Effects of Disclosures of Sponsored Content in Vlogs:
the role Persuasion Knowledge and Para-social Interaction play on the
relationship between disclosures and brand attitude
Yuqing Ma 12207403
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme: Communication Science
Persuasive Communication
Supervisor: Margot van der Goot Word Count: 7205 Date: 27 January 2020
Abstract
The rising popularity and increasing potential of developing vlogs attracted the attention of brand and advertising agencies. The embedded sponsored content in vlogs makes the disclosures necessary. However, the effect of disclosures had not been investigated
systematically, particularly in the context of China’s social media and vlogs. Additionally, individual differences, like the imagery interaction with vloggers, also called para-social interaction (PSI), may be regarded as a possible condition for disclosures effects on brand attitude. Thus, the goal of this study is to discover the effect of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion knowledge and brand attitude under the context of vlog in China as well as ascertain what role parasocial interaction plays in this relationship. A survey experimental study was conducted with a convenience sampling, collecting 115 questionnaires among Chinese emerging adults online. On the one hand, the findings revealed that disclosures can induce the change in brand attitude directly, while they cannot trigger persuasion knowledge (PK). On the other hand, PSI has no moderator effect on the impact of disclosures on brand attitude but has impact on cognitive PK and attitudinal PK. These findings contribute to the literature by extending the focus of the disclosure investigation from western context to eastern context, as well as provide inspiration through showing the effect of the experience with vlogger (PSI) on persuasion knowledge.
Key words: Disclosure, Vlog, Persuasion Knowledge, Para-social Interaction, Brand Attitude, China, Weibo
Effects of Disclosures of Sponsored Content in Vlogs: the Role Persuasion Knowledge and Para-social Interaction Play
on the Relationship between Disclosures and Brand Attitude
Video blogs (Vlogs) is an increasingly popular online media form to record thoughts, opinions and daily routines (Baker, 2019). The popular “vloggers” join the ranks of
“influencers” or “Key Opinion Leaders (KOL),” exhibiting their lifestyles in vlogs. In China, the concept of vlogs was first launched in September 2018, and daily search volume increased by 324% in the following six months (Sheng, 2019). Young adults are more likely to watch vlogs compared to other age groups in America (Nguyen, 2018). Those in the 18 to late 20s age range adore the glamorous influencers and desire to emulate their lifestyles because they can better identify themselves with and feel more similarity to these youth influencers compared to celebrities (Schouten, Janssen & Verspaget, 2019).
The rising popularity and increasing potential of developing vlogs attracted the attention of brand and advertising agencies. According to marketing specialists, vlogs are a good way to embed products in a “hidden way.” Sponsored content, also known as “native advertising,” is designed to appear as part of content in contrast to traditional commercial messages (Boerman & van Reijmersdal, 2016). Some viewers may find advertising content to be indistinguishable from real recommendations, which raises the question of whether hidden advertising is unethical or misleading (van Reijmersdal et al., 2016). As a result, the Federal Trade
ruled that influencers have the responsibility to make sponsored product evident when they have a financial or employment relationship with the brand. Article 7 of the China
Administration of Internet Advertising indicates disclosure claims should assist consumers to recognize the new form of advertising, no matter in what kind of advertising (China State Administration for Market Regulation (CSAMR), 2016).
If consumers are not aware of native advertising, they may be persuaded. The disclosure claims on sponsored content are intended to raise audiences’ persuasion knowledge and may lead to changes in brand attitude (Wei, Fischer, & Main, 2008), recall (Boerman, van
Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2012), and purchase intention (Tessitore & Geuens, 2013). The study of the effect of sponsorship disclosures has mainly focused on Facebook (Boerman,
Willemsen, & Van Der, 2017) and YouTube (Müller & Christandl, 2019) within the context of European countries. No studies have investigated this issue in the context of China’s social media, which is an independent media environment from Europe. Thus, the first aim of this study is to verify the effect of sponsorship disclosure on brand response in the context of China’s social media and provide suggestions for regulating sponsored content in China.
Secondly, this study aims to investigate how the disclosures in vlog affect the brand attitude on vlogs. Various studies found mixed results of the effect of sponsored content containing disclosure claims on brand attitude (Boerman, & van Reijmersdal, 2016). Some studies found there is a direct negative effect on brand attitude (van Reijmersdal et al., 2016; Sweetser, Ahn,
Golan, & Hochman, 2016), while a noteworthy number of studies found an indirect negative effect on brand attitude or found no significant effect (Boerman, van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2014; Müller & Christandl, 2019; van Reijmersdal, Lammers, Rozendaal, & Buijzen, 2015). Müller and Christandl (2019) speculated the impact of sponsorship disclosure on brand attitudes may depend on certain conditions, for instance a higher level of persuasion knowledge (Jans, Cauberghe & Hudders, 2018; Boerman & van Reijmersdal, 2016). The activation of persuasion message coding process could be one of important underlying mechanism when explain the effect of disclosure on brand attitude, but there are limited studies investigate on the context of vlog. Therefore, this study will examine persuasion knowledge as a mediator in the causal relationship between disclosures of vlogs and brand attitudes.
Apart from persuasion knowledge, this study will investigate other conditions that may play important roles in the impact of disclosures on brand attitudes. Vlogs, as a kind of storytelling content, may create a higher level of imaginary interaction between a viewer and the media persona, which is called parasocial-interaction (PSI) (Munnukka, Maity, Reinikainen & Luoma-aho, 2019). Previous studies had suggested that we could consider the impact of different types of audiences on the process of coping persuasion message (Amazeen & Wojdynsk, 2019). The audiences experienced different level of PSI may lead to different responses on the sponsored content and brand. Some studies found, for vlog viewers with a high-level of PSI, a positive effect occurred in improving brand image (Lee & Watkins, 2016)
and brand attitudes (Liu, Liu & Zhang, 2018). Nevertheless, the effect of PSI on persuasion knowledge has also been neglected in previous research. This study intends to fill the gap and to provide possible moderator, like PSI, for further investigation into sponsorship disclosure. Thus, the third aim of the study is to investigate the role PSI plays in the relationship between disclosure and brand response.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development
Disclosure Types and Legislation
When influencers receive any benefit in mentioning a product, they have a responsibility to disclose their relationship with the brand (Federal Trade Commission (FTC), n.d). Clear language, such as “ad,” “sponsored,” or “thanks to the brand for the product,” should be used as the disclosures, based on the disclosure regulations of the Federal Trade Commission (n.d.). Similar to US legislation, China Advertising Law (2016) legislated “sponsored content should be identified as an advertisement by clear disclosures” (Article 14), and the Interim Measures for the Administration of Internet Advertising (2016) also indicated the disclosures text should include “advertising” in the promotional content (Article 7), but did not mention the logo disclosures.
Previous studies verified the sponsorship disclosure accelerated the recognition of advertising (Müller & Christandl, 2019). Some studies also found different disclosure types and timing may induce different results (Boerman & van Reijmersdal, 2016). Boerman, van Reijmersdal
and Neijens (2015) found the combination of logo and text disclosure to be the most effective, followed by text, with logos being the least effective in advertising recognition by observing eye fixation and movement in television programs. As for timing, one study found disclosures displayed in the middle or at the end of a program led to a higher recall compared to
disclosures made at the start of a program (Boerman et al., 2012). With the consideration of Chinese Law (2016) and previous studies (Boerman et al., 2012; 2015), this study will investigate the text disclosure and placed the disclosures in the middle of the program.
The Effect of Disclosure on Persuasion Knowledge and Brand Attitude
The effect of disclosures on brand attitude has been discussed in previous studies which can be explained by the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994). The model elaborated how audiences process persuasion content by utilizing and developing persuasion knowledge (Friestad & Wright, 1994). When exposed to the disclosures of sponsored content, viewers may recognize persuasion content, and their persuasion coping knowledge may assist them to ‘analyze, interpret, evaluate and remember’ the content, and to select reaction tactics to the advertising (Friestad & Wright, 1994). In a previous study, Persuasion Knowledge (PK) has been divided into two aspects: cognitive and attitudinal (Boerman et al., 2017). Cognitive persuasion knowledge relates to consumers’ recognition of advertising, also called conceptual persuasion knowledge (Boerman et al., 2012). Wojdynski (2016) found ad recognition (= conceptual PK) may result in increased perceived transparency, increased perceived deception, and decreased credibility of source (Amazeen & Wojdynski, 2019).When cognitive
persuasion knowledge is activated, attitudinal persuasion knowledge may then develop. Attitudinal persuasion knowledge refers to attitudes towards advertising, which may trigger feelings of suspicion, skepticism and dislike to the sponsored content (Boerman et al., 2012). Previous studies indicated that cognitive PK and attitudinal PK may be activated stepwise when viewers are exposed to disclosures (Müller & Christandl, 2019; Boerman, Willemsen & Van der, 2017). Therefore, persuasion knowledge can be regarded as an important result of disclosures.
Although PK has been tested in Boerman’s study, different situations are required to explore further (Boerman et al, 2012; 2017), because a change of media environment and cultural background may lead to adjustments on individual advertising persuasion knowledge. First, vlogs as new area in disclosure investigation will be discussed in the study. When advertising is integrated with new media forms, audiences may not immediately recognize the sponsored content (Boerman et al, 2017). Differentiated from Facebook texts (Boerman et al, 2017) and Instagram pictures (Evans, Phua, Lim & Jun, 2017), vlog, as an audio-visual daily journal, allows different degrees of advertising integration, from “as a prop in vlog” to “as a main content to be introduced in the entire vlog” (Jans et al., 2018; Committee of Advertising Practice, 2016). (Jans et al., 2018). However, the number of investigations about the effect of sponsored vlog‘s disclosures on persuasion knowledge is still limited. Second, China built its own social media platforms based on Chinese social habits and language may lead to different results in levels of persuasion knowledge and brand attitudes. Weibo (Chinese micro blog
resembling Facebook) with the special media environment and culture background may produce different results regarding disclosure and persuasion knowledge when compared to Facebook and YouTube. Thus, this study will focus on vlog and China for the purpose of discovering the effects of disclosures.
H1a. Sponsorship disclosure (vs. non-disclosure) in vlog results in a higher level of
cognitive persuasion knowledge among Chinese emerging adults.
H1b. Sponsorship disclosure (vs. non-disclosure) in vlog results in a higher level of
cognitive persuasion knowledge, which consequently leads to a higher level of attitudinal persuasion knowledge among Chinese emerging adults.
Disclosures of the sponsored content are used to increase the advertising recognition (=cognitive PK) and protect viewer’s right to learn the truth, but it may lead to a change of brand attitude unexpectedly (Wei et al., 2008). Some studies found that disclosure could directly affect brand attitude (Sweetser et al., 2016; van Reijmersdal, 2016), while some studies did not find a direct negative effect of disclosure on brand attitude, but find an indirect effect on brand attitude via persuasion knowledge (Müller & Christandl, 2019; Choi, Yoon & Taylor, 2015). Fishbein & Cappella (2006) elaborated the process: when people notice they are exposed to persuasion content, counterarguing may be induced, which may lead to negative brand responses. The other study explained the mixed effect may occur depends on the activation of PK (Boerman et al, 2014), and this is demonstrated in the context of blogs
(van Reijmersdal et al., 2016), Facebook (Boerman et al., 2017), and YouTube informational videos (Müller & Christandl, 2019). Disclosures, as a noticeable sign of sponsored content, may accelerate the process of advertising recognition, which may lead to induce
counterarguing, decrease attitude towards the advertising, even decrease brand attitude. To demonstrate the effect of disclosures on brand attitude and the mediation effect of PK on the context of vlogs in China, a hypothesis is posited:
H2. Sponsorship disclosure (vs. non-disclosure) in vlogs results in a higher level of
cognitive persuasion knowledge and attitudinal persuasion knowledge, leading to a more negative attitude towards brands among Chinese emerging adults.
The Role of Parasocial-Interaction
Parasocial interaction (PSI) was initially defined as “imaginary interactions” between TV viewers and TV figures, which develops into a one-sided relationship with media personae (Horton & Wohl, 1956). Because of Internet development and the expanded media
environment, the media scope of PSI extended beyond television (Dibble, Hartmann & Rosaen, 2016; Brown, 2015; Cummins & Cui, 2014), to movies (Knoll, Schramm, Schallhorn & Wynistorf, 2014), social media (Hwang & Zhang, 2018), and YouTube videos (Jans et al., 2018; Ko & Wu, 2017; Lee & Watkins, 2016). The definition of PSI is not restrained to the narrow range of fabricated media personae, but now encompasses real personae, such as digital celebrities and YouTubers (Hwang & Zhang, 2018, Ko & Wu, 2017).
PSI has been regarded as a crucial component in the process of audience involvement (Brown, 2015). Brown (2015) proposed a social influence model and integrated it with involvement, demonstrating that, after long-term exposure to media personae, liking and perceived similarity are two important factors of PSI. Compared to traditional celebrities, influencers may induce higher levels of perceived similarity and trustworthiness, which might lead to more positive attitudes towards advertising (Schouten et al., 2019). Vloggers, as internet-age influencers, show their life, share their thoughts in an audiovisual and informal storytelling way, and interact with their followers, which may help build relationships and shorten the distance between viewers and themselves.
Previous studies found that audiences more easily accepted the recommended product or brand due to this imaginary intimacy (Schouten et al., 2019). Some scholars found building PSI in vlogs may influence brand preference (Liu et al., 2018), brand-user imagery (Lee & Watkins, 2016), attitudes (Munnukka et al., 2019), electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and purchase intention (Jans et al., 2018). An Entertainment Overcoming Resistance Model (EORM) proposed by Moyer-Gusé (2008) might explain the effect: PSI may help to reduce counterarguing and reactance to the persuasion message that may affect freedom to choose. Previous studies demonstrated participants with higher levels of PSI (favorable movie
characters) would have more positive attitudes towards brands compared to people with lower levels of PSI (unfavorable movie characters) (Knoll, et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, research on the impact of PSI on disclosure’s effects is rare. A study combining disclosures and EORM demonstrated that disclosures generated counterarguing and led to a negative attitude towards the persuasion message (Brusse, Fransen, & Smit, 2015).
Consumers with high PSI still have positive responses to the product from trustworthy personae (Isaac & Grayson, 2017) or their favorite celebrity (Lueck, 2015), although they recognize the advertising. When audiences watch vlog that may attract their attention, they may experience PSI and become followers.
Some studies found parasocial relationship (PSR) may moderate the effect of persuasion knowledge on purchase intention and brand responses (Boerman & Van Reijmersdal, 2020; Hwang & Zhang, 2018). PSR represents a relationship developed by long-term interaction, compared to the short-term interaction in PSI (Dibble et al., 2016). Compared to PSR, PSI seems easier to generate, and it can happen in one single exposure. Although the whole process happens in short time, it is plausible to posit that PSI may suppress or eliminate the negative effect of disclosure on brand attitudes. However, the study on the moderator effect of PSI on the relationship between disclosures and brand attitudes is still unclear, as well as on the persuasion knowledge. Hence, this study is going to combine the Persuasion Knowledge Model and Entertainment Overcoming Resistance Model, to fill the gap in the PSI and sponsorship disclosure research area. The research question is proposed:
RQ1. What is the role of PSI on (1a) the effect of sponsorship disclosure on cognitive
persuasion knowledge; (1b) the effect of disclosures disclosure on brand attitude; (1c) the effect of conceptual PK on attitudinal PK; (1d) the effect of attitudinal PK on brand attitude.
Figure 1. Illustration of hypotheses and research question.
Method
Design and Participants
The goal of this study is to discover the effect of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion
knowledge and brand attitude, as well as ascertain what role parasocial interaction (PSI) plays in this relationship. A one factorial (disclosure vs. non-disclosure) between-subjects
experiment has been conducted among Chinese emerging adults. This study focused on emerging adults, who are defined as age 18 to the late 20s, a period of mental development marked by identity exploration (Coyne, Padilla-Walker & Howard, 2013). Furthermore, the
Parasocial Interaction Disclosure Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge Attitudinal Persuasion Knowledge Brand Attitude H1a H1b H2 H2 RQ1a RQ1b RQ1d RQ1c
study used an online questionnaire created in English and translated into Chinese. Following, it was translated back into English by two specialists in linguistics and translation to ensure accuracy. In the current experiment, participants were told to complete the questionnaire in Chinese, and they could check the English version via a language shift button.
A total of 118 questionnaires were collected. Three participants aged 30 or over were
removed from the data because they were outside our target age range of 18-29. Consequently, 115 emerging adults were recruited as participants. There are 61 participants in the
non-disclosure condition, and 54 participants in the non-disclosure condition. The age range of participants was 18-29, with the average age 22.89 (SD = 1.93). 101 of the participants are female and 14 male. All have Chinese nationality and can speak advanced (1.7%) or native Chinese (98.3%). 67% of participants are currently living in China, 27% in Europe, 4.3% in Australia and 2.6% in American. About half of participants have a master’s degree, 36.5% a bachelor’s degree, 10.4% a college degree, and 1.7% a secondary school diploma.
Procedure
The procedure of the study was adapted from the disclosure experiment of Boerman et al. (2012) and the PSI experiment of Lee and Watins (2016). Participants were asked for their consent at the beginning of the questionnaire (see Appendix A. Questionnaire). Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two groups to watch a vlog (disclosure or non-disclosure). Both groups viewed a six-minute vlog video. A four-minute timer was set up on
the video page to ensure participants would see the manipulation before jumping to a new page. A screenshot of the Weibo profile page of the influencer was placed on the video page and resembled a real situation to increase external validity. This screenshot was the same for both conditions. Following, they were asked to fill in a questionnaire about the parasocial interaction with this influencer, persuasion knowledge and brand attitude. Manipulation check, control variables and demographic information were collected at the end of the questionnaire. The data was collected in 10 days from late November to early December, 2019. SPSS v24 and PROCESS Macro v3.3 were used to analyze the data.
The Stimulus
The stimulus was a written sponsorship disclosure “The content is sponsored by Xiao Xian Dun (brand name)” (in Chinese) in the middle of a six-minute vlog which is the suitable time for audience to notice the disclosures (Boerman et al., 2012). The disclosure was displayed for four seconds (Boerman et al, 2014) on the top left corner when the vlogger presented the product with a product logo. In the non-disclosure group, the statement disclosure was not presented in the video. Other factors remained the same (disclosure pattern see Appendix B).
The influencer in the vlog was selected from an influencers list created by pilot interviews with 15 Chinese emerging adults. Participants in the pilot interview volunteered to talk about their favorite influencers. They were told that the interview was for vlog research, and they were not recruited in the following experiment. The interviews were held on the social media
platform WeChat and resulted in the creation of a 32-influencer list. That list was then narrowed by removing celebrities, long vlogs (longer than 10 minutes), influencers who do not post vlog, do not have an account on Weibo, do not put advertising on their vlog, or do not speak Chinese. Four influencers were left. The study chose a female influencer called Bao Jian Sao (@宝剑嫂) who has neither the most nor least number of followers on our influencer list, so that the influencer is not too well-known nor unknown. It is to ensure the audience’s variation on PSI experience. She is a beauty influencer with 2 million followers on Weibo, and she records her daily life by vlog. We then selected a 7-minute vlog containing a health care drink product advertisement from Xiao Xian Dun, a new health drink brand which is not yet well-known. The vlog begins by showing her daily life with her boyfriend, then some funny things happen while they are cooking, and finally she recommends the drink product which purportedly can improve skin condition.
Measures
All measures were utilized as 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree), except when stated otherwise.
Persuasion Knowledge. Persuasion knowledge was measured by two dimensions:
conceptual persuasion knowledge and attitudinal persuasion knowledge (Boerman, et al., 2012). For the conceptual dimension, a single item was used to measure advertising recognition: to what extent a participant agreed with the statement “the vlog contains
advertising” (M = 5.94, SD = 1.31). A higher score indicates a higher level of advertising recognition. Similar one-item measurement has been utilized in previous studies (Boerman et al.,2012; 2017; Müller & Christandl, 2019) and we adapted the wording of the original question to fit the context of Vlog.
In terms of attitudinal persuasion knowledge, five items originating from a source
trustworthiness scale (Ohanian, 1990) were used. The scale has utilized to investigate the critical feeling towards sponsored content in the study of Boerman, et al. (2012). The items were solicited: “I think the vlog post was …”: “dishonest-honest,”
“untrustworthy-trustworthy,” “unconvincing-convincing,” “biased-unbiased,” and “not credible-credible.” This measure changed Likert scale to a 7-point semantic differential scale. The items were reversed to 1 (positive valence words) to 7 (negative valence words), in line with the measure in the study of Boerman et al. (2012). Factor analysis revealed 5 items load on one factor (Eigenvalue = 3.75, Explained Variance = 75.1%, Cronbach’s α = 0.91). The mean of five items represents the score of attitudinal persuasion knowledge. Higher scores correlate to more critical and distrusting attitudes (M = 4.18, SD = 0.50).
Brand Attitude. Six 7-point semantic differential scales was used to measure brand
attitude towards Xiao Xian Dun. The items included “bad or good,” “unpleasant or pleasant,” “unfavorable or favorable,” “negative or positive,” “dislike or like,” and “poor quality or high quality” (Eigenvalue = 5.05, Explained Variance = 84.1% Cronbach’s α = .96) (Boerman, et
al., 2012). The mean of six items stands for the score of brand attitude. A higher score represents more positive attitude on brand, while a lower score means more negative brand attitude (M = 4.63, SD = 1.15).
Parasocial Interaction. PSI was measured by an 8-item PSI scale developed in
previous studies (Lee & Watkins, 2016; Rubin, et al., 1985). Lee and Watkins (2016) adapted the TV context to vlogs which had been used in the studies of Jans et al., (2018) and Liu et al., (2018). We made a slight adaptation to fit the context into the Chinese media platform.
Participants were asked “to what extent they will agree with the statements,” including “I look forward to watching the vlog on her Weibo,” “If her vlog appeared on another account, I would watch the vlog,” “When I am watching her vlog, I feel as if I am part of her group,” “I think she is like an old friend,” “I would like to meet her in person,” “If there were a story about her in the news or a magazine, I would read it,” “She makes me feel comfortable, as if I am with friends”, and “When her vlog shows me how she feels about a brand, it helps me make up my own mind about the brand” (Lee and Watkins, 2016). Factor analysis revealed 8 items load on one factor (Eigenvalue = 5.39, Explained Variance = 67.4%, Cronbach’s α = 0.93). The mean of 8 items represents the parasocial interaction level. Higher scores associate to more parasocial interaction experienced by viewers (M = 3.62, SD = 1.31).
Manipulation Check. A multiple-choice question was created for manipulation check.
will be asked “do you see the disclosures in the vlogs” as attention check (Yes/No/I don’t know). Following, the manipulation check was asked “what disclosures have you seen in the vlog”, and the answers included: “The content is sponsored by Xiao Xian Dun” (correct), “This video is sponsored” (incorrect), “Thanks for Xiao Xian Dun” (incorrect), and “None of above”. For participants who were assigned to the disclosure presence condition, only those who selected “The content is sponsored by Xiao Xian Dun” (labeled as “yes” in Table 1) were considered successfully recognizing the manipulation. Those who answered, “This video is sponsored”, “Thanks for Xiao Xian Dun” or “none of above” (labeled as “no” in Table 1) were considered failure to recognize the disclosures. For participants in the control condition, those who chose “The content is sponsored by Xiao Xian Dun” were considered failure to recall the non-disclosure situation.
Control Variables. Brand familiarity, influencer familiarity, and the frequency of
viewing vlogs were measured as control variables (Boerman et al, 2012; Jans et al, 2018; Knoll et al, 2018). Brand familiarity has been demonstrated as a significant moderator (Knoll, et al., 2014), and was measured by the question “To what extent do you think you are familiar with the brand?” (M = 2.22, SD = 1.34). The question was adapted from a 5-point Likert scale to a 7-point Likert scale, so that the question would agree with the scale of questions
beforehand. Additionally, influencer familiarity was measured by the question “Did you know the influencer before this study?” (0 = No or 1 = Yes) (Jans et al., 2018). 25.2% of
in the study, resembling the frequency of Facebook usage in previous study (Boerman et al., 2012). They were asked how often they watch a vlog (1 = never, 2 = Once or less a month, 3 = Twice or three times a month, 4 = weekly, 5 = Daily) (M = 3.11, SD = 1.18). Finally, the demographic questions, including age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), nationality, residence of country, Chinese level and education level, were asked at the end of questionnaire.
Results
Manipulation Check
Attention check showed that 14.8% of participants said they saw the disclosures, 59.1% did not see the disclosures and 26.1% selected “I don’t know”. To check whether participants noticed disclosures, a chi-square analysis (see Table 1) with disclosure presence (disclosures and non-disclosure) and manipulation check (yes and no) showed that 56 out of 61
participants (91.8%) recall successfully in the non-disclosure condition. Only 7 out of 54 (13%) participants recognize correctly in the disclosure condition. The number of people who recognize correctly in the disclosure condition is too small to meet the assumption of normal distribution, even generalize to public. Thus, this study used the disclosure presences as dependent variables, instead to use the results of manipulation check. The following analysis would regard disclosure presence as 1 and non-disclosure as 0.
Table 1
Chi-square analysis of Manipulation check and disclosure Presence
Note. χ2 (1) = .70, p = .544
Randomization
54 participants were exposed to the disclosure and 61 participants were randomly assigned to the non-disclosure group. ANOVA and Chi-square analyses revealed no differences between two groups in terms of age, F(1,113) = 1.38, p = .242, gender (female and male), χ2(1) = .11, p = .783, residence (China as 1, other countries as 0), χ2(1) = .21, p = .694, education level, F(1,113) = .21, p =.651, Chinese level (advanced and native speaker), χ2(1) = 1.80, p =.50, brand familiarity, F(1,113) = -.11, p =.918, influencer familiarity (Yes and No), χ2(1) = 0.71, p = .832, and the frequency of vlog viewing, F(1,113) = 2.02, p = .158. Therefore, no
covariate variables were used in the following analysis.
Effects of Sponsorship Disclosures on Persuasion Knowledge and Brand Attitude
To test H1, we did an independent t-test with disclosure presence as factor; conceptual PK as dependent variables. The Levene’s test for equality of variances was non-significant, F = .50, p = .823. Results revealed that people who were exposed to the disclosure (M = 6.00, SD = 1.36, n = 54) did not significantly different on level of conceptual PK compared to people
Manipulation check
Total
Disclosure Presence No Yes
Non-disclosure 56 5 61
% within non-disclosure group 91.8% 8.2% 100%
Disclosure 47 7 54
who were not exposed to the disclosure (M = 5.89, SD = 1.27, n = 61), t (113) = -.47, p = .640, 95% CI [-.60, .37], d = .09. The result rejected H1a.
To test H1b, we ran a sequential mediation model with disclosures as independent variable, brand attitude as dependent variables, and conceptual PK and attitudinal PK as mediators, using Model 6 and 5,000 bootstrap samples in PROCESS version 3.3 (Hayes, 2013). Disclosures in vlog was hypothesized to lead to a higher score on conceptual PK and then activate attitudinal PK. The first mediation model with disclosure presence as independent variables, attitudinal PK as dependent variable, and conceptual PK as a mediator is significant, F (2, 112) = 6.41, p = .002. The model explained 10.3% of variance in the level of attitudinal
PK and the strength of the predictive model is moderate (R2 = .10). Cognitive PK have a
moderate significant association with the level of attitudinal PK, b = .30, t = 3.54, p = .001, 95% CI [.13, .47]. On a scale from 1 (positive valence) to 7 (negative valence), per level of
cognitive PK, the predicted level of attitudinal PK increases by 0.30, with other variables controlled. However, people who exposed to disclosure has no significant difference on the level of attitudinal PK compared to who exposed to non-disclosure video (b = -.16, t = -.71, p = .481, 95% CI [-.60, .29]). The results showed the relationship between cognitive PK and attitudinal PK, which supported H1b partially (see Table 2 and Figure 2).
As for H2, the second model (Model 6, 5,000 bootstrap sample, PROCESS v3.3, Hayes, 2013) with disclosure presence as independent variable, and conceptual PK and attitudinal PK as
mediator 1 and mediator 2 respectively, significantly predicted brand attitude, F (3,111) = 33.79, p < .001. The variance in predictors explained 47.7% of the variance in brand attitude, the strength of the prediction is strong (R2 = .48). Disclosure presence, b = -.34, t = -2.17, p = .032, 95% CI [.65, .03], and attitudinal PK, b = .64, t = 9.64, p < .001, 95% CI [.77, -.51], have an effect on brand attitude. People who were exposed to the disclosure held average 0.34 lower level of brand attitude compared to people who were not exposed to sponsorship disclosure, and the strength of prediction effect is moderate. Moreover, attitudinal PK has a strong negative association with brand attitude. On a 1 (negative brand attitude) to 7 (positive brand attitude) scale, for every unit of the level of attitudinal PK, the level of brand attitude decreased by 0.66, with other variables controlled. However, conceptual PK (b = .05, t = .77, p = .446, 95% CI [-.08, .17]) has no significant effect on the prediction of brand attitude. Overall, the results mean disclosures presence would have a direct effect on brand attitude, while the effect disappears when the mediators were activated. The results also showed the activation of attitudinal PK would lead to a negative effect on brand attitude, which partially supported H2 (see Table 2 and Figure 2).
Table 2
Used PROCESS v3.3 Model 6 to predict attitudinal PK and brand attitudes.
Attitudinal PK Brand Attitudes
Variables b* b* (Constant) *** *** Disclosure Presence -.13 -.30* Conceptual PK .32** .06 Attitudinal PK \ -.70*** R2 .10 .48 F 6.41** 33.79***
Figure 2. Illustration of H1 and H2 (N = 115), * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001. Significant
Insignificant
The effect of Parasocial Interaction
To investigate the research questions about PSI, a moderated sequential mediation model with disclosures as independent variable, brand attitude as dependent variables, conceptual PK and attitudinal PK as mediators, and PSI as moderator was employed. We used Model 92 and 5,000 bootstrap samples in PROCESS version 3.3 (Hayes, 2013). Firstly, with respect to cognitive PK (RQ1a), the first model with disclosures as independent variables, PSI as
moderator is significant, F (3,111) = 3.33, p = .022. The variance in predictors explained 8.3%
of the variance in cognitive PK, the strength of the prediction is weak to moderate (R2 = .08).
The result showed that the interaction effect (disclosure presence x PSI) is not significant on conceptual PK (t = .11, p = .909, 95% CI [-.34, 38]), while PSI as an independent variables has a significant effect on conceptual PK (t = .-3.12, p = .002, 95% CI [-.46, -.10]). It means
Disclosure Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge Attitudinal Persuasion Knowledge Brand Attitude .12 .30** -.16 .05 -.64*** Direct effect, b = -.34 *, p = .032 Indirect effect, b = .07, 95% BCa CI [-.17,.33]
the higher level of PSI audiences experience, the less likely to recognize the advertising in vlog.
With respect to attitudinal PK (RQ1c), the model with disclosures as independent variables, conceptual PK as mediator and PSI as moderators is significant, F (5,109) = 17.41, p < .001 (See Table 3 and Figure 3). The variance in predictors explained 44.4% of the variance in attitudinal PK, the strength of the prediction is strong (R2 = .44). The result showed that conceptual PK, t = 2.00, p = .048, 95% CI [.01, .31], predicted significantly on attitudinal PK, which means the higher level of advertising recognition (= cognitive PK), the more distrust feeling towards advertising (= attitudinal PK) induced. PSI was also found a significant effect on attitudinal PK, t = -8.11, p < .001, 95% CI [-.72, -.44], which represents the higher PSI experience, the less distrust feeling induced. However, the interaction of disclosure and PSI, t = -.42, p = .679, 95% CI [-.33, .21], the interaction of conceptual PK and PSI, t = -.53, p = .601, 95% CI [-.10, .06], and disclosure, t = -1.00, p = .318, 95% CI [-.53, .18], has no significant effect on attitudinal PK.
To explore the answer of RQ1b and RQ1d, the third model with disclosure presence as independent variables, brand attitude as dependent variables, conceptual PK and attitudinal PK as mediators, and PSI as moderator was built, F (7,107) = 14.65, p < .001. The variance in predictors explained 48.9% of the variance in brand attitudes, the strength of the prediction is
= 2.19, p = .030, 95% CI [.67, .03] and attitudinal PK, t = 7.10, p < .001, 95% CI [.78, -.44] is significant on the prediction of brand attitude. However, three interaction effect (disclosure x PSI, t = -.30, p = .768, 95% CI [-.20, .28]; conceptual PK x PSI, t = -.43, p = .669, 95% CI [-.10, -.07; and attitudinal PK x PSI, t = -.80, p = .432, 95% CI [-.14, .06]), conceptual PK, t = 1.10, p = .273, 95% CI .06, .22], and PSI, t = .58, p = .566, 95% CI [-.11, .21], were insignificant in prediction brand attitude (See Table 3 and Figure 3). To answer the RQ1, the results indicated that PSI did not have moderator effect on relationship among disclosures, PK and brand attitude. However, the results showed that PSI may affect cognitive PK and attitudinal PK.
Table 3
Used PROCESS v3.3 Model 92 to predict attitudinal PK and brand attitudes.
Dependent Variables Conceptual PK Attitudinal PK Brand Attitudes
b b b (Constant) .00 -.01 4.58*** Disclosure Presence .10 -.18 -.35* Conceptual PK \ .15* .08 Attitudinal PK \ \ -.61*** PSI -.28** -.58*** .05
Disclosure Presence x PSI .02 -.06 .04
Conceptual PK x PSI \ -.02 -.02
Attitudinal PK x PSI \ \ -.04
R2 .08 .44 .49
F 3.33* 17.41*** 14.65***
Note. N = 115, PSI represents parasocial; PK represents persuasion knowledge, * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001.
Figure 3. Illustration of the moderator effect of PSI (RQ1, N = 115), * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001. Significant
Not significant
Discussion
Disclosures in sponsored content were legislated in both American and Chinese advertising law, however, it may decrease the effectiveness of persuasion messages (Boerman et al, 2017). The current study aims primarily at the investigation of the relationship between disclosures and brand attitudes, as well as the conditions that may explain their relationship, particularly in the context of vlogs in China social media. Finally, this study answered the research
question about the role PSI plays in the relationship among disclosures, brand attitude and PK.
Disclosure Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge Attitudinal Persuasion Knowledge Brand Attitude .10 .15* .08 -.61*** Parasocial Interaction -.28** .02 -.02 -.06 -.58*** .04 -.18 .05 -.02 -.04 -.35*
First, this study’s findings of the direct effect of disclosure on brand attitude is in accord with previous studies investigating native advertising wherein disclosures, compared to non-disclosure, directly decreased the brand attitude in Netflix shows (Sweetser at al., 2016), movies (van Reijmersdal, 2016), and digital news contexts (Amazeen & Wojdynski, 2019). The results demonstrated the direct effect of disclosure on brand attitude in the context of vlog.
However, when focusing on the mediation effect of persuasion knowledge, the findings are noteworthy. In the majority of previous studies, the exposure of disclosures (vs.
non-disclosure) has a negative effect on brand responses through persuasion knowledge (Boerman et al., 2012; Müller & Christandl, 2019). While in the current study, disclosure presence has no effect on conceptual PK, the majority of participants can recognize the advertising
embedded in vlog regardless of disclosures, different from previous findings (Boerman et al., 2012). The scores of cognitive PK in two groups clustered toward the high end of the measure, which seems to be a ceiling effect. The study of Jung and Heo (2019) may explain the results. They focused on native advertising on social networking sites, found advertising recognition was induced mainly by prior experience with social media advertising instead of disclosures (Jung & Heo, 2019). The finding revealed people may already be familiar with native advertising tactics, so they can recognize sponsored content without disclosures. The results provide a suggestion for further study on the direction of advertising knowledge and media literacy.
Second, although disclosures did not generate conceptual PK, persuasion knowledge was activated. The findings revealed if sponsored content in vlog is recognized, audiences feel more distrust towards the sponsored content. Following, the critical feelings about sponsored content lead to negative brand attitude. The reaction in brand attitude is the result of the process of analyzing, interpreting and evaluating that is consistent with the coping process mentioned in the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Moreover, the effect of persuasion knowledge on brand attitude happening stepwise is in accord with
previous studies (Amazeen & Wojdynski, 2019; Boerman et al., 2014; 2017). Thus, this study has explored crucial implications for the persuasion knowledge model applied in the context of vlog in China social media.
Third, the study aims to discover the role PSI plays in the relationship between disclosure, brand attitude and persuasion knowledge. The findings showed that PSI did not alter the impact of disclosures, conceptual PK, or attitudinal PK on brand attitude, which means people with a higher level of PSI may show no difference from people with a lower level of PSI when reacting to sponsorship disclosure and to the activation of persuasion knowledge. The results are not in accord with a previous study related to electronic word-of-mouth in the context of China, which indicated PSR decreases the negative effect generated by persuasion knowledge on persuasiveness (Hwang & Zhang, 2018). The explanation for the results of PSI in current study may be a consequence of previous advertising experience eliminating the
effect of disclosure on ad recognition, which has been noted (Jung & Heo, 2019). If
disclosures cannot induce counterarguing, the counterarguing cannot be decreased apparently by PSI.
Although the moderating effect of PSI was not found in this study, there are some direct effects worthy of note. The research found that PSI exhibits a direct impact on conceptual PK and attitudinal PK. This revealed that a higher level of PSI may decrease the level of
advertising recognition and engender a more positive attitude towards the sponsored content. In other words, PSI can be regarded as an individual variable in predicting PK, regardless of whether it is conceptual PK or attitudinal PK. This finding tested the proposal in the
Entertainment Overcoming Resistance Model (Moyer-Gusé, 2008) that PSI did decrease the level of counterarguing when exposed to persuasion content. Moreover, current study did not find the direct impact of PSI on brand attitudes, which is in line with previous study
(Tukachinsky & Sangalang, 2016). People who experienced PSI with vloggers may decrease the counterarguing, but the effect on brand attitude may happened depend on some conditions. Tukachinsky and Sangalang (2016) found that PSI and PSR cannot affect neither
counterarguing nor brand attitudes respectively, but the interaction effect of PSI and PSR have inhibit effect on counterarguing, which may give us a new direction to investigate PSI and PSR in further disclosures investigation. Nevertheless, the findings makes this study one of the first to emphasize the effect of PSI on PK and addresses the importance of PSI in the vlog field.
Limitations and Further Study
Although this study provides new insights in the field of disclosures in China vlog marketing, the limitations of the current study should be addressed. Three limitations including sampling, manipulation, and measurement will be discussed in detail.
This study employed convenience sampling. The selection area of people was limited; therefore, this sample should not be considered representative for population samples (Mullinix, Leeper, Druckman & Freese, 2020). Mullinix et al. (2020) emphasized in their study that the experiment may have a heterogeneous treatment effect, which means the manipulation would have different results for individual-level characteristics. The sample selected for this study may have a higher level of advertising experience (Jung & Heo, 2019), because majority of participants has a marketing or communication related background, such as public relations and advertising. It is plausible to propose that the previous experience on marketing and advertising may moderate the impact of disclosures on persuasion knowledge and may lead to a ceiling effect. Further studies may consider regarding previous advertising experience as covariate. Except from advertising experience, age and gender could be
considered to add in following study, although they are not different in two groups of current study. In this study, majority of participants are young female emerging adults, the individual differences may have effect on the future results (Baron-cohen, 2001; Perloff & Krevans, 1987). Thus, we recommend using systematic sampling methods in the future study.
The failure in manipulation could be one of the important limitations in current study. A majority of the participants did not notice and select the right disclosure sign in both attention check and manipulation check. There are at least three reasons why the manipulation check may not work in the study. First, in the current field experiment, participants may not pay attention to the stimulus material and online questionnaire (Merrigan & Huston, 2004). Second, the design of the stimulus may be barely noticeable, because there were other things distracting their attention. Participants may focus more on the emoji appeared in the original video on the top right side and neglect the white written disclosure on the top left side (disclosures pattern see Appendix B). Third, participants are not sensitive to the disclosures, because they don’t have the knowledge about disclosure pattern. Further studies can check whether the disclosure is noticeable in the pre-test to ensure the manipulation is successful.
The third limitation relates to the measurement of parasocial interaction. The current study utilized the adjusted version (Lee & Watkins, 2016) of the PSI measurement by Rubin et al. (1985). The original version of the measurement (with 20 items) of Rubin et al (2015) included “interaction, identification and long-term identification with television characters.” Previous studies criticized Rubin’s measurement integrating PSI with PSR as a long-term social involvement and abandoning the differentiation between two concepts (Dibble et al., 2016). Although this study utilized the adjusted version of Rubin et al.’s measurement (1985), it may include measurement bias when testing PSI in current study. Thus, future studies could
distinguish between PSI and PSR concepts in the field of disclosure and persuasion
knowledge. It is preferable to utilize the Experience of Parasocial Interaction (EPSI) scale by Hartmann and Goldhoorn (2011). Dibble et al. (2016) demonstrated that EPSI was a more suitable measure for parasocial interaction and enjoyed a stronger validity and reliability than other PSI measurements.
Practical Implication
This study was conducted within the context of vlogs in China and produced some interesting results. The current study follows the suggestions of the FTC and China Advertising Law (CSAMR, 2016; FTC, n.d.), investigating disclosures and their brand attitudes on China social media Weibo, which makes this investigation one of the first to address the effect of disclosures in China. We found that Chinese audience may lack the sensitivity on disclosures sign or text. Therefore, this study suggests legislatures may consider regulating disclosure formats to make them noticeable, such as color, shape and font of the disclosure, as well as the logo.
This study speculated that Chinese emerging adults may have rich advertising experience and have built their perception on sponsored content, which may firstly add theoretical insights into the impact of disclosures of sponsored content on vlog in China. Nevertheless, compared to study investigate in Europe (Boerman et al., 2012; 2014; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2016), the presence of disclosures of current studies did not make differences on brand attitudes under
the context of China. This also provided a new refinement to the interpretation of sponsored content marketing landscape in China.
Reference
Amazeen, M. A., & Wojdynski, B. W. (2018). Reducing Native Advertising Deception: Revisiting the Antecedents and Consequences of Persuasion Knowledge in Digital News Contexts. Mass Communication and Society, 22(2), 222–247. doi:
10.1080/15205436.2018.1530792
Baker, A. (2019). What Is A Vlog - The Real Vlog Meaning & Definition. Retrieved from
https://contentcareer.com/blog/what-is-a-vlog-the-real-vlog-meaning-definition/
Baron-Cohen, S. (2001). Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Boerman, S. C. (2014). "This program contains product placement": Effects of sponsorship disclosure on television viewers’ responses.
Boerman, S. C., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2016). Informing Consumers about “Hidden” Advertising: A Literature Review of the Effects of Disclosing Sponsored
Content. Advertising in New Formats and Media, 115–146. doi: 10.1108/978-1-78560-313-620151005
Boerman, S., Willemsen, L., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2017). “This Post Is Sponsored”: Effects of Sponsorship Disclosure on Persuasion Knowledge and Electronic Word of Mouth in the Context of Facebook: Effects of Sponsorship Disclosure on Persuasion Knowledge and Electronic Word of Mouth in the Context of Facebook. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2016.12.002
Boerman, Sophie C., van Reijmersdal, E. A. & Peter C. Neijens (2012), “Sponsorship Disclosure: Effects of Duration on Persuasion Knowledge and Brand Responses,” Journal of Communication, 62, 6, 1047–64.
Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1047-1064. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01677.x Boerman, S.C., van Reijmersdal, E.A., & Neijens, P.C. (2014). Effects of sponsorship
disclosure timing on the processing of sponsored content: A study on the effectiveness of European disclosure regulations. Psychology & Marketing, 31(3), 214-224.
Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2015). Using Eye Tracking to Understand the Effects of Brand Placement Disclosure Types in Television Programs. Journal of Advertising, 44(3), 196–207.
https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1080/00913367.2014.967423
Brown, W. J. (2015). Examining Four Processes of Audience Involvement With Media Personae: Transportation, Parasocial Interaction, Identification, and
Worship. Communication Theory, 25(3), 259–283. doi: 10.1111/comt.1205
Brusse, E. D. A., Fransen, M. L., & Smit, E. G. (2015). The More You Say, the Less They Hear. Journal of Media Psychology, 27(4), 159–169. doi:
10.1027/1864-1105/a000135
China State Administration for Market Regulation. (2016). Advertising Law of People’s
http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/npc/xinwen/2018-11/05/content_2065663.htm (CN) or
https://www.hfgip.com/sites/default/files/law/advertising_law_16.02.2016.pdf (EN) China State Administration for Market Regulation. (2016). Interim measures for the
Administration of Internet Advertising. Retrieved from: http://www.cac.gov.cn/2016-07/08/c_1119187555.htm (CN) or
http://en.pkulaw.cn/display.aspx?cgid=b5634342d689e699bdfb&lib=law (EN)
Choi, Y. K., Yoon, S., & Taylor, C. R. (2015). How character presence in advergames affects brand attitude and game performance: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 14(6), 357–365. doi: 10.1002/cb.1555
Committee of Advertising Practice ( 2016), “CAP Guidance on Vlogging Advertising,” Ukie,
https://ukie.org.uk/sites/default/files/cms/docs/need%20to%20know%20-%20CAP%20Guidance%20on%20Vlogging%20Advertising.pdf
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a Digital World. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 125–137. doi: 10.1177/2167696813479782 Cummins, R. G., & Cui, B. (2014). Reconceptualizing Address in Television Programming:
The Effect of Address and Affective Empathy on Viewer Experience of Parasocial Interaction. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 723–742. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12076 Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., & Rosaen, S. F. (2015). Parasocial Interaction and Parasocial
Relationship: Conceptual Clarification and a Critical Assessment of Measures. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21–44. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12063
Federal Trade Commission (n.d) Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers. Retrieved
from:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers
Fishbein, M., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). The Role of Theory in Developing Effective Health Communications. Journal of Communication, 56(1). doi:
10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00280.x
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1. doi: 10.1086/209380 Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl Revisited: Exploring Viewers
Experience of Parasocial Interaction. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1104–1121. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01595.x
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and parasocial interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215–229.
Hwang, K., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Influence of parasocial relationship between digital celebrities and their followers on followers’ purchase and electronic word-of-mouth intentions, and persuasion knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 155–173. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.029
Isaac, M. S., & Grayson, K. (2017). Beyond Skepticism: Can Accessing Persuasion Knowledge Bolster Credibility? Journal of Consumer Research. doi:
Jans, S. D., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2018). How an Advertising Disclosure Alerts Young Adolescents to Sponsored Vlogs: The Moderating Role of a Peer-Based Advertising Literacy Intervention through an Informational Vlog. Journal of Advertising, 47(4), 309–325. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2018.1539363
Jung, A.-R., & Heo, J. (2019). Ad Disclosure vs. Ad Recognition: How Persuasion Knowledge Influences Native Advertising Evaluation. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2018.1520661
Knoll, J., Schramm, H., Schallhorn, C., & Wynistorf, S. (2015). Good guy vs. bad guy: the influence of parasocial interactions with media characters on brand placement effects. International Journal of Advertising, 34(5), 720–743. doi:
10.1080/02650487.2015.1009350
Ko, H. C., & Wu, W. N. (2017). Exploring the determinants of viewers loyalty toward beauty YouTubers. Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology - ICEMT 17. doi: 10.1145/3124116.3124130
Lee, J. E., & Watkins, B. (2016). YouTube vloggers influence on consumer luxury brand perceptions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5753–5760. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.171
Liu, M. T., Liu, Y., & Zhang, L. L. (2019). Vlog and brand evaluations: the influence of parasocial interaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(2), 419– 436. doi: 10.1108/apjml-01-2018-0021
Lueck, J. A. (2015). Friend-zone with benefits: The parasocial advertising of Kim Kardashian. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(2), 91–109. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2012.726235
Mathur, A., Narayanan, A., & Chetty, M. (2018). An Empirical Study of Affiliate Marketing Disclosures on YouTube and Pinterest.
Merrigan, G., & Huston, C. L. (2004). Communication research methods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a Theory of Entertainment Persuasion: Explaining the Persuasive Effects of Entertainment-Education Messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x
Müller, J., & Christandl, F. (2019). Content is king – But who is the king of kings? The effect of content marketing, sponsored content & user-generated content on brand
responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 46–55. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.006 Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2020). The Generalizability of
Survey Experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109–138. doi: 10.1017/xps.2015.19
Munnukka, J., Maity, D., Reinikainen, H., & Luoma-Aho, V. (2019). “Thanks for watching”. The effectiveness of YouTube vlogendorsements. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 226–234. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.014
Nguyen, (2018) Vlog watching is especially popular among minorities. YouGov, Retrieved
from
https://today.yougov.com/topics/technology/articles-reports/2018/12/12/vlog-watching-more-popular-among-minorities.
Perloff, R. M., & Krevans, J. (1987). Tracking the Psychosocial Predictors of Older Individuals Television Uses. The Journal of Psychology, 121(4), 365–372. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1987.9712677
Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2019). Celebrity vs. Influencer endorsements in advertising: the role of identification, credibility, and Product-Endorser
fit. International Journal of Advertising, 1–24. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898 Schramm, H., & Knoll, J. (2015). Modeling the Impact of Parasocial Interactions with Media
Characters on Brand Placement Effects. Journal of Promotion Management, 21(5), 548–565. doi: 10.1080/10496491.2015.1055038
Sheng, W. (2019). Vlogs may be hot in China but investors remain cool · TechNode. Retrieved from https://technode.com/2019/04/30/vlogs-may-be-hot-in-china-but-investors-remain-cool/.
Sweetser, K. D., Ahn, S. J. (G., Golan, G. J., & Hochman, A. (2016). Native Advertising as a New Public Relations Tactic. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1442–1457. doi: 10.1177/0002764216660138
Tessitore, T., & Geuens, M. (2013). PP for ‘product placement’ or ‘puzzled public’? The effectiveness of symbols as warnings of product placement and the moderating role of
brand recall. International Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 419-442. doi:10.2501/IJa-32-3-419-442
Tukachinsky, R., & Sangalang, A. (2016). The Effect of Relational and Interactive Aspects of Parasocial Experiences on Attitudes and Message Resistance. Communication
Reports, 29(3), 175–188. doi: 10.1080/08934215.2016.1148750
van Reijmersdal, E. A., Lammers, N., Rozendaal, E., & Buijzen, M. (2015). Disclosing the persuasive nature of advergames: moderation effects of mood on brand responses via persuasion knowledge. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 70-84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.993795
van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2016). Disclosing Brand Placements in Movies. Journal of Media Psychology, 28(2), 78–87. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000158
van Reijmersdal, E. A., et al. (2016). Effects of Disclosing Sponsored Content in Blogs. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1458–1474. doi:
10.1177/0002764216660141
Wei, M., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 34-44. doi:10.1509/jppm.27.1.34 Wojdynski, B. W. (2016). The Deceptiveness of Sponsored News Articles. American
Appendix A Questionnaire
Influencer Video Research
Start of Block: Fact Sheet and Informed Consent
Fact Sheet.
English version only for reference, please complete the Chinese version.
Hello Dear,
With this letter, I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam. The title of the study for which I am requesting your cooperation is ‘Influencer Video Research’. In the online survey, I will invite you to watch a video of a Chinese influencer. After viewing the video, several questions will be asked. Only 18-29 year old Chinese people who resident in China, or who speak Chinese as mother language may participate in this study. The study will take about 15 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 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. 4) No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide 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 Yuqing Ma (miamayuqing@gmail.com) 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; 00-525 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.
Best regards, Yuqing Ma
Page Break
Informed Conse. I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of
the research, as described in the fact sheet and 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 Yuqing Ma miamayuqing@gmail.com. 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.
o
I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study. (1)o
I don't agree to participate in the research study (2)Skip To: End of Survey If I don't agree to participate in the research study.
Page Break
End of Block: Fact Sheet and Informed Consent
Start of Block: Influencer Video
Video You will watch a 7-minute vlog from an influencer on Weibo. The influencer is called Bao Jian Sao, who lived in China now. The video is in Chinese, please watch it carefully and answer the questions. You cannot return to the questions or video once you click “next” button.
(The front page of influencer on Weibo)
Two videos were randomly assigned.
Disclosure presence
Disclosure absence
End of Block: Influencer Video
Start of Block: Question Section
Q1 Did you know the influencer before this video
o
Yes (1)o
No (2)Totally Agree (1) Agree (2) Slightly Agree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Slightly Disagree (5) Disagree (6) Totally Disagree (7) 1. I look forward to
watching the vlog on
her Weibo (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
2. If her vlog appeared on another
account, I would
watch the vlog. (2)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3. When I am watching her vlog, I feel as if I am part of
her group. (3)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
4. I think she is like
an old friend. (4)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
5. I would like to meet her in person.
(5)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
6. If there were a story about her on news or magazine, I
would read it. (6)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
7. She makes me feel comfortable, as if I
am with friends. (7)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
8. When her vlog shows me how she feels about brand, it
helps me make up my own mind about
the brand. (8)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Page Break
Q10 To what extent you will agree with the statement listed below: Totally Agree (1) Agree (2) Slightly Agree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Slightly Disagree (5) Disagree (6) Totally Disagree (7) I think the vlog contains advertising (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Q11 I think the vlog post was … 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Dishonest
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest Untrustworthyo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Trustworthy Unconvincingo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Convincing Biasedo
o
o
o
o
o
o
UnbiasedNot credible
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CrediblePage Break
Q16 After watching the vlog, I think Xiao Xian Dun is ....
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Bad
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Good Unpleasanto
o
o
o
o
o
o
Pleasant Unfavorableo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Favorable Negativeo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Positive Dislikeo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Like Poor Qualityo
o
o
o
o
o
o
High QualityQ22 To what extent you will agree with the statement listed below: Totally Agree (1) Agree (2) Slightly Agree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Slightly Disagree (5) Disagree (6) Totally Disagree (7) I am familiar with Xiao Xian Dun before watching this vlog (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Page BreakQ23 Did you see the sponsorship disclosure in vlog
o
Yes (1)o
No (2)o
I don't know (3)Q24 What text did you see in the vlog (multiple choices)
