disclosure memory and purchase intention. Finally, as there are various motivations for users to create branded content that are out of a brands sphere of action (Muntinga et al., 2011) and many brands try to motivate their consumers by incentivizing user-generated content, future research could investigate how user-generated
content that was created based on diverse motives or incentivized by a brand, effects those factors.
Implications
Our study’s investigation of consumer’s perceptions and attitudinal responses to different types of branded content on Instagram offers valuable insights on the influence of influencer marketing on consumers and may therefore have some important implications for brands’ marketing and communication activities on social media platforms. Because previous research examining user-generated branded content is limited and mostly focused on product reviews and since influencer marketing is a quite recent topic, this study involved a
quantitative experimental study to further understand consumer attitudes toward paid branded content by social influencers and user-generated content. Participants in our study overall indicated a rather high level of skepticism toward influencer marketing and results showed a negative effect of skepticism on perceived source credibility and attitude toward the brand. As we expect that these results are generalizable to the majority of social media users and to other social media platforms, we believe that companies would be well-advised in critically overthinking their influencer marketing activities. Especially valuable is hereby the finding that a higher level of skepticism toward influencer marketing causes a less positive attitude toward the brand. As consumers become increasingly aware of persuasion attempts on social media platforms and understand the paid nature of influencers posting about brands on Instagram, they do react accordingly with increasing skepticism. It is thereby likely that consumers’ skepticism extends into sponsored content that promotes branded services rather than products, as services such as insurances, banking or travel agencies are similarly turning to influencer marketing and thereby likely to be as vulnerable to the adverse effects of
increasing consumer skepticism. Ultimately, due to the increasing skepticism among consumers and social influencers overexposing sponsored branded content, the influencer bubble could burst rather sooner than later.
Furthermore, while our results do not show a significant interaction effect of type of content and skepticism on attitude toward the brand, they do on perceived source credibility. Previous studies revealed that when perceived blogger trustworthiness is low, this has a negative impact on brand attitudes (Chu & Kamal, 2008), thus it is of high importance for brands to consider influencers’ credibility and trustworthiness.
While only partly supported in our study, user-generated communication is generally seen as more neutral and independent of company influence, so that consumers perceive other users’ brand evaluations usually as credible and authentic (Bruhn et al., 2012). In the light of these findings, it could be valuable for marketing practitioners to invest in enabling user-generated content on social media platforms, so that consumers can express their opinions and experiences about a brand rather than paying influencers to do so, which could potentially facilitate consumer’s skepticism.
References
Allsop, D. T., Bassett, B. R., & Hoskins, J. A. (2007). Word-of-Mouth Research: Principles and Applications. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), 398-411. doi: 10.2501/S0021849907070419
Amblee, N., & Bui, T. (2011). Harnessing the Influence of Social Proof in Online Shopping: The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth on Sales of Digital Microproducts.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 91-114. doi: 10.2753/JEC1086-4415160205
Arnhold, U. (2010). User Generated Branding: Integrating User Generated Content into Brand Management. Bremen: Springer Science & Business Media.
California Management Review, 50(4), 6-30. doi: 10.2307/41166454
Brown, D., & Hayes, N. (2008). Influencer Marketing: Who Really Influences Your Customers? Oxford: Elsevier.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V., & Schäfer, D. B. (2012). Are social media replacing traditional media in terms of brand equity creation? Management Research Review, 35(9), 770-790. doi: 10.1108/01409171211255948
Bühlmann, H., & Gisler, A. (2006). A Course in Credibility Theory and its Applications. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Chu, S. C., & Kamal, S. (2008). The Effect of Perceived Blogger Credibility and Argument Quality on Message Elaboration and Brand Attitudes: An exploratory study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 26-37. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2008.10722140
Colliander, J., & Dahlén, M. (2011). Following the Fashionable Friend: The Power of Social Media. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 313-320. doi: 10.2501/JAR-51-1-313-320
Dellarocas, C. (2003). The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms. Management Science, 49(10), 1407-1424. doi:
10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308
Edelman Intelligence (2017). Edelman Trust Barometer: 2017 annual global study. Executive summary. Retrieved from https://www.edelman.com/executive-summary/
Ertimur, B., & Gilly, M. C. (2012). So Whaddya Think? Consumers Create Ads and Other Consumers Critique Them. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(3), 115-130. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2011.10.002
Evans, N. J., Phua, J., Lim, J., & Jun, H. (2017). Disclosing Instagram Influencer Advertising: The Effects of Disclosure Language on Advertising Recognition, Attitudes, and
Behavioral Intent. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1-12. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2017.1366885
Federal Trade Commission (2013). Blurred Lines: Advertising or Content? An FTC Workshop on Native Advertising. Retrieved from
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2013/12/ blurred-lines-advertising-or-content-ftc-workshop-native.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31. Retrieved from http://www.skateboardingalice.com/papers/1994_Friestad.pdf
Gensler, S., Völckner, F., Liu-Thompkins, Y., & Wiertz, C. (2013). Managing Brands in the Social Media Environment. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4), 242-256. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.004
Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial Interaction: A Review of the Literature and a Model for Future Research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279-305. doi: 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04
Ha, A. (2017, November 7). Instagram pushes more influencers to adopt its new format for sponsored posts. TechCrunch. Retrieved from
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/07/instagram-pushes-more-influencers-to-adopt-its-new-format-for-sponsored-posts/
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, 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
Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215-229. doi:
10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S., & Füller, J. (2013). The impact of user interactions in social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on Facebook. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(5/6), 342-351. doi: 10.1108/JPBM-05-2013-0299
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 (3), 622–42. doi: 10.1177/107769900408100310
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communication. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Kozinets, R. V., Hemetsberger, A., & Schau, H. J. (2008). The Wisdom of Consumer Crowds: Collective Innovation in the Age of Networked Marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(4), 339-354. doi: 10.1177/0276146708325382
Labrecque, L. I. (2014). Fostering Consumer–Brand Relationships in Social Media Environments: The Role of Parasocial Interaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 134-148. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.003
Lawrence, B., Fournier, S., & Brunel, F. (2013). When Companies Don't Make the Ad: A Multimethod Inquiry Into the Differential Effectiveness of Consumer-Generated Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 42(4), 292-307. doi:
10.1080/00913367.2013.795120
Lee, J., Kim, S., & Ham, C. D. (2016). A Double-Edged Sword? Predicting Consumers' Attitudes Toward and Sharing Intention of Native Advertising on Social Media. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1425-1441. doi:10.1177/0002764216660137
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacKinnon, K. A. (2012). User Generated Content vs. Advertising: Do Consumers Trust the Word of Others Over Advertisers?. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 3(1), 14-22. Retrieved from
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66(1), 90-103. doi:
10.1080/03637759909376464
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of
Advertising, 30(1), 13-46. doi: 10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046
Neubaum, G., & Krämer, N. C. (2017). Opinion Climates in Social Media: Blending Mass and Interpersonal Communication. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 464-476. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12118
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
Sher, P. J., & Lee, S. H. (2009). Consumer skepticism and online reviews: An Elaboration Likelihood Model perspective. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 37(1), 137-143. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.1.137
Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 102-113. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.002
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. doi: 10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164
Sprout Social (2016). The Q3 2016 Sprout Social Index. Turned Off: How Brands Are
Annoying Customers on Social. Retrieved from
http://downloads.sproutsocial.com/The-Q3-2016-Sprout%20Social-Index-Sprout-Social.pdf
Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships Between Blogs as EWOM and
Interactivity, Perceived Interactivity, and Parasocial Interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 5-44. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2006.10722117
Tutaj, K., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Effects of online advertising format and persuasion knowledge on audience reactions. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 18(1), 5-18. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2011.620765
Uzunoğlu, E., & Kip, S. M. (2014). Brand communication through digital influencers: Leveraging blogger engagement. International Journal of Information
Management, 34(5), 592-602. doi: 0.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.007
Individuals' Attitude to Blog Product Review. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(4), 343. doi: 10.7763/IJIMT.2012.V3.251
Wojdynski, B. W., & Evans, N. J. (2016). Going Native: Effects of Disclosure Position and Language on the Recognition and Evaluation of Online Native Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45(2), 157-168. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2015.111538
Appendix 1 Stimuli
Appendix 2 Randomization check
A randomization check was conducted. A chi-square test showed that neither gender (χ2 (2) = 1.34, p = .511), nor nationality (χ2 (18) = 21.28, p = .266) significantly differed between the conditions. Additionally, a one-way ANOVA indicated that age was successfully
randomized, F (3, 107) = 0.37, p = .544. Therefore, participants were evenly distributed and over experimental conditions.
Appendix 3 Scales
Skepticism toward influencer marketing.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 1. I can depend on getting the truth from most social media influencers. 2. Social media influencers' aim is to inform the consumer.
3. I believe social media influencers' posts about products are informative. 4. Social media influencers are generally truthful.
5. Social media influencers are a reliable source of information about the quality and performance of products.
6. Social media influencer marketing is truth well told.
7. In general, social media influencers present a true picture of the product being advertised.
8. I feel I've been accurately informed after viewing most social media influencers' posts. 9. Most social media influencers' posts provide consumers with essential information.
Perceived source credibility.
On the scales below, please indicate your feelings about the person who posted the Instagram photo you have seen.
Honest 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Dishonest Trustworthy 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Untrustworthy Honorable 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Dishonorable Moral 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Immoral Ethical 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Unethical Genuine 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Phony
Attitude toward the brand.
The watch shown on the Instagram photo is from the brand Daniel Wellington. On the scales below, please indicate the feelings you have about Daniel Wellington as a brand now.
Appealing 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Unappealing Good 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Bad Pleasant 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Unpleasant Favorable 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Unfavorable Likable 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Unlikeable Appendix 4 Questionnaire Q19 Dear participant,
Hereby I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted in the context of my Master thesis under the responsibility of the Graduate School of
Communication of the University of Amsterdam.
The research is about consumer’s perception of Instagram posts. In the online survey, an Instagram post will be displayed, and several questions will be asked to find out what you think of it. Taking the survey will take approximately 5-10 minutes.
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 7 days 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.
If you wish to receive more information about the research either now or in the future, feel free to contact Lara Weiskopf (lara.weiskopf@student.uva.nl).
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, P.O. Box 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; +31 20‐525 3680; ascor‐secr-fmg@uva.nl. Any complaints or
comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
Q20
o
I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in this research study. (1)End of Block: Block 7 Start of Block: Pre Stimulus
Q11 For the following questions, please imagine the following scenario.
You are scrolling through the news feed of your Instagram app on your smart device. By scrolling down, the following post is displayed.
Please look at the post carefully and read its caption. After 10 seconds you can continue with the survey.
End of Block: Pre Stimulus Start of Block: UGC
Q21 Q22 Timing First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4)
End of Block: UGC Start of Block: Paid
Q24 Timing First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4)
End of Block: Paid
Start of Block: Attitude/Credibility
Q12 On the scales below, please indicate your feelings about the person who posted the Instagram photo you have seen.
1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) Dishonest (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest Untrustworthy (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Trustworthy Unhonorable (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honorable Immoral (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Moral Unethical (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Ethical Phony (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
GenuineQ13 The watch shown on the Instagram photo is from the brand Daniel Wellington. On the scales below, please indicate the feelings you have about Daniel Wellington as a brand now.
1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) Unappealing (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Appealing Bad (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Good Unpleasant (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Pleasant Unfavorable (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Favorable Unlikeable (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
LikeableEnd of Block: Attitude/Credibility Start of Block: Skepticism
Q32 A Social Media Influencer is a user on social media who has established credibility in a specific industry and has access to a large audience.
Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I can depend on getting the truth from most social media influencers. (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Social media influencers' aim is to inform the consumer. (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I believe social media influencers' posts abouto
o
o
o
o
o
o
products are informative. (3) Social media influencers are generally truthful. (4)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Social media influencers are a reliable source of information about the quality and performance of products. (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Social media influencero
o
o
o
o
o
o
marketing is truth well told. (6) In general, social media influencers present a true picture of the product being advertised. (7)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I feel I've been accurately informed after viewing most social media influencers' posts. (8)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Most socialo
o
o
o
o
o
o
media influencers' posts provide consumers with essential information. (9)
End of Block: Skepticism
Q16 Not at all familiar (1) Slightly familiar (2) Somewhat familiar (3) Moderately familiar (4) Extremely familiar (5) How familiar were you with 'Daniel Wellington' as a watch brand before participating in this study? (1)
o
o
o
o
o
End of Block: Brand Familiarity
Q34 Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the statements about the Instagram photo you have seen.
Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I think that Daniel Wellington as a watch brand, paid to be shown and mentioned in this Instagram photo. (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
End of Block: Manipulation Check/Persuasion Knowledge Start of Block: Phone/Instagram Use
Q10 Do you own a smartphone or tablet?
o
Yes (1)o
No (2)Q11 Do you have an Instagram account?
o
Yes (1)o
No (2)Q30 If yes, how many times per day do you check Instagram on average? (Please indicate a number, hence: once=1, twice=2, ...)
________________________________________________________________
Q31 On average, about how much time per day do you spend on Instagram? (Please indicate in minutes.)
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Phone/Instagram Use Start of Block: Demographics
Q13 Now to complete the survey, we will ask a few questions about you. Of course, your anonymity will be protected.
Q3 How old are you? Please indicate your age in numbers (e.g. '25').
Q4 What is your gender?
o
Male (1)o
Female (2)o
Rather not say (3) Q8 What is your nationality? (1)▼ Afghanistan (0) ... Zimbabwe (199)
Q5 What is your highest completed level of education?
o
Less than high school (1)o
High school graduate (min. 12 years) (2)o
Completed apprenticeship (3)o
Bachelor's degree (4)o
Master's degree (5)o
Doctorate (6)End of Block: Demographics Start of Block: End
Q14 Thank you very much for participating!
The Instagram post you were asked to look at as part of this study was created/altered for research purposes. The images and texts were inspired by original posts.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact Lara Weiskopf (lara.weiskopf@student.uva.nl).
Your answers are an important contribution to the research for my Master thesis and your participation is greatly appreciated!
