Facing the Music: Are Disclosures Ineffective at Activating Adolescents Persuasion Knowledge?
Robert Freeman Cartwright
10583769 Master’s Thesis
Persuasive Communication Science
Graduate School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam Supervised by: Dr. Eva van Reijmersdal
Abstract
Purpose:
Embedded advertising has become commonplace as a form of advertising in new media— particularly music videos. To counter its effects, written disclosures for embedded advertising have been found to activate persuasion knowledge. However, studies have not been performed on the adolescent age demographic, nor are there many studies that investigate embedded advertising disclosures in music videos. This article aims to determine whether disclosures are effective at activating adolescents’ persuasion knowledge and subsequent effects. The role of materialism was explored as was the effects of different disclosures types.
Design/methodology/approach:
The study used an experimental method design to test the effects of disclosures on
adolescents, and measured outcome variables quantitatively. A between-subjects experiment was conducted on 279 individuals aged 14-17.
Findings:
Adolescents do not activate their persuasion knowledge when exposed to a disclosure. Contrastingly, one particular type of disclosure was found to decrease persuasion knowledge leading to positive indirect effects on the brand, artist, and program. An interaction between disclosures and materialism was found.
Practical implications:
Based on results, advertisers should not face too much concern if future policies dictate that music videos, and adolescent content require disclosures. Moreover, should elaborate on embedded advertising’s financial contribution to the program as it benefits adolescents’ evaluations of all stakeholders involved. Policymakers may want to investigate more effective means at disclosing embedded advertising for adolescents.
Originality:
This is the first study that tests written disclosures amongst adolescents regarding music videos. It also is the first study to acknowledge materialisms role within disclosure literature, and test a disclosure that elaborates upon the benefits of embedded advertising for the program.
Keywords:
Facing the Music: Are Disclosures Ineffective at Activating Adolescents Persuasion Knowledge? On August 19th 2013, singer Avril Lavigne drew speculation for releasing a music video for her song “Rock and Roll”. Though neither the song nor the video themselves were reported on, it was the ubiquitous embedded advertising for a Sony Xperia phone that drew attention. Embedded advertising as defined by Cain (2011) is the paid promotion of a product that is embedded into the program’s narrative as either a prop or plot of the program. In 2014, there was 15.90% increase in growth for this marketing industry (PQMedia, 2015). The usage of embedded advertising is two-fold: integration increases awareness and sales for the brand, and increases revenue for the program (Schemer, Matthes, Wirth, & Textor, 2008; Wenner, 2004).
Although the industry experiences positives from embedded advertising, there are concerns regarding consumers—especially young consumers. Previous studies (Bijmolt, Classen, & Brus, 1998; Boush, Friestad, & Rose, 1994; Eagle, 2007) show that adolescents lack the cognitive capacities to discern persuading intent in advertising and celebrity
endorsement. Without the knowledge of persuasion (i.e. persuasion knowledge), adolescents are susceptible to forming higher attitudes towards brands they are exposed to (Verhellen, Oates, De Pelsmacker, & Dens, 2014). Canadian adolescents (ages 12-17) are at an increased risk for susceptibility considering that many music videos use embedded advertising.
Furthermore, this demographic is the largest audience on YouTube, and spend the majority of their YouTube use watching music videos (Lella, 2011, 2015). Thus, adolescents’ proclivity to watch music videos without persuasion knowledge may result in being highly susceptible to the influences of embedded advertising in music videos.
To curtail the persuasion of embedded advertising, many European countries have enacted laws that require programmes to disclose the use of embedded advertising (Ofcom, 2014). Embedded Advertising disclosures have been found to be an effective method of activating persuasion knowledge, thereby protecting individuals from the influences by embedded advertising (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2012).
However, current gaps in the embedded advertising disclosure literature include those pertaining to music videos and age. Only one study has been performed on embedded advertising disclosures and music videos (Matthes & Naderer, 2015). The authors found that disclosures were effective at activating adults’ persuasion knowledge. Yet these findings have not been replicated, and thus is the first main aim of this study.
The second gap in disclosure literature concerns age. Most studies have primarily gathered university students as participants (e.g. Boerman et al., 2012; Campbell, Mohr & Verlegh, 2012; Dekker & Reijmersdal, 2010). Yet, Bijmolt et al. (1998) found that university students tend to have higher persuasive knowledge than adolescents. Therefore the results of prior embedded advertising disclosure literature cannot be translated to adolescents. Hence, this study aims to explore whether disclosures are still effective means to increasing persuasion knowledge for adolescents. Consequentially, embedded advertising and its disclosures have been linked to the evaluations of the brand, artist, and video (Boerman et al., 2012; Roozen & Claeys, 2009). Thus the third aim intends whether disclosures have an effect on these sponses.
In order to properly assess affective responses, one’s level of materialism should be accounted for. Materialistic adolescents ages 11-15 who are more likely to have favorable attitudes towards brands and embedded advertising, and more likely to perceive themselves to be persuaded by embedded advertisements than their peers (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2003; Nelson & McLeod, 2005). Therefore, this study’s fourth aim is to determine whether materialism has a moderating effect of embedded advertising disclosures on affective responses.
Lastly, this study intends to explore the disclosure message content itself. Specifically, if differences between highlighting embedded advertising’s benefits to the brand versus the benefits to the program as a revenue source, leads to different reactions and responses.
By exploring the effects of embedded disclosures on adolescents, results from the study can help broaden the scope of literature available; additionally, put forth insights for future policies on embedded advertising disclosure and adolescent demographics.
Theoretical Framework
When faced with persuasive messages—like standard television commercials— individuals tend to activate a specific type of knowledge pertaining to their understanding of persuasion mechanisms (i.e. persuasion knowledge) as a means to cope with being advertised towards (Friestad & Wright, 1994). When an individual activates persuasion knowledge and begins to critically process the message, the result can include agreeing with the message, generating counterarguments against it, or ignoring the message (Jacks & Cameron, 2010).
Embedded advertising presents a unique challenge to our abilities of activating persuasion knowledge because this type of advertising can obscure the lines between programming content and traditional advertising. Such that, the advertised message is hidden—often without individuals consciously recognizing the advertised brand (Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, & Smit, 2007). According to Friestad and Wright (1994), when individuals are unable or unaware to recognize that they have been persuaded (e.g. by an embedded advertisement) they fail to activate their persuasion knowledge. In consequence, many are being advertised towards without having the opportunity to critically reflect upon it. To facilitate the equal opportunity of recognizing advertising and thereby the ability to contest the message, disclosures for embedded advertising can be found before or during programmes that contain covert advertising (Cain, 2011). These disclosures have been found to elicit the activation of
persuasion knowledge in media ranging from television, to movies, to music videos (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2014; Matthes & Naderer, 2015; Van Reijmersdal, 2015).
Matthes and Naderer (2015) found that disclosures for embedded advertising in music videos were able to activate adults’ persuasion knowledge. Although Bijmolt et al. (1998) did observe differences in persuasion knowledge capabilities between adults and adolescences (i.e. such that adults have greater capabilities of understanding persuasive intent), we may find that the effects of a disclosure may still hold true for adolescents. First, we know from prior literature that persuasion knowledge is not linearly dependent on age (McAlister, Cornwell, & Cornain,
2011; LaPierre, 2015). Second, Bousch, Friestad, and Rose (1994) found during a longitudinal study that adolescents ages 11-14 hold the same distrust towards advertising, and this
particular distrust is correlated to an adult understanding of persuasion tactics (i.e. persuasion knowledge). Lastly, Verhellen et al. (2014) found that some adolescents (i.e. aged 12-14) are able to activate persuasive knowledge when primed with information before an advertisement. Therefore, when exposed to an embedded advertising disclosure, it could be theorized that adolescents will respond to a disclosure in the same manner as adults. Thus the first hypothesis is contended:
H1: Exposure to an embedded advertising disclosure will lead to greater persuasion knowledge than not being exposed to a disclosure.
The consequence of activating persuasion knowledge through the use of a disclosure includes is that one may begin to process the message using greater cognitive elaboration— scrutinizing the message and paying closer attention to it (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984, 1986). When one becomes more aware of the advertising content, the recognition of the embedded
advertising may activate a change in meaning—to which viewers may become aware of the persuasive intent for the embedded advertisement, activate strategies to cope with the recognized persuasion attempt, and subsequently evaluate the brand more poorly (Cowley & Barron, 2008; Friestad & Wright, 1994). Contemporary research gives credence to these theories: Jacks and Devine (2000) found that individuals who were aware of the manipulative intent in programmes harbored more negative affect towards the message. Although Matthes and Naderer (2015) did not find a direct effect of a disclosure on brand attitude, it is important to strengthen this finding by either testing it again, or refuting it—especially given that other studies have corroborated the effect between exposure to embedded disclosures and attitude towards the brand (Boerman et al., 2014; Boerman et al., 2012; Kirmani & Zhu, 2007). For adolescents, similar results have been exemplified. Verhellen et al. (2014), found that some adolescents ages 11-14 were able to activate persuasion knowledge when a commercial for the brand was
shown prior to playing an advergame. Moreover, the differences in brand evaluations resulted from the ability or inability to activate persuasion knowledge. Adolescents who were unable to activate persuasion knowledge evaluated the brand more favorably; whereas those able to activate persuasion knowledge evaluated the brand more negatively. Provided that adolescents have similar experiences with persuasion knowledge activation and the subsequent effect on brand attitudes, this study contends the following hypothesis:
H2: The activation of persuasion knowledge will have a negative effect on brand attitude.
Effects of Disclosures on Brand Attitude through Persuasion Knowledge
By extension, the culmination of persuasion knowledge on brand attitude and the effects of a disclosure on persuasion knowledge should be such that disclosures have an indirect effect on brand attitude through the mediation of persuasion knowledge. Boerman et al. (2012) found that disclosures had an effect on young adults’ brand attitude via persuasion knowledge for disclosures that lasted 6 seconds long. If it is expected that disclosures elicit a similar response. Thus, the third hypothesis is as follows:
H3: The effect of the disclosure on brand attitude is mediated by persuasion knowledge.
Effects of Disclosures on Affective Responses
The majority of disclosure studies have focused on persuasion knowledge and its influence on brand attitude; yet, information is scant on whether or not disclosures and the activation of persuasion knowledge can influence other attitudes—namely those focused on the content and ones who create the content. Previous literature has determined that a side-effect from the activation of persuasion knowledge may indeed mean that viewers feel their autonomy regarding the freedom to choose a product (i.e. therefore being told what they should buy) is threatened, leading to negative attitudes towards the source of the persuasion attempt (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Mau, Silberer, & Constien, 2008). In the context of television, this phenomenon has been deemed to be a spill-over effect (i.e. when attitudes towards one object influence attitudes another) of embedded advertising. Weaver and Oliver (2000) found that positive
attitudes towards a programme would generate more positive attitudes towards the embedded brand placement. Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, and Smit (2010) corroborated the linkage. But, does the reverse hold true: if there are negative attitudes towards the embedded brand placement, will they spill over to the attitudes towards a programme; or in the case of music videos—the video, and by association, the artist (i.e. affective responses)?
It would be myopic to assume that the awareness of embedded advertising would have either solely a negative or positive effect on affective responses towards artist and music video. In the video game medium, attitudes towards embedded advertising were reported to have a beneficial effect on attitudes towards the game (Nelson, 2002). Yet conversely, Mau et al. (2008) found that usage of embedded advertising within video games may lead to negative attitudes towards the placement, resulting in negative evaluations of the game. One clue residing in literature points towards the feelings of either betrayal or added trust towards the host content. According to Wang (2010, 2012), disclosures for phone and credit card
commercials increased transparency and trust, which in turn had a positive effect on the attitudes towards the advertisement, and subsequent indirect attitudes towards the source. So, regarding this approach—it could be considered that adolescents may find the disclosure to increase the transparency of persuasive intent, reflecting positively on affective responses.
Awareness of advertising elicited though a disclosure could elicit a change in meaning—a term described by Friestad and Wright (1994) that alludes to the moment to which the viewer reanalyzes the content they viewed contained the intent to persuade its audience. Therefore, eliciting a sense of betrayal, and subsequently influencing negative attitudinal outcomes as found by Boerman et al. (2012). However, as found by Wang (2010, 2012) a disclosure may also increase the perceived transparency and trust of the host content. To explore the direct effect of disclosures on attitudes towards the music and indirectly through persuasion knowledge, a two-part research question was formed:
RQ1a: Does the exposure to an embedded advertising disclosure have an effect on the attitudes towards the music video?
RQ1b : Does the exposure to an embedded advertising disclosure have an effect on the attitudes towards the music video through persuasion knowledge?
The concepts of betrayal and trustworthiness may extend personally onto the artist of the music. Often, the more adolescents see content from a celebrity, band, or new media artist, the more they perceive themselves to be in a personal relationship with the artists (Horton & Wohl, 1956; Chia & Poo, 2009). The study performed by Chia and Poo (2009) found that third party disclosure of embedded advertising (i.e. highlighting that the blogger failed to mention blogposts had embedded advertising) had negative repercussions of the audiences’ perceived relationship with the artist given that individuals felt personally betrayed. In consequence, feelings of
betrayal and deception were evoked, and had negative effects on attitudes towards the artist (Paterson, 1996). Yet, if the blogger disclosed the embedded advertising information first-hand, attitude towards the blogger were unaffected (Colliander, 2012). Again, disclosures may elicit feelings of betrayal through a change of meaning, or inspire trust among the audience to the artist. Thus, to explore the how disclosure can have an effect on attitudes towards the artist directly, and indirectly through persuasion knowledge, an additional two-part research question was formed:
RQ2a: Does the exposure to an embedded advertising disclosure have an effect on the attitudes towards the artist?
RQ2b: Does the exposure to an embedded advertising disclosure have an effect on the attitudes towards the artist through persuasion knowledge?
The Role of Materialism in Disclosure Effects
This study intends to explore the relationship of materialism as an interaction between the disclosure and persuasion knowledge. Materialism relates to the relationship individuals have with products: whether the ownership is central to one’s life, acquiring more grants happiness,
and if products are a barometer of personal success (Richins & Dawson, 1992). Over time, advertising has shifted its focus from promoting the utilitarian features of a product, to promoting materialistic themes (Belk & Pollay, 1985). Advertisers use materialistic cues and themes as they serve to enhance the mood and persuasive intent of the advertised message (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004; Borgerson & Schroeder, 2002). Concerning adolescents, this may be explained through the finding of Lee, Sung, and Choi (2011) that an adolescent’s materialism was found to predict how long the individual would pay attention to the embedded brand and devote cognition to towards processing it. In addition, Opree, Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, and Valkenburg (2013) found a link between adolescents’ desire for advertised products and their materialism.
Consequentially, the increased motivation to process a message (or embedded
advertisement) leads to the increased susceptibility of being persuaded (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In regards to product placement, this framework applies to the findings of Nelson and McLeod (2005), whose study determined that materialistic adolescents were the most aware and held the most positive evaluations towards embedded advertising; moreover, evaluated themselves to be the most influenced and susceptible to embedded advertising.
Materialism seems to inadvertently avoid the activation of persuasion knowledge—or, negate it. A study by Koller, Floh, Zauner, and Rusch (2013) found that materialism and persuasion knowledge had a negative correlation. It is suggested that because highly
materialistic people place high emphasis on products, the perceive others to evaluate them on what they purchase and own, and thus are more susceptible to advertising as normative social guidelines (Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001; Koller et al., 2013, Rimal & Real, 2003). Mitigated persuasion knowledge should result in higher evaluations towards the brand, and possibly the evaluations of the content or artist that is promoting it (Rimal & Real, 2003). However, if materialism has a negative correlation with persuasion knowledge, it can be suggested that individuals with low materialism have more persuasion knowledge. If one has low materialism,
they are also less aware of embedded advertising (Nelson & McLeod, 2005). Henceforth, a disclosure may be more effective at activating persuasion knowledge for individuals with low materialism. Given that literature has shown materialistic adolescents to be susceptible to embedded advertising and has evidence for an opposite effect for individuals with low materialism, this study posits the following two hypotheses:
H4: Materialism moderates the effect between an exposure to an embedded advertising disclosure and persuasion knowledge, such that a) adolescents with high materialism will not activate persuasion knowledge b) adolescents with low materialism will activate persuasion knowledge.
H5: Materialism moderates the mediational effect between an embedded advertising disclosure such that: adolescents with high levels of materialism will a) not activate
persuasion knowledge, thus resulting in b) higher evaluations of the brand, c) music video and d) artist than individuals with low levels of materialism.
Effect of Disclosure Types
Disclosures vary in their formats (Angelopoulos, 2010). In Britain the use of the symbol “PP” indicates that the programme contains product placement—though it should be mentioned that 90% of Britain adults do not recognize the correct meaning of the symbol (Ofcom, 2014.; Populus, 2011). Eastward in Germany, Austria, and Poland, embedded advertising disclosure takes form as a written statement indicating the presence of embedded advertising preceding the air of a programme. Scholarly, this written method of disclosure is often utilized (Boerman et al., 2012; Dekker & Van Reijmersdal, 2013). However, Commercial Alert (i.e. an organization advocating fair, transparent advertising laws), the Writers Guild of America, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Federal Communications Commission propose more elaborate written disclosure messages (Cain, 2011; Lewczak & Digiovanni, 2010).
In recent literature, the effects of more elaborate disclosures have been tested. Van
Pepper: the simple disclosure read “this is advertising for Dr. Pepper”, and the second, more elaborate message disclosing the source of the embedded advertisement and the brand’s intent read “this advertising for Dr. Pepper is created to influence your buying behaviour”. Results found that the second more elaborate disclosure had a greater negative effect on brand attitudes than both the control and first disclosure message. The perspective offered in the elaborate tested disclosure message highlights the benefits towards the brand (i.e. that the embedded advertisement will result in greater buying behaviours for Dr. Pepper) potentially causing a change of meaning (Friestad & Wright, 1994). A change in meaning would mean that the audience no longer observes the programme as regular content, but one that is advertising. When individuals see this, and feel like they do not have the freedom of choice to choose other products to be advertised towards (or advertised to at all), they may direct their frustrations to the evaluations of the brand (Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, & Voloudakis, 2002). Thus a
disclosure focusing on the brand’s persuasion intent of embedded advertising (i.e. brand
disclosure) may lead to negative evaluations of the brand as found by Van Reijmersdal (2015). Contrastingly, disclosures that highlight the benefits of embedded advertising to the artist or content may elicit more positive evaluations from viewers. Embedded advertising has
contributed financially towards many programmes and music videos; such that most programmes rely on embedded advertising as a source of income—and have even solely financed major television programmes (Jenkins, 2006). When the television show “Chuck” was on the verge of cancellation, viewers rallied behind the show’s major sponsor and bought their products in an organized effort to try and appeal to the sponsor to fund the show for a second season (Savage, 2014). Therefore, audiences have demonstrated the understanding of the role that embedded advertising has as a financer of their favorite programmes. If a disclosure were to highlight the reasons for why the program includes embedded advertising (i.e. program disclosure) relationship, individuals may form more positive evaluations of the brand, perceiving
it as a supporter of the program. By taking these two contrasting approaches into consideration, two hypotheses are proposed:
H6: A brand disclosure focusing on the brand’s persuasive intent of an embedded advertising will have a negative effect on affective responses (i.e. a) brand attitude b) attitudes towards the artist and c) attitudes towards the music video) as compared to other conditions.
H7: A program disclosure focusing on the program’s inclusion of embedded advertising as a financial supporter will have a positive effect on affective responses (i.e. a) brand attitude b) attitudes towards the artist and c) attitudes towards the music video) as compared to other conditions.
Method
Respondents and Procedure
The hypotheses were tested using a one factor (disclosure type) between-subjects experiment with four conditions. Respondents ages 14-17 for this study were recruited in cooperation with high schools in Alberta, Canada (N = 279, Mage = 15.74, 44.10% female) and
were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Parents were notified and sent fact sheets and passive consent forms prior to the study. In total, four high schools participated in the study, with classroom groups consisting of approximately 20 to 30 students surveyed at a time. The location of the experiment was conducted in the respective school’s computer lab.
Once seated in the computer lab, students were sent a link to the online version of the experiment. Upon opening the link, they were met with a statement of consent—outlining their voluntary, anonymous participation and option to renege at any given time. Afterwards, students were asked demographic questions, followed with the experiment’s stimulus. Post stimulus, students were asked questions regarding attitude, brand memory, recognition of advertising, persuasion intent, persuasion knowledge, music video and YouTube behaviours, and questions
regarding materialism. Lastly, students were thanked for their cooperation, followed by a small lecture on persuasion knowledge conducted by the researcher.
Stimulus Material
In total, there were four different conditions, each containing different message prior to the music video. The stimulus contained an eight second message—whose content changed depending on condition—followed by a music video. The disclosure message was selected to be eight seconds long given that it gave students time to read the message, and has been found to be more effective than shorter disclosure durations (Boerman et al., 2012). The control group (n = 74) message read, “You are now about to watch a music video”; the simple
disclosure condition (n = 74) message read, “This clip contains product placement”; the brand disclosure condition (n = 65) intended to elicit further persuasive knowledge activation read, “This clip contains product placement. The goal is to make you want to buy the product”; the program disclosure condition (n = 66) intended to elicit considerations of embedded
advertising’s financial contribution to videos read, “This clip contains product placement which can help artists pay for music video costs”. The messages appeared centered, in white text, against a black background (see appendix A).
After the message appeared for 8 seconds, a music video started. Ariana Grande’s music video for her song “Focus” was used for this experiment. Embedded advertising occurs twice in this video, for the brand Samsung. The first instance occurs at the start of the video. The Samsung logo appears on the phone and is visible for 3.15 seconds. The next instance of embedded advertising occurs around the halfway where the artist and backup dancers use the Samsung phones to take pictures of themselves (see appendix B). During this placement the phone is visible for approximately 7.5 seconds.
Affective Responses. Attitudes towards the brand, the Samsung Note 5, the artist, the
content, music video, disclosure and control message, and the practice of embedded advertising itself were measured using four battery scale items: “Bad/Good”, “Awful/Nice”,
“Negative/Positive”, and “Boring/Interesting” (Bezjian-Avery, Calder, & Iacobucci, 1998).
Respondents used a 7-point scale, and scale items were averaged to create single measures for each of the following constructs: attitude towards the brand (α = .95, M = 4.88, SD = 1.45), the Samsung Note 5 product (α = .95, M = 4.52, SD = 1.40), the artist: Ariana Grande (α = .93, M = 4.40, SD = 1.62), and the music video (α = .90, M = 3.97, SD = 1.50).
Genre Liking. Liking of this genre of music was measured on a 7-point scale 1 (Don’t
like it at all) to 7 (Like it a lot) (M = 3.57, SD = 1.72).
Materialism. Students’ materialism was measured using six items from Richins and
Dawson’s (1992) Material Value Scale. The scale was chosen due to its wide usage and acceptance in research (Richins, 2004). The six items used were: “I admire people who have expensive homes, cars, and clothes”, “I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things”, “My life would be better if I owned certain things I don’t have”, “I like to own things that impress people”, “Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure”, and “I like a lot of luxury in my life”. The scale had good reliability (α = .86, M = 4.04, SD = 1.23).
Persuasion Knowledge. The concept of general persuasion knowledge was measured
using four components: conceptual persuasion knowledge, attitudinal persuasion knowledge, critical processing, and recognition of advertising.
Conceptual persuasion knowledge refers to one’s recognition of the advertising’s persuasive intent and its intention to manipulate the audience (Rozendaal, Lapierre, Van Reijmersdal, & Moniek Buijzen, 2011). To measure conceptual persuasion knowledge, three persuasion knowledge statements were adapted from Rozendaal, Slot, Van Reijmersdal, and Buijzen (2013) and presented to students. A general statement preceding the statements said “The use of the Samsung Note 5 in the clip was intended to”, to which the three items then followed: “Make you want to buy the phone/product”, “Make you like the phone/product”, and “To sell the phone/product. Response categories ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree, α = .80, M = 4.84, SD = 1.30).
Next, attitudinal persuasion knowledge was measured. This facet of persuasion knowledge focuses on affective responses such as distrust and skepticism of the persuasive attempt. Items adapted from Boerman et al.’s (2012) research were measured by asking whether they found the use of the Samsung Note 5 in the music video to be: “Honest”, “Trustworthy”, “Convincing”, and “Credible”. Response options ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree, α = .90, M = 4.34, SD = 1.15).
The third component—critical processing—involves the generation of counterarguments for the persuasion material that one is exposed to (Boerman et al., 2014). Two items adapted from Boerman et al.’s (2014) study were used: “I was skeptical towards the artist’s use of a Samsung phone”, and “While watching the music video, I criticized the inclusion of a Samsung phone”. Response options ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree, r = .72, M = 3.67, SD = 1.31).
Advertising recognition was also measured to determine whether or not students recognized the use of embedding advertising as commercial advertising. Four items that were derived and adapted from two studies (Boerman et al., 2014; Tutaj & Van Reijmersdal, 2012) were presented: “The music video contained advertising”, “This music video was advertising from Samsung”, “This music video was sponsored by Samsung”, and “This music video contained commercial elements/content”. Responses were again measured from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree, α = .84, M = 5.01, SD = 1.11).
Lastly, other items were measured including attitude towards the product, brand recall and recognition, whether or not individuals believed embedded advertising helps to pay for music video costs, if this form of advertising helps the artist financially, and purchase and
request intentions were measured for additional studies; thus, they will not be explored further in this article.
Control variables. Control items were measured regarding the amount of YouTube
from 1 (I do not watch video on YouTube) to 7 (Multiple times per day). On average, the majority of students indicated that they watched videos on YouTube multiple times per day (M = 5.51, SD = 1.55), and music videos on YouTube once per week (M = 4.34, SD = 1.74). A continuous measure was also employed to ask students how many music videos they watched (i.e. also including repeat video watches in their count) on average students indicated they watched 9.57 per day (SD = 15.34). Regarding the music video, the majority had indicated that they had not) seen the music video for “Focus” (n = 208, 74.60%).
To gauge whether students were familiar with Samsung, students were asked if they were familiar with the brand; the majority were familiar with Samsung products (n = 263, 94.30%). Additionally, items asking whether students or their parents own Samsung products were also asked. The majority of students do not own a Samsung product (n = 171, 61.30%), whereas the majority of students’ parents do own a Samsung product (n = 204, 73.10%). Evaluations of the disclosure message and of embedded advertising were also measured using four battery scale items: “Bad/Good”, “Awful/Nice”, “Negative/Positive”, and “Boring/Interesting” (Bezjian-Avery, et al., 1998). A scale with 7-point items were used to assess evaluations of the disclosure/control message (α = .90, M = 3.89, SD = 1.24), and the practice of advertisers working together with musicians to embed advertising into music video (α = .94, M = 4.24, SD = 1.42).
Brand memory was also recorded. When asked if students recalled any brands in the music video, 38.70% correctly recalled Samsung. Next, students were shown four different logos—including Samsung’s logo—and were asked to select the brand(s) they recalled seeing. In total, 66.70% students correctly indicated solely seeing Samsung.
Results
Although previous disclosure studies (Boerman et al., 2012; Boerman et al., 2014) included only respondents who recalled seeing the disclosure in their results, the sole study pertaining to disclosures and music videos (Matthes & Naderer, 2015) used all respondents
regardless of recall to increase external validity. This study wishes to build upon the scope of literature established by Matthes and Naderer (2015) and thus will include all respondents in the analyses.
Randomization
Results from an ANOVA indicated that there were no significant mean differences between the conditions regarding the variables: Age, YouTube behaviours, genre preference, evaluations of the disclosure message, and practice of embedded advertising. A Chi Square test was used and determined that gender (i.e. whether one was female), social economic status (i.e. whether one perceived themselves as richer than their peers), having seen the video before (yes/no), brand familiarity (yes/no), and brand ownership (family or self; as yes/no responses) did not differ between groups. However, given that age can lead to cognitive developments regarding the understanding of advertising (Chernin, 2007) it was used as a covariate in all analyses.
Effects of Disclosures Types on Persuasion Knowledge and Brand Attitude
Effects on Persuasion Knowledge. To test H1: “Exposure to an embedded advertising
disclosure will lead to greater persuasion knowledge than not being exposed to a disclosure”, a MANCOVA was conducted testing the one-tailed (i.e. p-values were divided by two—thus .05 is significant at a one-tailed outcome) differences in means between disclosure conditions and persuasion knowledge scales. The four conditions were included as the independent variable, the four persuasion knowledge components as the dependent variables, and age as the covariate. Results from a series of tests are provided in Table 1.
There were no significant differences of the means between conditions regarding the respondents’ recognition of advertising within the music video F(4, 274) = 0.67 p = .574, conceptual persuasion knowledge F(4, 274) = 0.26 p = .856, or, critical processing F(4, 274) = 0.55 p = .349, indicating that disclosures did not influence whether one recognized advertising, its persuasive intent, or activated critically processing towards the embedded advertisement.
However, significant differences between the means of attitudinal persuasion knowledge were found F(4, 274) = 2.54 p = .029.
To elaborate, a post-hoc Bonferroni test was conducted and results revealed that the means were solely different between the control condition and the program disclosure condition
(Mdifference = -0.51, p = .030). Results reveal that individuals in the program disclosure condition
found the embedded advertising to be more honest, trustworthy, convincing, and credible than those in the control condition—contradicting the outcome expected in hypothesis 1.
Results from this series of tests do not provide support for H1—such that exposure to an embedded advertising disclosure does not yield higher instances of persuasion knowledge than no exposure.
Effects of Disclosures Types on Brand Attitude. To test hypothesis H2 “The
activation of persuasion knowledge will have a negative effect on brand attitude”, an ANOVA was conducted with the four conditions as independent variable, brand attitude as the
dependent variable, and age as the covariate. There were no differences in brand attitudes F(4, 274) = 2.22 p = .087 (i.e. indicating that disclosures did not influence brand attitudes); thus, H2 was not supported.
Attribute Control Simple Disclosure Brand Disclosure Program Disclosure Recognition of Advertising 4.91 (1.09) 5.11 (1.22) 4.93 (1.15) 5.11 (0.98) Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge 4.91 (1.21) 4.83 (1.23) 4.82 (1.35) 4.82 (1.47) Critical Processing 4.09 (1.40) 4.13 (1.33) 4.03 (1.30) 3.95 (1.23) Attitudinal Persuasion 4.52a (1.01) 4.44ab (1.29) 4.42ab (1.09) 4.01b (1.15) Attitude Towards the Brand 4.91 (1.54) 4.99 (1.33) 4.48 (1.48) 5.07 (1.38) Attitude Towards the Music Video 3.90 (1.42) 4.03 (1.48) 4.19 (1.44) 3.76 (1.68) Attitudes Towards the Artist 4.22 (1.39) 4.55 (1.71) 4.75 (1.52) 4.09 (1.79)
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Persuasion Knowledge and Affective Responses for Different Conditions
Effects of Disclosures on Brand Attitude via Persuasion Knowledge. To test H3:
“The effect of the disclosure on brand attitude is mediated by persuasion knowledge” a mediation analysis was performed using Hayes PROCESS (Model 4). Disclosure conditions were transformed into dummy variables and input as the independent variable, with the other respective disclosure conditions input as covariates. Brand attitude was input as the dependent variable, the four scales of persuasion knowledge as parallel mediators, and age (in addition to the disclosure conditions) as a covariate. Output from the mediation analysis is provided in Table 2.
Tests for direct effects of persuasion knowledge on brand attitude indicated that both attitudinal persuasion knowledge and critical processing were predictors of brand attitude. The model explained 12.28% of variance in brand attitude (F(8,270) = 5.21, p < .001). An increase in attitudinal persuasion knowledge (b =.34 t(278) = 4.22 p < .001) and critical processing (b = -.16 t(278) = -2.05 p = .021) led to lower evaluations of the brand.
Next mediation effects were observed in the results. The analyses showed that there was a significant indirect effect of disclosure on brand attitude through attitudinal persuasion knowledge b = .18 90% CI [.07, .34] for individuals in the program disclosure condition. Results imply that exposure to a disclosure highlighting benefits to the program has a negative effect on attitudinal persuasion knowledge: individuals will perceive the embedded advertising as more trustworthy and convincing, to which, will evaluate the brand more positively. Given that the results contradict what the hypothesis suggested, there is no support for H3. All other mediation effects were not significant, see Table 2.
Effects of Disclosures on Other Affective Responses
To examine the effects of different types of disclosures on attitudes towards the music video (RQ1a), and attitude towards the artist (RQ2a), the same tests were conducted on the two variables. A MANCOVA was performed with disclosure conditions as the independent variable (again, with the disclosure conditions as dummies, and the other respective disclosure
conditions as covariates), attitude towards the music video as the dependent variable, and age as covariate. Results revealed that there were no significant differences between the disclosure condition with respect to attitude towards the music video (F(4, 274) = 1.00 p = .415) and attitudes towards the artist (F(4, 274) = 2.32 p = .076. Thus, suggesting that disclosures— regardless of the type of disclosure and message contained within—do not elicit a difference between whether one likes the artist and music video more than one who has not been exposed to a disclosure. Results are provided in Table 1.
Effects of Disclosures on Affective Responses via Persuasion Knowledge. To test
indirect effects of disclosures through persuasion knowledge on affective responses, as per RQ1b and RQ2b, a series of Hayes PROCESS (Model 4) mediation regression tests were conducted. Disclosure condition dummies were added as the independent variable individually (with the disclosure conditions placed as covariates), attitude towards the music video and attitude towards the artist were added as the respective dependent variable, the four scales of persuasion knowledge were added as parallel mediators, and age was added as a covariate. Output for these tests are provided in Table 2.
Concerning the direct effect of persuasion knowledge on attitudes towards the music video and attitudes towards the artist, results indicate significant regression models. 15.52% of variance in attitudes towards the artist (F(8,270) = 6.67, p < .001) was explained by the model. An increase in recognition of advertising led to an increase in attitudes towards the music video (b = .27 t(278) = 2.37 p = .010); whereas an increase in attitudinal persuasion knowledge would yield a decrease in attitudes (b = -.44 t(278) = -4.52 p < .001). Results imply that if one was recognizing embedded advertising in the music video, they would have more favourable evaluations of it; whereas, if they activate feelings of dishonesty about the persuasion attempt they find the music video to be less trustworthy and honest, they will evaluate the music more negatively.
Mediation Process Model for the Effect of Disclosure Type on Affective Responses Effect of (M) on (Y) Total Indirect Effect (X --> Y) CI Indirect Effect Effect of (M) on (Y) Total Indirect Effect (X --> Y) CI Indirect Effect Effect of (M) on (Y) Total Indirect Effect (X --> Y) CI Indirect Effect Predictor Variable (X) and Mediators (M) β (SE ) β (SE ) CI (90%) β (SE ) β (SE ) CI (90%) β (SE ) β (SE ) CI (90%) Disclosure I (vs Control)
Recognition of Advertising .09 (.09) .01 (.03) (-.01; .08) .27* (.11) .05 (.05) (-.01; .16) .20* (.10) .04 (.05) (-.01; .15) Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge .01 (.08) -.01 (.02) (-.06; .01) -.04 (.09) -.01 (.02) (-.07; .78) .03 (.09) -.01 (.03) (-.08; .02) Attitudinal Persuasion Knowledge -.34*** (.08) .04 (.07) (-.06; .17) -.44*** (.09) .06 (.09) (-.08; .21) -.46*** (.08) .06 (.10) (-.10; .22) Critical Processing -.16* (.07) -.01 (.04) (.-07; .05) -.09 (.08) .00 (.01) (-.01; .01) -.07 (.07) -.01 (.02) (.-04; .02) Disclosure ii (vs Control)
Recognition of Advertising .09 (.09) .01 (.20) (-.02; .04) .27* (.11) .01 (.05) (-.07; .08) .20* (.10) .01 (.04) (-.06; .08) Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge .01 (.08) -.01 (.01) (-.07; .01) -.04 (.09) -.01 (.03) (-.07; .02) .03 (.09) -.01 (.03) (-.09; .02) Attitudinal Persuasion Knowledge -.34*** (.08) .03 (.07) (-.06; .15) -.44*** (.09) .04 (.08) (-.08; .18) -.46*** (.08) -.05 (.09) (-.09; .20) Critical Processing -.16* (.07) .01 (.04) (-.03; .08) -.09 (.08) .01 (.02) (-.01; .06) -.07 (.07) .01 (.02) (-.02; .05) Disclosure iii (vs Control)
Recognition of Advertising .09 (.09) .01 (.03) (-.01; .07) .27* (.11) .05 (.05) (-.01; .15) .20* (.10) .04 (.04) (-.01; .15) Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge .01 (.08) -.01 (.02) (-.06; .01) -.04 (.09) -.01, (.03) (-.08; .02) .03 (.09) -.01 (.04) (-.10; .02) Attitudinal Persuasion Knowledge -.34*** (.08) .18* (.08) (.07; .34) -.44*** (.09) .23* (.09) (.10; .39) -.46*** (.08) .25* (.10) (.10; .42) Critical Processing -.16* (.07) .02 (.04) (-02; .11) -.09 (.08) .01 (.02) (-.01; .08) -.07 (.07) .01 (.02) (-.01; .06)
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Brand Attitude Attitude Towards Artist Attitude Towards Music Video
Table 2
Regarding persuasion knowledge’s effect on attitudes towards the artist, similar effects were found. 18.79% of variance in attitudes towards the artist (F(8,270) = 6.88, p < .001). An increase in recognition of advertising led to an increase in attitudes towards the artist (b = .20 t(278) = 1.98 p = .024); whereas an increase in attitudinal persuasion knowledge would yield a decrease in attitudes towards the artist (b = -.46 t(278) = -5.85 p < .001). Thus, if one
recognizes the embedded advertising as an advertisement, they will respond with more favorable evaluations of the artist; however, similar to evaluations of the music video, if one activates feelings of dishonesty and non-trustworthiness about the persuasion attempt, they will evaluate the music video more negatively.
Results from the mediation analysis determined that for the program disclosure condition, there was a significant indirect effect of this disclosure (as compared to the control group) on attitudes towards the music video through attitudinal persuasion knowledge b = .25 90% CI [.10, .42]. Therefore, being exposed to the program disclosure condition will reduce feelings of untrustworthiness to the persuasion attempt which will increase attitudes towards the music video, hence a positive indirect effect is confirmed. Other disclosure types nor persuasion knowledge scales had mediational effects—providing insight for RQ1b.
The second mediation analysis determined that for the program disclosure condition, there was a significant indirect effect of this disclosure (as compared to the control group) on attitudes towards the artist through attitudinal persuasion knowledge b = .23 90% CI [.10, .40]. Thus, when one is exposed to the program disclosure condition less attitudinal persuasion knowledge will be elicited, such that more feelings of trustworthiness for the embedded
advertisement will be evoked and will lead to more positive feelings about the artist in the music video. However, no other indirect effects for other disclosure types or persuasion knowledge scales were found, providing information for RQ2b.
This study proposed in hypothesis 4 that materialism would have an interaction effect with disclosure on persuasion knowledge—such that individuals with high materialism scores who were exposed to a disclosure would not have increased persuasion knowledge scores (H4a). Conversely, individuals with low materialism scores who are exposed to a disclosure would have higher persuasion knowledge scores than those in the control group (H4b). In addition, H5 questioned whether or not there would be a moderated mediation effect of disclosure type on affective responses through persuasion knowledge moderated by materialism. To answer these questions and test the hypothesis, PROCESS was used. Outcomes can be found in Table 3.
Interaction Effect of Disclosure Type and Materialism on Persuasion Knowledge.
As per H4: “Materialism moderates the effect between an exposure to an embedded advertising disclosure and persuasion knowledge, such that a) adolescents with high materialism will not activate persuasion knowledge b) adolescents with low materialism will activate persuasion knowledge”. Each of the disclosure conditions were tested against the control group. Materialism did not interact with the exposure to either the simple disclosure or brand disclosure conditions. However, for the program disclosure condition, materialism interacted with the disclosure type in its effect on recognition of advertising (b = -.21 t(278) = -1.75 p = .044) and critical processing (b = -.29 t(278) = -1.72 p = .043).
When materialism was low (i.e. M = 2.80) there was a positive effect of exposure of the program disclosure on recognition of advertising b = .48 t(278) = 1.94, p = .027, 90% CI [.10, .42]. At the mean value of materialism, there is no significant effect between disclosure and recognition of advertising b = .21 t(278) = 1.21, p = .112, 90% CI [-.08, .51], or when materialism is high (M = 5.29) b = -.04 t(278) = -0.18, p = .426, 90% CI [-.40, .32]. This suggests that when one has lower levels of materialism and is exposed to the program disclosure (as compared to the control condition), he or she will report higher scores of recognizing that the embedded advertising was indeed advertising.
With respect to the interaction of the program disclosure and materialism on critical processing, the results show that when materialism was low there was no significant effect between exposure of the program disclosure and critical processing b = .18 t(278) = 0.68, p = .266, 90% CI [-.18, 1.58]. At the mean value of materialism, there was no significant effect between disclosure and recognition of advertising b = -.18 t(278) = -0.78, p = .217, 90% CI [-.55, .2]; however when materialism was high there was a negative effect (M = 5.50) b = -.60 t(278) = -1.69, p = .045, 90% CI [-1.18, -.02]. The results suggest that individuals who are exposed to the program disclosure condition and have high levels of materialism report lower scores of critically processing.
Results from these two outcomes provide support for materialism as a moderator of the effect of disclosure type three on persuasion knowledge. Thus, H4 is supported.
Moderated Mediation
H5 proposed that the effect of disclosures on affective responses through persuasion knowledge was moderated by materialism (i.e. a moderated mediation).
Results of these tests (Table 3) showed that a moderated mediation effect occurred for the effect of the program disclosure on brand attitude through critical processing (b = .05, 90% CI [.01, .12]). There was no significant effect when materialism was low (b = -.03, 90% CI [-.13, .03]) or at the mean score (b = .03, 90% CI [-.02, .11]).
Surprisingly, when materialism was high there was a significant indirect effect (b = .08, 90% CI [.01, .22]). This indicates that when one had high materialism, exposure to a program disclosure would lead to more critically processing of the embedded advertisement leading to more positive attitudes towards the brand. Given that the materialism had an interaction effect, H4 is supported.
Next, a moderated mediation effect was observed for the effect of the program
disclosure on attitude towards the music video through recognition of advertising (b = -.04, 90% CI [-.11, -.01]).
Effect of X --> Med Materialism --> (Med) Interaction Effect (X*Mod) Moderated Mediation CI Indirect Effect Slopes: Materialism (Low) Slopes: Materialism (Med) Slopes: Materialism (High) Moderated Mediation CI Indirect Effect Slopes: Materialism (Low) Slopes: Materialism (Med) Slopes: Materialism (High) Moderated Mediation CI Indirect Effect Slopes: Materialism (Low) Slopes: Materialism (Med) Slopes: Materialism (High) Predictor Variable (X) and Mediators (M) β (SE ) β (SE ) β (SE ) β (SE ) CI (90%) β (SE ) CI (90%) β (SE ) CI (90%)
Simple Disclosure (vs Control)
Recognition of Advertising -.13 (.69) .07 (.07) .09 (.15) .01 (.02) (-.01; .05) .01 (.04) .02 (.03) .03 (.04) .02 (.03) (-.02; .09) .02 (.07) .04 (.05) .07* (.06) .02 (.04) (-.03; .12) .03 (.08) .06 (.06) .09* (.08) Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge -.21 (.61) .14* (.08) .04 (.14) .00 (.01) (-.01; .03) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.01) (-.01; .03) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.01) (-.04; .01) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) Attitudinal Persuasion Knowledge -.04 (.63) -.20*** (.06) -.04 (.15) .01 (.05) (-.06, .09) .05 (.09) .06 (.07) .08 (.09) .02 (.07) (-.08, .12) .06 (.12) .08 (.09) .10 (.11) .02 (.06) (-.07, .13) .06 (.12) .08 (.09) .10 (.11) Critical Processing .49 (.64) .02 (.09) -.11 (.14) .02 (.03) (.-01, .08) -.03 (.05) .00 (.04) .02 (.05) .01 (.02) (.-01, .06) -.02 (.04) .00 (.03) .01 (.04) .01 (.02) (.-01, .08) -.02 (.04) .00 (.03) .01 (.04) Brand Disclosure (vs Control)
Recognition of Advertising -.17 (.70) .08 (.07) .05 (.16) .01 (.02) (-.01; .07) .00 (.04) .00 (.02) .00 (.03) .01 (.03) (-.03; .09) .00 (.06) .01 (.04) .02 (.05) .01 (.04) (-.04; .09) .01 (.04) .00 (.02) .00 (.03) Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge -.14 (.79) .15* (.07) .03 (.17) .00 (.01) (-.02; .02) .00 (.03) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.01) (-.02; .03) .00 (.03) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) (-.03; .02) .00 (.03) .00 (.02) .00 (.03) Attitudinal Persuasion Knowledge .09 (.60) -.20*** (.07) .-06 (.13) .02 (.05) (-.05, .10) .03 (.09) .03 (.03) .08 (.08) .03 (.06) (-.08, .13) .04 (.12) .08 (.08) .12 (.11) .03 (.06) (-.07, .13) .04 (.11) .07 (.08) .10 (.11) Critical Processing -.06 (.64) -.04 (.09) .13 (.15) -.02 (.03) (-.08, .01) .04 (.06) .01 (.04) -.01 (.05) -.01 (.02) (-.06, .01) .02 (.03) .01 (.02) -.01 (.03) -.01 (.02) (-.08, .01) .02 (.04) .01 (.03) -.01 (.04) Program Disclosure (vs Control)
Recognition of Advertising 1.06** (.53) .14* (.07) -.21* (.12) -.02 (.02) (-.08, .01) .04 (.05) .02 (.03) .00 (.03) -.05* (.04) (-.14, -.01) .11* (.07) .05 (.05) -.01 (.05) -.04* (.03) (-.11, -.01) .10* (.07) .05 (.05) -.01 (.05) Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge -.17 (.77) .15** (.07) .04 (.18) 00 (.01) (-.01, .03) .00 (.03) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) 00 (.02) (-.04, .01) .00 (.03) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) 00 (.01) (-.04, .01) .00 (.03) .00 (.02) .00 (.03) Attitudinal Persuasion Knowledge -1.09* (.57) -.24*** (.07) .13 (.13) -.04 (.04) (-.13, .02) .25* (.11) .20* (.08) .14* (.08) -.05 (.06) (-.17, .02) .32* (.13) .25* (.09) .19* (.10) -.06 (.06) (-.17, .02) .34* (.13) .27* (.10) .20* (.11) Critical Processing .99 (.69) .06 (.08) -.29* (.17) .05* (.03) (.01, .12) -.03 (.05) .03 (.04) .08* (.06) .03 (.03) (.01, .11) -.02 (.04) .02 (.03) .05 (.06) .02 (.03) (.01, .11) -.01 (.03) .01 (.03) .04 (.05)
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, p < .001.
Table 3
Outcome Variable (Y)
Brand Attitude Attitude Towards Artist Attitude Towards the Music Video
There was a significant effect when materialism was low (b = .10, 90% CI [.02, .27]); however, no significant effect at the mean materialism score (b = .05, 90% CI [.00, .16]), or high materialism (b = -.01, 90% CI [-.10, .06]). The results suggest that when one had low materialism and is exposed to a program disclosure, they had greater recognitions of advertising. When one had greater understanding that the embedded advertisement was indeed advertising, they would evaluate the music video more positively.
Lastly, a moderated mediation effect was observed for the effect of the program disclosure on attitude towards the artist through recognition of advertising (b = -.05, 90% CI [-.14, -.01]). There was a significant indirect effect when materialism was low (b = .11, 90% CI [.03, .28]); however, there was no significant effect at the mean materialism score (b = .05, 90% CI [.00, .16]), or high materialism (b = -.01, 90% CI [-.11, .06]). The results suggest that when one had low materialism, an elaborated transparent disclosure elicited higher recognition of advertising. When one had greater understanding that the embedded advertisement was indeed advertising, they would evaluate the artist more positively.
Given that the results are opposite of what was theorized, there was no support for H5.
Effect of Disclosure Types
This study proposed that different disclosure types would elicit different responses; such that a disclosure with an elaborate message focusing on the brand’s persuasive intent would evoke more negative affective responses (H6) and an elaborate message focusing on the program’s intent for the inclusion of embedded advertising would evoke more positive affective responses (H7).
Results from the prior analyses revealed that the disclosure elaborating on the brand’s persuasive intent of the embedded advertisement did not lead to significant different results for any of the affective responses outcomes compared to other conditions. Thus H6 is not supported.
Provided that the effects of the program disclosure led to positive evaluations of the brand, the music video, and the artist in the mediation and moderated mediation tests, the seventh and final hypothesis is supported.
Discussion and Conclusion
In sum, this study intended to explore the effects of embedded advertising disclosure on adolescents, in the specific medium of music videos.
The first aim sought to find out if disclosures had an effect on adolescents’ persuasion knowledge and replicate the results found in adults by Matthes and Naderer (2015). Results from H1 indicated that simple disclosures and brand disclosures did not increase persuasion knowledge. Contradictive to H1, a program disclosure had a negative effect on attitudinal persuasion knowledge—such that adolescents were more trusting of the embedded advertisement. We know from literature that children have less knowledge of persuasive intent than adults, yet have similar levels of distrust towards advertising (Bijmolt et al., 1998; Bousch et al., 1994; Friestad & Wright, 1994). Hence, a program disclosure (i.e. focusing on the benefits towards the program) may placate distrust of embedded advertising, as shown by the decline in attitudinal persuasion knowledge. Provided that H1 was not supported, this study can contend that disclosures are not effective at activating persuasion knowledge in adolescents.
The lack of the activation of persuasion knowledge observed in adolescents also led to no differences brand attitudes. Thus H2 was not supported. Given that persuasion
knowledge was not activated by adolescents, there were no opportunities to cope with persuasion attempts, and therefore no negative evaluations of the brand occurred as purported by Friestad and Wright (1994) and Cowley and Barron (2008).
Yet, brand attitudes increased by exposure to a program disclosure through attitudinal persuasion knowledge. This provides evidence for a mediation effect between disclosure and brand attitude through persuasion knowledge contended by H3. The results confirm a mediation effect between these variables that was originally tested by Boerman et al., (2012). Though in contrast, the findings from this study illustrate that disclosures may
indirectly increase brand attitudes by lowering persuasion knowledge. Thus, the change of meaning did not occur and suggest that adolescents were more susceptible to the
embedded advertisement (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Verhellen et al., 2014)
To gather more information on how disclosure may have an effect on attitudes towards the music video (RQ1a) and the artist (RQ2a), similar analyses of H1 were
performed on these variables. The findings suggest that embedded advertising disclosures do not have significant impacts on the attitudes of the music video or the artist. Therefore, the theory of spillover between negative evaluations of embedded advertising and negative affective responses adapted from Weaver and Oliver (2000) and Van Reijmersdal et al. (2010) cannot be supported.
When persuasion knowledge was included as a mediator between the effect of disclosures on affective responses (RQ1b and RQ2b), significant predictors were found for the program disclosure condition. Similarly to what was found in H3, program disclosures led to less attitudinal persuasion knowledge, in turn, leading to more positive attitudes towards the music video and the artist. The findings suggest that because persuasion knowledge was decreased by the program disclosure, a change of meeting would not occur (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Alternatively, this particular type of disclosure may have elicited trust in the content and trust in the artist which had a positive effect on the attitudes to the music video and artist—exemplified by Wang (2010, 2012) and Colliander (2012).
When factoring materialism in as a moderating effect between disclosures and affective responses (H4), results suggest that individuals with high materialism will critically process the embedded advertisement less when they are exposed to the disclosure; whereas, disclosures can activate the recognition of advertising for individuals with low materialism. According to literature, the latter result confirms the negative relationship between materialism and persuasion knowledge. Nelson and McLeod (2005) found that individuals with low materialism are less aware of embedded advertising, and Koller et al. (2013) found that materialism negatively correlates with persuasion knowledge. Thus, the disclosure was effective at activating the recognition that the embedded advertising used in
the music video was indeed advertising. Conversely, materialistic adolescents were shown to have lessor degrees of critical processing—in line with Koller et al. (2013). The disclosure effect adolescents with high materialism such that they would critically process the
embedded advertisement less. Provided that individuals with high materialism evaluate embedded advertising favorably and consider themselves to be more susceptible to it, a program disclosure may have triggered materialistic adolescents to ignore the disclosure; or the disclosure satiated the desire to critically process the embedded advertising (Nelson & McLeod, 2005; Lee et al., 2011).
When testing for the full moderated mediation of disclosures and materialism on affective responses through persuasion knowledge (H5), results indicated that the program disclosure had a positive indirect effect on brand attitude. The findings provide additional credence to Nelson and McLeod (2005)—materialistic adolescents are more susceptible to embedded advertising. Within the context of a program disclosures, the susceptibility of embedded advertising stems from the inactivation of critical processing, which is precluded by the lack of change or meaning or more favorable evaluations of embedded advertising elicited by the program disclosure (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Weaver & Oliver, 2000).
The theory that the program disclosure type elicited more positive feelings towards embedded advertising are strengthened by the findings of moderated mediation effect on individuals with low materialism. When an adolescent with low materialism saw the program disclosure, they had greater awareness that the embedded advertising was indeed
advertising, which led to more favorable attitudes to both the music video and the artist. Results specific to this disclosure condition suggest that adolescents with low materialism may have found the program disclosure to be credible (as shown prior in the differences of attitudinal persuasion knowledge between conditions), thus evaluating the content and artist more favorable as found in Wang (2010, 2012) and Nelson (2002).
Pertaining to the different types of disclosure themselves, the study contended that disclosures focusing on the two benefactors of embedded advertising (i.e. the brand, and the program/artist) would have different outcomes. No support was found for H6 which
hypothesize a decrease in affective responses by a product disclosure—reinforcing the differences in persuasion knowledge activation between adults and children (Matthes & Naderer, 2015; Boerman et al., 2012; Van Reijmersdal, 2015). If adolescents are unable to activate persuasion knowledge via a disclosure, they still remain susceptible to the effects of embedded advertising (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
Theoretical and Practical Implications
The findings from this study have theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical standpoint, this study was the first to investigate the effects of written disclosures using adolescents. Three different types of disclosures were ineffective at activating
persuasion knowledge—linking adolescent’s underdeveloped awareness of advertising with the inability to activate persuasion knowledge from a disclosure. Yet, program disclosures had a positive indirect effect on all three affective responses through attitudinal persuasion knowledge. Attitudinal persuasion knowledge may be a focus of interest for future
adolescent studies as it was the only measure of persuasion knowledge that was effected by a disclosure. LaPierre (2015) found that children have greater awareness of selling intent than persuasion knowledge, thus attitudinal persuasion knowledge items may have
incorporated the measurement of implicit selling intent. Consequentially, age and cognitive developments are important in determining when embedded advertising disclosures are effective, and what measures should be test among adolescents.
Additionally, the study was the first to test an elaborate disclosure message that elaborated upon the benefits of embedded advertising to the program. The program disclosure had positive effects on brand attitude which have not yet been observed in
disclosure literature. Hence, indicating that the wording of embedded advertising disclosures can lead to different affective responses.
Lastly, this study incorporated materialism in embedded advertising disclosure literature. Materialism moderated the relationship between disclosures and the facets of persuasion knowledge: materialistic individuals reduced their critical processing and low materialistic individuals increased their recognition of advertising. This indicates that
materialism is an important variable to consider as a covariate regarding future research in embedded advertising disclosures. Moreover, future studies regarding individuals with developed persuasion knowledge capabilities (e.g. adults) could determine if materialism leads to a pronounced or mitigated effect of disclosures on persuasion knowledge.
For advertisers this study has an important practical implication regarding disclosures and their adolescent audiences’ responses. Should more regulation be required for
embedded advertisements—particularly for adolescents—advertisers may not have to been concerned whether embedded advertising will harm evaluations of the brand. Given that adolescents are unable to activate persuasion knowledge from a disclosure, the brand nor the artist or content is not at risk for negative evaluations. Furthermore, if policy states that advertisers are able to elaborate upon a simple disclosure, they are encouraged to modify the disclosure message to that of the program disclosure in this study. Positive effects on the brand, music video, and artist were found; thus the advertiser the artist, and the program stand to benefit.
To contrast, these findings have two important implications for policymakers. Written disclosures were ineffective at activating adolescents’ persuasion knowledge, hence
adolescents still susceptible to the persuasion intent in embedded advertising. Policymakers should look at other methods and types of disclosures to activate persuasion knowledge, or consider future policies that restrict embedded advertising in adolescents’ media.
Limitations and Future Research
Provided that this study was the first of its kind to determine the effects of disclosures on adolescents, additional research is needed. It should be acknowledged that only one music video was tested. The genre of music used in this study was pop music. It had a wide variance in liking (SD = 1.72), and adolescents were reported to generally dislike this music video’s music genre (the mean was below the mid-point). Provided that the genre of music may have an effect on one’s evaluations of a music video, and the link between program liking and embedded advertisement liking (i.e. Weaver & Oliver, 2000), future studies should consider choosing a different genre of music to test disclosures on adolescents. There may
more be pronounced effects of disclosures on brand attitudes depending on if the majority of the audience likes the program.
Next, the two types of elaborate disclosure messages (i.e. brand and program) should be acknowledged as having different types of wording. Specifically, the brand
disclosure addresses the adolescent directly (i.e. “you”) whereas the program disclosure was written indirectly of the audience. Crano, Siegel, Alvaro, and Patel (2007) found that
adolescents were more persuaded by messages that use an indirect way of addressing the audience, and more resistant to messages that directly address the audience. Thus, the program disclosure may have been more persuasive at informing audiences; moreover, the brand disclosure may have caused resistance towards the message. Future studies
investigate whether adolescents are unaffected by disclosure messages—or, if they are merely resistant towards them based on the message content.
Lastly, there were a few instances of adolescent’s asking the researcher to clarify what some of the persuasion knowledge items had meant. Some adolescents may not have accurately filled out of the persuasion knowledge scales because they may been confused or had trouble interpreting what the item was asking. Therefore, calling into question the validity of persuasion knowledge’s measurement and use in this study. Given that
adolescents’ persuasion knowledge is developing at this age, future studies should consider constructing persuasion knowledge scales in line that are more appropriate for this
demographic.
In sum, this study acknowledges that embedded advertising disclosures are not effective at arousing adult dimensions of persuasion knowledge. In fact, based on wording, disclosures can have the opposite effect that is intended. With more restrictions and requirements on embedded advertising advocated by the government and special interest stakeholders, this study adds an important foundation on the effects of disclosures on adolescents for future research.
