• No results found

Disclosure of sponsored content of Instagram: the effect of disclosure form and influencers’ attractiveness

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Disclosure of sponsored content of Instagram: the effect of disclosure form and influencers’ attractiveness"

Copied!
43
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Disclosure of sponsored content of Instagram: The effect of

disclosure form and influencers’ attractiveness

Master’s Thesis

Name: Tobias Winther Svendsen, 11715294

Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam Master’s programme Communication Science, Persuasive Communication

Supervisor: Ewa Maslowska Date: 1st of February 2019

(2)

Abstract

The reachability of the consumers has increasingly become harder for marketers and this has sparked a growing tendency in the use of influencer marketing. This form of marketing has not gone without notice from regulators now requiring marketers to demonstrate transparency about commercial intentions. Although advertising transparency is obligatory, the regulators do not mandate specific form nor wording, making marketers able to control the explicitness of sponsorship disclosure in advertising. Sponsorship disclosure may vary in form, making the process of advertising recognition harder for the consumer. Furthermore, the use of attractive influencers is dominating influencer marketing which may be a side-strategy for marketers to further disguise commercial intentions. This study investigates the role of disclosure forms on advertising recognition and consumer responses, as well as the moderating effect of physical attractiveness between disclosure form, persuasion knowledge and consumer responses. The study addresses the effect by the means of 3 (disclosure forms: no vs. in-text vs. in-label) x 2 (physical attractiveness: attractive influencer vs. unattractive influencer) experiment. The findings demonstrate the importance of sponsorship disclosure, indicating that disclosure positively influences the recognition of advertising. Moreover, being aware that a post, in fact, is an advertising show to increase the consumer’s intentions to buy from the displayed brand. Physical attractiveness, on the other hand, does not moderate the effect between any of the experiment’s variables. The results do not indicate that the present regulations lack specificity in terms of disclosing sponsorship (in-label vs. in-text) on the cost of consumers persuasion knowledge. Using in-label disclosure can therefore be recommended to marketers as it follows the law and does not have a negative impact on consumer responses.

(3)

Introduction

Originally only serving as platforms for entertainment, social media has through the last decade rapidly been adopted by marketers, becoming a powerful marketing tool. Investments in advertising on social media have been forecasted to grow from 32 billion UDS in 2017 to over 48 billion USD by 2021 (Statista, 2018a). Despite this growth of investment in social media advertising, consumers trust towards advertising, in general, has been descending during the last couple of years (Nielsen, 2015). Marketers noticeable desire to promote and sell products has been learnt to recognize by their consumers, resulting in a heightened distrust towards advertising. The skepticism of today’s consumers has forced marketers to employ other tactics to persuade their audience (Boerman, Willemsen, and Van der Aa, 2017). Still utilizing the popularity of social media and its influence, but not seeming too obtrusive in their advertising, has carved the path for sponsored content. Content containing a promotional message but made to look like social content from friends and influencers has been a strategy to which the industry throughout has adopted (Shrum, 2012).

Sponsored content using influencers on social media also called influencer marketing, is the marketing strategy that is booming in the advertising industry, with an increase in branded influencer posts going from 9.7 million in 2016 to an expected number of 30 million in 2019 (Statista, 2018b). The strategy is basically electronic word of mouth, which consumers perceive more positively because the message seemingly comes from channels of trust - the network of friends and influencers (Woods, 2016). The positive effect that an influencer can give a brand has become important in the marketing sphere on social media, such for brand attitudes, purchase intentions and the overall brand evaluation. A factor that might seem to play an essential role in the effectiveness of the advertisement is the physical attractiveness of the influencer, which draws visual attention and positively influences the liking of the post (Liu, Huang, and Minghua 2007; Amos, Holmes, and Strutton, 2008).

(4)

The increasingly influential that social advertising has become in the everyday life of the consumer has gotten regulators assiduously trying to protect consumers from hidden persuasive attempts. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the European Commission (EC) among others try to enforce such consumer protection laws in order to ensure that products and services are being described truthfully online (FTC, 2017; EC, 2013).

Although social media sees a steady increment in regulations regarding disclosure of sponsored content, the grand majority of marketers using influencer marketing do not seem to follow these laws. Especially platforms such as Instagram have been a place where brands have been taking advantage of the law since no specific way of disclosing sponsorship is stated in any regulation (FTC, 2017; Mediakix, 2018). The various forms that the disclosure is allowed to have makes the platform a perfect place for tricking consumers into believing that a product or service is personally recommended by the influencer, and not actually a bought recommendation (Sammis, Lincoln, and Pomponi, 2016). The manner that sponsored content is disclosed and the appearance of an influencer used in a specific disclosure may have an influence on the effectiveness of advertising, making knowledge about different types of disclosure strategies essential for both regulators and marketers. This study examines how, and under which conditions sponsorship disclosure on Instagram affect brand attitudes, purchase intentions and the overall attitudes towards a post. In doing so, the aim of this study is threefold:

First, the aim is to gain insights into the effects of different forms of sponsorship disclosure strategies using influencer marketing, in particular looking at the no, text and

in-label sponsorship disclosure. Gaining insights into how disclosure forms vary in effectiveness

in regard to consumer responses, providing regulators with the means to recognize loopholes in the law. Equally, this will determine whether forms of disclosure have different impact on the recognition of advertising.

(5)

Second, by investigating the combined effect of disclosure form and of physical attractiveness, the study aims to extend the knowledge about influencer marketing on social media platforms. Forms of sponsorship disclosure vary in transparency and combining this with physical attractiveness, may affect consumer responses and their visual attention towards an advertisement (Aharon et al., 2001; Kranz, and Ishai, 2006; Liu, Huang, and Minghua 2007; Amos, Holmes, and Strutton, 2008). According to the current knowledge, there is no research investigating influencer marketing and its disclosure forms on recognition, nor on the joint effect of physical attractiveness.

Third, we know that prior research has shown disclosure’s influence and its effects on recognition, many times also referred to as persuasion knowledge, is activated by the transparency of sponsorship disclosure (Boerman, Willemsen, and Van der Aa, 2017; Carr and Hayes, 2014; Wojdynski, and Evans, 2016). Investigating the influence of disclosure forms and persuasion knowledge, the study will be uncovering additional causes behind the effectiveness of sponsorship disclosure. Based on the introduction the research question and hypotheses are as followed:

RQ: To what extent do different forms of sponsorship disclosure and influencer’s attractiveness

influence brand evaluation of sponsored products on Instagram?

Theoretical framework

The effects of sponsorship disclosure on the recognition of advertising and information processing

Sponsorship disclosure on social media platforms has been brought to life to help consumers distinguish between commercial and non-commercial content in posts. Prior research has shown that sponsorship disclosure can activate persuasion knowledge, which other words is the recognition of advertising (Boerman, Willemsen, and Van der Aa, 2017; Wojdynski, and

(6)

Evans, 2016; Boerman, and Van Reijmerdsdal, 2016). According to the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad, and Wright, 1994), consumers continuously develop knowledge and beliefs about persuasive intent through experience and exposure to persuasion attempts. The understanding helps the consumers to cope with persuasive messages through analysis, interpretation and recognition of advertising. When a consumer has recognized a message as having persuasive intentions it activates persuasion knowledge, ultimately helping the individual carry out coping tactics through critical evaluation of the message. As a consequence, persuasion recognition triggers these coping tactics, such as heightened skepticism and reactance that can constitute to negative attitudes towards the brand and decrease purchase intentions (Nelson, Wood, and Paek, 2009). The first step of the Persuasion Knowledge Model is the recognition of advertising. In this study, we operationalized the persuasion knowledge as the participant’s recognition of advertising in the Instagram posts.

The effects of these disclosure forms on the activation of persuasion knowledge of the consumer can be explained by the Elaboration Likelihood Model from Petty and Cacioppo (1986). The model describes how individuals process information through a dual-processing, which constitute to their attitude-formation. An individual processes information through two routes, the central and the peripheral route. The central route involves a high level of message elaboration, meaning that a potential persuasive intent would result in an individual’s conscious and logical thinking. In this route of processing the individual pay extra attention to the quality of argumentation. On the other hand, the peripheral route is unrelated to the quality of argumentation and focus more on the trustworthiness, credibility or attractiveness of the sender. By disclosing persuasive attempts in Instagram posts the consumer becomes encouraged to think more about the message’s intentions, and eventually evolves to bias the processing of information (Petty, and Cacioppo, 1986). On the contrary, adding attractive

(7)

influencers instead of unattractive or disguising text in posts can bias processing, disrupting it of important argumentation, such as sponsorship disclosure.

According to the Federal Trade Commission’s guidelines, the sponsorship disclosure should help consumers to recognize advertising and to apply subsequent coping tactics (FTC, 2017). FTC states in their last report (FTC, 2018b) that sponsorship should clearly and conspicuously be disclosed showing a relationship to a specific brand when promoting products or services on social media. The FTC’s Endorsement Guides says that if there is a connection in which the consumer would not expect and to which the consumer would be affected in how they evaluate, this connection should be disclosed (FTC, 2018a). Although disclosing a material connection is said to be mandatory, FTC does not mandate specific wording nor form of disclosure making explicitness of disclosure vary widely throughout social media platforms (Carr, and Hayes, 2014). The use of different disclosure strategies, such as

in-text sponsorship, “#sp,”, “thanks (brand),”, “#partner” or “@brand” does not necessarily make

it sufficiently clear that a post is sponsored, and this is not understood by all consumers (FTC, 2017). Individual’s persuasion knowledge will go through different information processing routes when encountering different disclosure strategies, and therefore, persuasion knowledge may not be activated as they do not recognize the message as an advertisement (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, and Neijens, 2014).

The effects of sponsorship disclosure on format

Various studies have investigated the effects of sponsorship disclosure on the consumer, such as in advergames (Evans, and Hoy, 2016; Van Reijmersdal, Lammers, Rozendaal, and Buijzen, 2015; An, and Stern, 2011), blogs (Carr, and Hayes 2014; Van Reijmersdal, Fransen, Van Noort, Opree, Vandeberg, Reusch, and Boerman, 2016), television (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, and Neijens, 2014; Campbell, Mohr, and Verlegh, 2013), radio (Wei, Fisher, and

(8)

Main, 2008), online news stories (Wojdynski, and Evans, 2016), movies (Bennett, Pecotich, and Putrevu, 1999; Van Reijmersdal, Tutaj, and Boerman, 2013) and social media (Boerman, Willemsen, and Van der Aa, 2017).

Investigations of these formats in such studies have demonstrated the effects of sponsorship disclosure and its ability to influence the persuasion process and its activation of persuasion knowledge. Although disclosing persuasive intentions can change the way that the consumer is being persuaded, the format to which the advertising is rolled upon has shown to differ in recognition, especially when shown on social media where advertising is less recognizable than on traditional platforms (Van Noort, Antheunis, and Van Reijmersdal, 2012). Consumers exposed to a sponsorship disclosure in line with FTC’s guidelines (paid partnership with “brand-name”) in the label beneath the sender’s name (in-label) would associate the post with an advertisement, ultimately helping the consumer to recognize an Instagram post as having commercial intentions. Helping the consumers to recognize advertising consequently guides them to think more critically about the presented, such as seen in the central route of the ELM. Using another form of sponsorship disclosure in the text of a comment section (in-text) would be to follow the FTC guidelines, but simultaneously an effort to hide the persuasive intentions. A study from Socialbakers (2018) has shown that the consumer gives more attention to the visual part of the post, such as the image than that of the textual (Socialbakers, 2018). Being less noticeable in comment section (in-text) of the post may negatively affect the recognition of the advertisement and may therefore be less likely to activate the consumers’ central route of information processing.

Presenting a sponsorship explicitly to the consumer have shown to have a negative impact on brand attitudes (Boerman, Van Reijemersdal, and Neijens, 2012), but also creating skepticism and dislike towards the message. Being aware of the messages hidden intentions on social media may create feelings of negativity. As shown in other media, the

(9)

format of sponsorship disclosure may have different effect on the consumers’ recognition of advertisement and the attitudes towards the message and the brand. We posit that consumers exposed to in-label sponsorship disclosure will result in higher advertising recognition because it is a more explicit disclosure format in the top of the post (Boerman, Van Reijemersdal, and Neijens, 2012) than it would be compared to in-text disclosure in the comment section (Socialbakers, 2018) or no disclosure. Because of the explicitness of in-label sponsorship disclosure, it also constitutes to more negative feelings towards the message and the brand than that of in-text and no sponsorship disclosure. Based on the findings from other media we propose the following hypotheses:

H1a: Exposure to an Instagram post with in-label sponsorship disclosure is more likely to activate persuasion knowledge than exposure to an in-text or no sponsorship disclosure.

H1b: Exposure to an Instagram post with in-label sponsorship disclosure will lead to more negative attitudes (toward the post and brand) and lower purchase intentions than compared to an in-text or no sponsorship disclosure.

Influencer marketing and attractiveness

Social media advertising is often made to resemble a natural post by friends or influencers in order to increase the advertisement’s effectiveness, and positively affect attitudes and purchase intentions (Van Noort, Antheunis, and Van Reijmersdal, 2012). Influencer marketing has increasingly been gaining importance in social media advertising using influencers as an indirect message distributor (Bergvist, and Zhou 2016; Wood, and Burkhalter, 2013), and have made it harder for consumers to recognize the persuasive intent (Shrum, 2012; Boerman, Willemsen, and Van der Aa, 2017). Strictly speaking, the processing of information may fail to

(10)

go through the central route of processing which is meant to be evoked by disclosing sponsorship. Moreover, persuasion knowledge may likewise not be activated, leaving advertisement recognition to stay low (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, and Neijens, 2012; Boerman, Willemsen, and Van der Aa, 2017).

A factor that might seem to play an essential role in advertisement effectiveness is the physical attractiveness of the influencer (Liu, Huang, and Minghua, 2007; Amos, Holmes, and Strutton, 2008). Physical attractiveness can be categorized as weight or facial look of an individual, and it is the first impression an individual gets when encountering an influencer (Bardia, Abed, and Majid, 2011). Studies have shown that influencers perceived as unattractive get lower attention than that given to attractive influencers (Seidman, and Miller, 2012). Here it is shown that attention to attractive people is a sign of biological significance put in relation to the theory of evolution (Johnston, 2006; Rhodes, 2006). Rooted in evolution, people tend to prefer attractive faces over unattractive faces, and therefore, visual attention is drawn towards these people (Aharon et al., 2001; Kranz, and Ishai, 2006). According to Seidman and Miller (2012), the same result occurs in the context of social media where profiles displaying unattractive people received less visual attention than attractive people. The visual attention was instead drawn to more irrelevant information around the profile. Based on previous, we hypothesize the following moderating effect of the attractiveness of the influencer:

H2: The effect of sponsorship disclosure (in-label, in-text, no) on persuasion knowledge is moderated by the attractiveness of the influencer:

H2a: An Instagram post with sponsorship disclosure accompanied by an unattractive influencer is more likely to activate persuasion knowledge than a sponsorship disclosure accompanied by an attractive influencer regardless the form of disclosure.

(11)

In the past, the influencers were only celebrities endorsing a brand through their popularity and fame (Erdogan, 1999). With today’s social media an average person can build large communities on their social media platform, and through this gain a position as a celebrity on social media, becoming an influencer. The influencers are not necessarily connected to a specific company, but the impact the influencers have on a specific fanbase attracts brands interested in reaching a specific audience (Lueck, 2015). Research has shown that influencers can have a positive effect on elements, such as brand attitudes, purchase intentions and the overall brand evaluation (Liu, Huang and Minghua 2007; Amos, Holmes, and Strutton, 2008). According to analytics-firm Annalect, 56% of users rely on recommendations from friends, whereas 49% rely on recommendations from influencers (Swant, 2016). This is much related to the credibility and trustworthiness that an influencer expresses in, for example, the number of followers, attractiveness or popularity around the profile (Jin, and Joe, 2014). Messages coming from channels of trust, such as the network of friends or people that one is following are more likely to be perceived more positively than when it comes directly from brands (Woods, 2016).

The first impression of attractiveness is shown to create a perception of credibility (Ohanian, 1990), but attractive people also have a higher success rate when it comes to changing beliefs and purchase intentions, compared to unattractive people (Ohanian, 1991; Ahearne, Gruen, and Jarvis, 1999; Kahle, and Homer, 1985). In the context of social media, influencers’ attractiveness is one of the most influential effects on purchase intentions, brand attitudes and attitudes towards the advertisement (Amos, Holmes, and Strutton, 2008). Influencers have the ability to grab the attention of the consumer, and by this way providing the marketers with a better chance of getting the message across (Zipporah, 2014). Using attractive influencers, spokespeople or models in advertising shows to be better at selling a product because the consumer makes a connection between the product and the outcome of using this product, that

(12)

is, being attractive (Said, and Napi, 2015). However, the effect of physical attractiveness on liking has shown to differ between the degree of product evaluation. According to Häfner and Trampe (2009), when people lack time, motivation or resources to engage in reflective thoughts, attractive models in advertising tend to have a more favorable response than that of unattractive models. This state of evaluation is referred to as the impulsive product evaluation, much in relation to the peripheral route of processing for the ELM (Petty, and Cacioppo, 1986). On the contrary, by giving the consumer the time, motivation or resources to engage in reflective thoughts the reflective product evaluation appears (central route, ELM), and here the effect of attractiveness is reversed. In order words, by explicitly showing the consumer that the post is sponsored in-label, it gives the consumer the resources to engage in the central route of processing. As the degree of sponsorship disclosure explicitness falls the probability of reaching this state of mind may become lower, and the individual use the peripheral route. Displaying sponsorship disclosure with lower explicitness, such as in-text or no sponsorship disclosure may consequently reach out to the impulsive product evaluation (peripheral route, ELM). Combining the effects of psychical attractiveness and sponsorship disclosure we posit that by displaying in-label sponsorship disclosure, which is more explicit, the consumer gets more resources to understand that the post is sponsored. This in combination with an unattractive influencer may therefore constitute to more positive attitudes and higher intention to buy than in combination with an attractive influencer. The effect is reversed when the post contains an in-text or no sponsorship disclosure.

H2b: (a) In-label sponsorship disclosure accompanied by an unattractive influencer will yield more positive attitudes towards the post and brand, and higher purchase intentions compared to an in-label accompanied by an attractive influencer. (b) The effect is reversed when displaying an in-text or no sponsorship disclosure.

(13)

Research based on Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad, and Wright, 1994) has shown that people find it harder to recognize persuasive attempts in the context of influencer marketing on social media (Shrum, 2012; Boerman, Willemsen, and Van der Aa, 2017). FTC regulations have become active in order to prevent these failures of information processing, and make the consumers understand that an Instagram post is, in fact, an advertisement. Recognition of advertisement would constitute the activation of persuasion knowledge, triggering coping tactics, such as critical evaluation. Advertisement in the eyes of a consumer consists of a tendency of skepticism and dislike (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, and Neijens, 2012). In the context of brand placement, research has shown that sponsorship disclosure reduces the consumers’ intentions to buy the placed brand (Tessitore, and Geuens, 2014). In other words, the recognition of an advertisement adds to feelings of dislike towards the advertisement and its message in a whole. When displaying an in-label or in-text sponsorship disclosure the influencers are warning the consumer about persuasive intent, and this may trigger distrust towards the brand and the message that is being transmitted. The message may therefore create stronger feelings of negativity when the consumer realizes that the post was an attempt to mislead. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H3: Participants recognition of advertising (persuasion knowledge) in an Instagram post leads to lower purchase intentions, brand attitudes and attitudes towards the post.

(14)

Figure 1: Conceptual model

Method

Research design

The study conducted an online experiment employing a 3 (disclosure form: in-text sponsorship disclosure vs. in-label sponsorship disclosure vs. no sponsorship disclosure) x 2 (physical attractiveness: attractive influencer vs. unattractive influencer) between-subject design. We recruited 234 participants by convenience sampling through Facebook posts and personal messages. The choice of Facebook as a recruitment tool for the online survey-experimental research was based on the platform’s cost-effectiveness and its ability to rapidly reach a large sample of participants worldwide (Samuels, and Zucco, 2012). Most of the participants were between the ages of 18-24 years (52.1%) and females compromised the majority of the participants with 65.4%, resembling the average Instagram user on age and gender (Smith, and Anderson, 2018). The participants were randomly assigned to one of the six experimental conditions.

(15)

Procedure

As a cover story, the participants were told that the study was about social media usage. Participants were informed about requirements for participation which was to have knowledge about the platform Instagram and its functions. They were then requested to consent with the information privacy policy followed by a questionnaire beginning with questions about basic demographics and knowledge about the platform, to ensure a smooth transition into more in-depth questions. Afterwards, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the study’s six conditions and were asked to look at the Instagram post as they normally would do on Instagram. The exposure to one of six conditions of the post was followed by asking the participants about their attitudes towards the posts, brand attitudes, purchase intentions and finally persuasion knowledge. In order to not influence the outcome of the online experiment by prime, we made sure to arrange recall and recognition of advertising (persuasion knowledge) as the ending questions. At the end of the online experiment, the participants were debriefed about the study’s real intentions.

Stimulus

The stimuli consisted of mobile screenshots taken from two different influencer-posts on Instagram. The reasons behind the choice of screenshots from the mobile version of Instagram was based on the fact that this version contains less information resulting in a lower degree of distraction, but most importantly, the frequency of usage is higher than that of a desktop (Dogtiev, 2018). The posts put together by influencer-posts were identical across the conditions apart from the form of disclosure (in-text vs. in-label vs. no disclosure) and the degree of physical attractiveness of the influencer (attractive vs. unattractive). Only manipulating form of disclosure and attractiveness would facilitate the manner to which the analyses would be conducted.

(16)

The Instagram posts showed a photo of either an attractive or unattractive influencer taking a selfie from their phone. These two influencers were selected on the basis of the pre-test (N = 24), one classified as the most unattractive and the other one as the most attractive. Both of the influencers were wearing the same t-shirt from Adidas showing the brands logo in the same degree. In the upper part of the post, the source name was displayed with the name “mjokicc” which was a randomly selected name and not connected to any of the influencers. The post from the influencers in the comment section said: “random fact: you are more likely to die because a coconut fell on your head than because a shark bit you, ps. get those damn coconuts away from me back there”. Adidas and this specific t-shirt were chosen on the fact that it was a unisex brand and bestselling product for both men and women (Appendix 1.1, and 1.2). The selection of female-only influencers was based on the fact that the influencer marketing industry on social media is dominated by females, also receiving considerably more funding than men (Hennessy, 2018).

In-text vs. in-label sponsorship disclosure

The in-text sponsorship disclosure was displayed in the comment section of the Instagram posts in form of an at (@) followed by the name of the brand, adidas. There exist various forms of disclosing sponsorship in comments through hashtags, @ or text, but due potential complications of analysis that could occur with a mixed-use of disclosure forms, the choice fell on a common @. The @adidas was applied because of its explicitness of disclosure, and therefore, also its lack of potentially different interpretations.

The in-label sponsorship disclosure contained the same content as with the in-text sponsorship disclosure, but with a slight change in the disclosure form. Here the @ in the

in-text condition was changed to “adidas” without an “@” in front in the upper part of the

(17)

Both forms of disclosure were made in accordance with the FTC guidelines for influencer marketing (FTC, 2013), explicitly showing that the posts were sponsored by “paid partnership with” in front of the name “adidas”. Although explicitness of disclosure may vary on social media platforms the choice for the most explicit disclosures was due to the facilitation of analysis and exclusion of alternative explanations (Carr, and Hayes, 2014).

Attractiveness vs. unattractiveness of the influencer

A pre-test of the physical attractiveness of the influencers was conducted in order to secure the quality and classification of attractiveness. The pre-test contained six different influencers having sufficient amount of sponsored advertising on their Instagram profile in order to further develop the experimental material. Participants were presented with the images and had to evaluate the attractiveness of the influencers on a 7-point Likert scale (1 – very unattractive; 7 – very attractive). Using convenience sampling, 24 respondents (58.33% females) took part in the pre-test indicating attractiveness of the six influencers. Out of the six influencers, kobi_jae (Appendix 1.1) was gauged as the most unattractive with 50% rating the influencer as very unattractive. As for the most attractive, elisha_h (Appendix 1.2) was rated as very attractive by 75% of the participants. The two influencers were selected for further use in the main study.

Measures

Attitudes towards post and brand attitudes

Both attitudes towards the post and brand attitudes were measured using the model from Madden, Allen, and Twible (1988) on psychometric properties. The two variables were measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale where the participants were asked to recall the feelings they had during their exposure to the post. For the attitudes towards the post

(18)

the participants were asked: “How do you feel about the post from the influencer?”, whereas for brand attitudes, participants were asked: “How do you feel about the brand Adidas?”. Each question was followed by a six-item 7-point semantic differential scale: pleasant/unpleasant, appealing/unappealing, interesting/boring, likeable/unlikeable, good/bad and positive/negative (Spears, and Singh, 2004).

Cronbach’s alpha was measured to be reliable (α = .88) for brand attitudes were all six items will be used to measure the variable. The items were computed into one single measure of 7-point Likert scale using the highest scores as most likeable brand attitudes (M = 4.73 SD = 1.59).

For attitudes towards the post the Cronbach’s alpha was measured to be reliable (α = .97). All six items were computed into a single measure of attitudes towards the post were the highest scores corresponded to the most likeable attitudes (M = 3.48, SD = 1.31).

Purchase intentions

Purchase intentions were measured on a 7-point Likert scale asking the participants about their intentions to make a purchase from adidas. The participants were presented with the following rating scale: “I would like to buy the product the influencer is wearing or other products from this brand” (1 - strongly disagree; 7 – strongly agree) (M = 3.35,

SD = 1.6).

Persuasion knowledge Recognition of advertising

Recognition of advertising was measured on a single-item 7-point Likert scale asking the participants to what extent they agreed with the following statement: “The Instagram

(19)

post was an advertisement” (1 – strongly agree; 7 – strongly disagree) (M = 4.12, SD = 1.96) (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, and Neijens, 2012).

Manipulation check

Recognition of sponsorship

In order to check if participants had noticed the sponsorship disclosure, they were asked to indicate whether they had recognized the disclosure (0 – no; 1 – yes) (Boerman, Willemsen, and Van der Aa, 2017).

Results

Manipulation check

Recognition of sponsorship

An essential part of our research is to understand the effect of sponsorship disclosure on the participants’ responses. Therefore, it was important to see if sponsorship disclosure was recognized and remembered by the participants. Participants recognition of sponsorship was used as a manipulation check. In order to analyze the concept of persuasion knowledge, we conducted a Pearson Chi-Square test of the experiment’s conditions on recognition of sponsorship. The results of the testing showed a significant relationship between the presence of sponsorship disclosure and recognition of sponsorship, X2 (2, 204), 25.79, p = .000. These results indicate that participants exposed to more explicit sponsorship disclosure (in-label, 47.7%) were more likely to recognize the sponsorship disclosure than those exposed to more implicit (in-text, 29.2%) or no sponsorship disclosure (no, 8.5%). Those who falsely recognized a sponsorship disclosure when it was not present (n = 6) were removed for further analyses giving a final sample of (N = 198).

(20)

Randomization check

Randomization checks using ANOVA and Chi-Square were conducted in order to check for differences between conditions in terms of gender, X2 (2, 210), 25.79, p =.708, age, F(6, 203) = 2.11, p = .054, and education, F(10, 199) = 1.024, p = .424. The results were not significant meaning that the randomization succeeded.

Persuasion knowledge

Recognition of advertisement was used to investigate the participants’ persuasion knowledge in H1a. We conducted a One-way ANOVA using the three conditions (in-label, in-text and no) as the independent variables and recognition of advertising as the dependent variable. Levene’s test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance had not been violated (p > .05). The one-way analysis of variance showed that the effect of disclosure form on advertising recognition was significant, F(2, 188) = 4.97, p =.008. The Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that the disclosure form on recognition of advertisement was significantly (p = .006) lower in the no sponsorship disclosure condition (M = 3.52, SD = 2.04) compared to the in-label condition (M = 4.58, SD = 1.97). The post hoc test did not shown a significant difference between the in-text condition (M = 4.17, SD = 1.73) and no condition (p = .175), nor between the in-text and the in-label condition (p = .683).

Disclosure form on brand attitudes, attitudes towards post and purchase intentions To test hypothesis H1b, we conducted three One-way ANOVAs using the three conditions

(in-label, in-text and no) as independent variable, and brand attitudes, attitudes towards post and

purchase intentions as dependent variables. Levene’s test for all three ANOVAs showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance had not been violated (p > .05).

(21)

The first one-way analysis of variance showed that the effect of disclosure form on brand attitudes was not significant, F(2, 197) = 1.64, p =.197.

The second test of the effect of disclosure form on attitudes towards post did not show a significant result, F(2, 198) = 1.42, p =.244.

The third one-way analysis of variance indicated that the effect of disclosure form on purchase intentions was not significant, F(2, 196) = .617, p =.846.

The interaction effect of attractiveness on persuasion knowledge

To test hypothesis H2a, we conducted a Two-way ANOVA. We conducted the ANOVA test in order to measure the interaction effect between attractiveness and disclosure form on persuasion knowledge. The independent variables were disclosure form (no, in-text and in-label) and attractiveness (attractive vs. unattractive) and the dependent variable was persuasion knowledge. The Levene’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated (p > .05). The main effect of attractiveness F(1, 185) = 6.186, p =.014 and disclosure form were significant F(2, 185) = 5.268, p =.006. Sponsorship disclosure accompanied by an unattractive influencer (M = 4.43, SD = 1.84) evoked higher persuasion knowledge than those exposed to sponsorship disclosure accompanied by an attractive influencer (M = 4.19, SD = 2.04). Although the main effects of attractiveness and disclosure form were significant, the interaction effect on persuasion knowledge did not indicate a statistically significant result F(2, 185) = 1.696, p =.186. Sponsorship disclosure forms accompanied the unattractive influencer indicated the following result on persuasion knowledge: no (M = 4.19, SD = 2.04), in-text (M = 4.45, SD = 1.61) and in-label (M = 4.66, SD = 1.86). For the sponsorship disclosure forms accompanied the unattractive influencer the result showed the following for persuasion knowledge: no (M = 2.84, SD = 1.83), in-text (M = 3.91, SD = 1.82) and in-label (M = 4.52, SD = 2.09).

(22)

For hypothesis H2b we conducted a several ANOVA’s where we had sponsorship disclosure and attractiveness as independent variables, and purchase intentions, brand attitudes and attitudes towards post as dependent variables. The Levene’s test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated (p > .05). In line with part of H2b, the main effect from participants exposed to a post accompanied by an unattractive influencer yield more negative attitudes towards the post (M = 3.16, SD = 1.18) than those exposed to a post accompanied by an attractive influencer (M = 3.72, SD = 1.37), F(1, 195) = 9.496, p =.002. The main effect for the disclosure form was (M = 3.44, SD = 1.16), F(2, 195) = 1.435, p =.241. This indicated that the form of sponsorship disclosure was not significant, also demonstrated in the difference between disclosure forms average: no (M = 3.47, SD = 1.35), in-text (M = 3.61, SD = 1.39) and in-label (M = 3.24, SD = 1.16). The interaction effect was not significant F (2, 195) = .423, p =.656.

The main effect of attractiveness indicated that it had no statistically significant effect on brand attitudes F(1, 194) = .361, p =.549. Unattractive yield (M = 4.7, SD = 1.66), whereas attractive (M = 4.72, SD = 1.62). The main effect for the disclosure form indicated a non-significant result (M = 4.77, SD = 1.56), F(2, 194) = 1.617, p =.201. The disclosure forms evoked for no had an average of (M = 5.05, SD = 1.43), text (M = 4.65, SD = 1.5) and

in-label (M = 4.60, SD = 1.73). The interaction effect was not significant F(2, 194) = 1.152, p

=.318.

The main effect of attractiveness on purchase intentions indicated a non-significant result F (1, 193) = .128, p =.721. Unattractive yield (M = 3.33, SD = 1.54), whereas attractive (M = 3.4, SD = 1.66). The main effect for the disclosure form was not significant (M = 3.36, SD = 1.56), F(2, 193) = .183, p =.833, yielding the following average for no (M = 3.31,

(23)

SD = 1.67), in-text (M = 3.45, SD = 1.58) and in-label (M = 3.32, SD = 1.56). The interaction

effect was not significant F(2, 193) = 2.050, p =.132. All effects for H2b were rejected.

To test H3 we conducted three linear regressions using persuasion knowledge as the independent variable, and purchase intentions, brand attitudes and attitudes towards post as dependent variables.

The result from the first linear regression did not indicate that persuasion knowledge was a significant predictor for attitudes towards post, F(1,189) = .127, p = .722, with an R2 = .001.

The linear regression of persuasion knowledge as a predictor of brand attitudes was not significant, F(1,189) = .007, p = .932, with an R2 = .000.

The linear regression calculated to predict purchase intentions based on persuasion knowledge indicated a significant result, F(1,189) = 9.06, p = .003, with an R2 = .046. Persuasion knowledge significantly predicted the intention to buy, b* = .175, t (189) = 3.01, p = .003. For each additional point on the scale of persuasion knowledge (7-point Likert scale) the intention to buy increases by .175.

Moderated mediation effect

In order to test the whole model, we conducted three moderated mediation analyses through the use of Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS SPSS macro. Using Hayes’ PROCESS model 8, we had a 1,000 bootstrap of the sample with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval (BCI). The analyses had disclosure form as the independent variable, and purchase intentions, attitudes towards the post and brand attitudes as the dependent variables. Persuasion knowledge was used as a mediator and the attractiveness as a moderator.

(24)

As expected in the first model (Figure 2.1), the results showed a significant direct effect of disclosure form on persuasion knowledge (b* = .537, p = .001), but not on purchase intentions (b* = -.087, p = .542). Persuasion knowledge had a direct effect on purchase intentions (b* = .172, p < .005). Attractiveness did not moderate the relationship between disclosure form and persuasion knowledge (b* = .601, p = .071), nor between disclosure form and purchase intentions (b* = .436, p = .12). The index of moderated mediation was = 0.103, boot SE = .068, BCI [-.01, .264]. Since the confidence interval surpassed zero the model was not significant.

In the second model (Figure 2.2) the results showed no significant direct effect of disclosure form on attitudes towards post (b* = -.087, p = .45). Persuasion knowledge had no direct effect on attitudes towards post (b* = -.005, p = .911). Attractiveness did not moderate the relationship between disclosure form and attitudes towards post (b* =.166, p = .463). The index of moderated mediation was = -.003, boot SE = .034, BCI [-.076, .0625]. The confidence interval crossed zero and was therefore not significant.

The analysis from the third model (Figure 2.3) indicated no significant direct effect of disclosure form on brand attitudes (b* = -.222, p = .126). Moreover, persuasion knowledge did not have a direct effect on brand attitudes (b* = .007, p = .909). Attractiveness did not have a moderating effect on the relationship between disclosure form and brand attitudes (b* = .111, p = .695). The index of moderated mediation was = -.004, boot SE = .047, BCI [-.085, .12]. The confidence interval of the model crossed zero indicating that the model was not significant (Figure 2.3).

(25)

Figure 2.1. Moderated mediation model: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

(26)

Figure 2.3. Moderated mediation model: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Conclusion and discussion

The study’s aim was threefold with the first aim of gaining insights into the effects of different forms of sponsorship disclosure where we particularly looked at no, in-text and in-label sponsorship disclosure. The second aim of the study investigates the moderating effect of psychical attractiveness on the relationship between disclosure form, persuasion knowledge and consumer responses. Thirdly, we wanted to examine how the transparency of disclosure form going through persuasion knowledge, impact consumers’ responses to advertising.

The findings for this research demonstrate the importance of sponsorship disclosure on Instagram with an important link to both Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad, and Wright, 1994) and Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty, and Cacioppo, 1986). The analyses showed that sponsorship disclosure form has a significant impact on the consumers’ persuasion knowledge in accordance with several other studies on the same topic (Boerman, Willemsen, and Van der Aa, 2017; Wojdynski, and Evans, 2016; Boerman, and Van Reijmerdsdal, 2016).

(27)

According to FTC’s guidelines, the sponsorship disclosure is a way to help the consumer to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial content of social media (FTC, 2018b). By displaying an in-label sponsorship disclosure in accordance with the FTC standards, the consumer has a higher probability of becoming aware of the persuasive attempts of an Instagram post than compared to when there is no sponsorship disclosure. Disclosing sponsorship in a post on Instagram evoke commercial awareness in the consumers, activating the central route of information processing (Petty, and Cacioppo, 1986). The use of other forms of sponsorship disclosure which are currently legal, such as in-text does not significantly differ from the other disclosure forms. This result could be due to the fact that the consumers read posts differently where some participants may be focusing more on the textual part of the post whereas others on parts, such as pictures or names.

The in-label sponsorship disclosure as the most explicit form of disclosure was previously shown to have a negative impact on brand attitudes (Boerman, Van Reijemersdal, and Neijens, 2012), as well as creating skepticism and negative feelings towards the message (Carr, and Hayes, 2014). On this basis, this disclosure form would have a higher probability of triggering coping tactics in form of reactance and heightened skepticism as proposed by previous research (Nelson, Wood, and Paek, 2009). Our study did not find any difference between the effect of disclosure forms when it comes to consumer responses to the advertising, which may be due to an already existing image of the brand adidas, not sufficiently affected by one exposure to a post.

We expected that unattractive influencers would create more persuasion knowledge regardless of the disclosure form because previous research indicates that attractive people draw more attention compared to unattractive (Liu, Huang, and Minghua, 2007; Amos, Holmes, and Strutton, 2008; Seidman, and Miller, 2012). The smaller attention that the unattractive

(28)

influencer got would therefore mean that the attention was drawn elsewhere, such as on the sponsorship disclosure. Surprisingly the attractiveness of the influencer did not moderate the effect of disclosure on persuasion knowledge. In other words, it did not matter if the influencer was attractive or unattractive in the way consumer recognize the post as an advertisement when we used different disclosure forms. Nevertheless, attractiveness showed to have a significant effect on persuasion knowledge, which demonstrated that posts accompanied by unattractive influencer, in fact, increase consumers awareness towards persuasive attempts. Having an Instagram post accompanied by an attractive influencer can therefore be an effective marketing strategy if marketers want their persuasive intentions to be disguised in influencers’ posts.

Consumers evaluate advertising differently based on attractiveness where attractive people are more effective when there are an impulsive product evaluation and unattractive people when there is talk about a reflective evaluation (Häfner, and Trampe, 2009). Our results demonstrate that it did not matter if the influencer was attractive or unattractive when we looked at the effect between sponsorship disclosure and consumer responses. Although psychical attractiveness does not moderate the effect between sponsorship disclosure on consumer responses, it showed a main effect on attitudes towards the post, in accordance with previous studies (Amos, Holmes, and Strutton, 2008). The study showed that unattractive influencers actually yield more negative attitudes towards an Instagram post, but this regardless of the sponsorship disclosures.

Persuasion knowledge that is being activated by exposure to sponsorship disclosure making the consumer think critically in form of skepticism and feelings of dislike towards the advertisement (Carr, and Hayes, 2014). We proposed that when the consumer figured out that the message had hidden intentions it would yield negative attitudes (brand and post) and decrease purchase intentions. To our surprise, the intentions to buy was positively affected by

(29)

being aware of the post’s commercial intentions. Although we focus on sponsorship disclosure in relation to one clothing brand, Instagram contain thousands of other brands using a lot of other strategies which may evoke different responses. Using an already very famous brand like adidas may not have evoked big changes in the minds of the participants, because of already existing impressions of the brand. It could for that reason be interesting to investigate other products and brands, as the effect may depend on the consumers’ preconceptions of the presented products or brands. Even though the chosen product for the experiment was unisex, it may have affected the results from the male participants given that the influencers were women. Further research using different brands and products is therefore needed in order to understand if our results can be generalized.

FTC current guide does not mandate specific form or wording of sponsorship disclosure which makes recognition process harder. In order for the consumer to understand that sponsored posts on Instagram, in fact, are advertisement, a label explicitly showing so is needed. Although the difference between in-text and in-label sponsorship disclosure did not show to be significant, there can still be seen a slight difference in how consumers recognize the post as an advertisement. In our study, only 52% of the participants exposed to sponsorship disclosure did recognize it. Further research should therefore investigate how sponsorship disclosure can be made more transparent, in order to create a greater impact on the consumers’ recognition of advertising. The guidelines for the FTC should still be recommended for further use on the social media.

Looking at a commercial perspective, our results do not imply any need for change from the marketers’ point of view, as they already are using the most effective marketing strategy. In other words, the favorable impact that attractive influencers have on recognition of advertising and attitudes towards post can be an advantage compared to those

(30)

who are not using attractive influencers. Given that there is no significant difference between trying to hide the sponsorship disclosure in in-text compared to in-label when it comes to recognition of advertising, it would therefore be recommended for marketers to use the sponsorship disclosure in-label in accordance with the FTC guidelines.

(31)

References

Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., Oconnor, E., & Breiter, H. C. (2001). Beautiful Faces Have Variable Reward Value. Neuron, 32(3), 537-551. doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00491-3

Ahearne, M., Gruen, T.W., & Jarvis, C.B. (1999). If looks could sell: Moderation and mediation of the attractiveness effect on salesperson performance. International Journal of

Research in Marketing 16(4): 269–284.

Amos, C., Holmes, G., & Strutton, D. (2008). Exploring the relationship between celebrity endorser effects and advertising effectiveness: A quantitative synthesis of effect size.

International Journal of Advertising 27(2): 209–234.

An, S., & Stern, S. (2011). Mitigating the Effects of Advergames on Children. Do Advertising Breaks Work? Journal of Advertising, 40, 1, 43–56.

Aribarg, A., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2010). Raising the BAR: Bias adjustment of recognition tests in advertising. Journal of Marketing Research 47(3): 387–400. Bardia, Y. H., Abed, A., &Majid, N. Z. (2011). Investigate the impact of celebrity endorsement on brand image. European Journal of Scientific Research, 58(1), 116-132. Bennett, M., Pecotich, A., & Putrevu, S. (1999). The Influence of Warnings on Product Placements, in E - European Advances in Consumer. Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 193-200.

Bergvist, L., & Zhou, K. Q. (2016). Celebrity Endorsements: A Literature Review and Research Agenda, International Journal of Advertising, 4, 35, 642–63.

Boerman, S. C., Willemsen, L. M., & Van der Aa, E. P. (2017). “This Post Is Sponsored”: Effects of Sponsorship Disclosure on Persuasion Knowledge and Electronic Word of Mouth in the Context of Facebook. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 82–92.

Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2014). Effects of Sponsorship Disclosure Timing on the Processing of Sponsored Content: A Study on the Effectiveness of European Disclosure Regulations. Psychology & Marketing, 31(3), 214–224.

doi:10.1002/mar.20688

Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2014). Using Eye Tracking to Understand the Effects of Brand Placement Disclosure Types in Television Programs.

Journal of Advertising, 44(3), 196-207. doi:10.1080/00913367.2014.967423

Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of

Communication,

Boerman, S. C., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2016). Informing Consumers about “Hidden” Advertising: A Literature Review of the Effects of Disclosing Sponsored Content. In

(32)

Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of

Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83.

Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2014). The Effect of Disclosure of Third-Party Influence on an Opinion Leader’s Credibility and Electronic Word of Mouth in Two-Step Flow. Journal of

Interactive Advertising, 14(1), 38–50.

Cronley, M. L., Kardes, F. R., Goddard, P., & Houghton, D. C. (1999). Endorsing Products for the Money: The Role of the Correspondence Bias in Celebrity Advertising. Advances in

Consumer Research, 26 (1), 627–631.

Dogtiev, A. (2018). Instagram Revenue and Usage Statistics. Business of Apps. Retrieved from http://www.businessofapps.com/data/instagram-statistics/#2

EC. (2013). European Commission: Recommendations Sponsorship on Standardisation - CROS - (1970, August 31). Retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/recommendations-sponsorship-standardisation-september-2013_en

Evans, N. J., & Hoy, M. G. (2016). Parents’ Presumed Persuasion Knowledge of Children’s Advergames: The Influence of Advertising Disclosure Modality and Cognitive Load. Journal

of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 37(2), 146–164.

doi:10.1080/10641734.2016.1171181

Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity Endorsement: A Literature Review, Journal of Marketing

Management, 15:4, 291-314, doi: 10.1362/026725799784870379

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1-31.

FTC. (2017). FTC Staff Reminds Influencers and Brands to Clearly Disclose Relationship, Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/04/ftc-staff-reminds-influencers-brands-clearly-disclose

FTC. (2018a). The FTC's Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking, 2018, August 08. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

FTC. (2018b). Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. Retrieved from

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc- publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf

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

Häfner, M., & Trampe, D. (2009). When thinking is beneficial and when it is not: The effects of thin and round advertising Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 619-628.

(33)

Hennessy, B. (2018). Why Women Dominate Influencer Marketing - and Why It May Be the Right Career for You. Entrepreneur, Retrieved from

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/317450

Jin, S. A. A., & Joe, P. (2014). Following Celebrities' Tweets About Brands: The Impact of Twitter-based Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Consumers' Source Credibility Perception, Buying Intention, and Social Identification with Celebrities, Journal of Advertising, 43, 2, 181–95.

John, D. R. (1999). Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look at Twenty-five Years of Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 3, 183–213.

Johnston, V. S. (2006). Mate choice decisions: The role of facial beauty. Trends in Cognitive

Sciences, 10(1), 9-13. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.003

Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 11(4): 954–961.Till and Busler, 2000)

Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the ‘match- up’ hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising 19(1): 4–13.

Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 688-701.

Kranz, F., & Ishai, A. (2006). Face Perception Is Modulated by Sexual Preference. Current

Biology, 16(1), 63-68. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.10.070

Liu, M.T., Huang, Y.Y., & Minghua, J. (2007). Relations among attractiveness of endorsers, match-up, and purchase intention in sports marketing in China. Journal of Consumer

Marketing 24(6): 358–365.

Lueck, J. A. (2015). Friend-zone with Benefits: The Parasocial Advertising of Kim Kardashian, Journal of Marketing Communications, 21, 2, 91–109.

Mediakix. (2018). Instagram Influencer Marketing Is Now A $1 Billion Industry. Retrieved from http://mediakix.com/2017/03/instagram-influencer-marketing-industry-size-how-big/#gs.5XWNmds

Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2013). Can Disclosures Lead Consumers to Resist Covert Persuasion? The Important Roles of Disclosure Timing and Type of Response, Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 23, 4, 483–95.

Nelson, M. R., Wood, M. L. M., & Paek, H. (2009). Increased Persuasion Knowledge of Video News Releases: Audience Beliefs About News and Support for Source Disclosure,

Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 24 (4), 220--237

Nielsen. (2015). Global Trust in Advertising: Winning Strategies for an Evolving Media Landscape. Retrieved from

(34)

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/reports/2015/nielsen-global-trust-in- advertising-report-september-2015.pdf.

Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39-52. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. doi:10.1016/S0065-

2601(08)60214-2

Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Tutaj, K., & Boerman, S. C. (2013). The effects of brand placement disclosures on skepticism and brand memory. Communications - The European Journal of

Communication Research, 38(2). doi:10.1515/commun-2013-0008

Rhodes, G. (2006). The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty. Annual review of

psychology. 57. 199-226. 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208.

Said, N.P., & Napi, W. N. W. (2015). Celebrity and non-celebrity endorsement effectiveness on consumers’ attitude towards advertisement. International Academic Research Journal of

Business and Technology, 1(2), 51-57.

Sammis, K., Lincoln, C., & Pomponi, S. (2016). Influencer Marketing for Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Influencer+Marketing+For+Dummies-p-9781119114093

Samuels, D. J., & Zucco, C. (2012). Using Facebook as a Subject Recruitment Tool for Survey-Experimental Research. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2101458

Seidman, G., & Miller, O. S. (2013). Effects of Gender and Physical Attractiveness on Visual Attention to Facebook Profiles. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(1), 20-24. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0305

Shrum, L.J. (2012). The Psychology of Entertainment Media: Blurring the Lines Between Entertainment and Persuasion, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2018). Social Media Use 2018: Demographics and Statistics: A majority of Americans use Facebook and Young adults are especially heavy users of Snapchat and Instagram. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/

Sparks, J. R., Areni, C. S., & Cox, K. C. (1998). An investigation of the effects of language style and communication modality on persuasion. Communications Monographs, 65(2), 108– 125.

Spears, N., & Singh, S. (2004). Measuring Attitude Toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising. 26. 53-66. 10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164.

(35)

Statista. (2018b). Topic: Influence marketing. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/topics/2496/influence-marketing/

Tessitore, T., & Geuens, M. (2014). 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. 419. 10.2501/IJA-32-3-419-442.

Van Noort, G., Antheunis, M. L., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Social connections and the persuasiveness of viral campaigns in social network sites: Persuasive intent as the underlying mechanism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), 39–53.

doi:10.1080/13527266.2011.620764

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.

doi:10.1080/02650487.2014.993795

Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Fransen, M. L., Noort, G. V., Opree, S. J., Vandeberg, L., Reusch, S., & Boerman, S. C. (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., & 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:10.1080/00913367.2015.1115380

Wood, N. T., & Burkhalter, J. N. (2013). Tweet this, not that: A comparison between brand promotions in microblogging environments using celebrity and company-generated tweets.

Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), 129-146.

doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.797784

Woods, S. (2016) #Sponsored: The Emergence of Influencer Marketing. University of

Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1976

Zipporah, M. M. (2014). The effects of celebrity endorsement in advertisements.

International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Science,

(36)
(37)
(38)

Appendix 2 Welcome!

Thank you for taking part in this study. Below you will find more details about the research.

Study aims

This study is being conducted as a part of a thesis project for Communication Science at the University of Amsterdam. The study focuses on individuals' perceptions of influencers on Instagram. You will kindly be asked to look at the photos and indicate the first impression you get here from.

Participation and time commitment

The study involves taking an online questionnaire and will approximately take 5 minutes to complete.

In order to participate in the study, you must be familiar with Instagram. There no personally nor culturally sensitive questions included in the questionnaire.

Participation is voluntary and your consent to participate is indicated by accepting the terms below. However, you can always withdraw your participation by ceasing to complete the questionnaire.

This research is carried out by students at the University of Amsterdam and we, therefore, guarantee that:

1) Your anonymity is safeguarded and will not be passed on to third parties. 2) You can refuse to participate or cut short of the participation.

3) Participation in this study will not expose you to any risk or discomfort nor will researchers deliberately mislead you.

o

I understand and agree to the terms described above Gender

o

Male

(39)

Age

o

Under 12 years old

o

12-17 years old

o

18-24 years old

o

25-34 years old

o

35-44 years old

o

45-54 years old

o

55-64 years old

o

65-74 years old

o

75 years or older Ethnicity

o

White

o

Black or African American

o

Hispanic

o

Asian

o

Pacific Islander

(40)

Education

o

No schooling completed

o

Nursery school to 8th grade

o

Some high school, no diploma

o

High school graduate, diploma or the equivalent

o

Some college credit, no degree

o

Trade/technical/vocational training

o

Associate degree

o

Bachelor’s degree

o

Master’s degree

o

Professional degree

o

Doctorate degree Do you use Instagram?

o

Yes

o

No

How often do you use Instagram?

o

Extremely often

o

Very often

o

Moderately often

o

Slightly often

o

Not often at all

(41)

Q33 Do you follow any influencers on Instagram?

o

Yes

o

No

In the following section, you will be presented with a post from an influencer on Instagram. Look at the post as you would normally do on Instagram.

Indicate the attractiveness of the influencer in the photo

o

Very attractive

o

Attractive

o

Neutral

o

Unattractive

o

Very unattractive

How do you feel about the post from the influencer?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpleasant

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Pleasant Unappealing

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Appealing Boring

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Interesting Unlikeable

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Likeable Bad

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Good Negative

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Positive

(42)

How do you feel about the brand Adidas? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpleasant

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Pleasant Unappealing

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Appealing Boring

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Interesting Unlikeable

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Likeable Bad

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Good Negative

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Positive

I would like to buy the product that the influencer is wearing or another product from Adidas

o

Strongly disagree

o

Moderately disagree

o

Slightly disagree

o

Neither disagree nor agree

o

Slightly agree

o

Moderately agree

o

Strongly agree

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Accumulation observed as increasing trough concentrations after several days of IVM administration (FIG 1C) as well as the previously reported lipophilicity and accumulation

Specifically, our research focused on four themes regarding cyberbullying—(a) incidence and impact, (b) differentiating cyberbullying from innocent pranks, (c) motives of bullies,

The increasing difficulty of final examinations due to academic results of pupils who received enrichment private tutoring classes (Bray and Silova 2006, 52-56;

De factoren die het meeste invloed lijken uit te oefenen op de uitvoering van het rolstoelenbeleid zijn: starheid, flexibiliteit en het beleidsnetwerk van de gemeenten,

As noted in section 3.4, I predict that that high-performance funding bonuses can negatively affect racial achievement gaps for both black and Hispanic students. Due to positive

Figuur 4: ​Verdeling afkomst migranten voortkomend uit artikelen Daily Nation Figuur 5: ​Verdeling typering migranten voortkomend uit artikelen Daily Nation Figuur 6:

The support may range from assistance during initial registration and documentation of land rights, to deliverance of the full ‘vertical’ spectrum of land administration services

We have demonstrated an early technical prototype from Council of Coaches, which in- corporates a dialogue and argumentation framework for structured, mixed-initiative in-