1
Influencers’ impact on students’ attitude toward alcohol and
intention to consume alcohol: the moderating roles of parasocial
interaction and sponsorship disclosure
Zenna Guijt 10765387
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Research Master’s programme Communication Science University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Eva van Reijmersdal
2 Abstract
The current study aimed to investigate the effect of influencers’ alcohol-related posts on
attitude toward alcohol and intention to consume alcohol. In addition, potential moderating
roles of parasocial interaction (PSI) and sponsorship disclosure were examined. Assumptions
were tested among 173 Dutch female students in an experimental 2 (alcohol vs. neutral) × 2 (sponsorship disclosure present vs. sponsorship disclosure not present) between-subjects
design. Results show no significant effects of alcohol-related posts on the dependent
variables. In addition, no moderating effect of sponsorship disclosure was found.
Contradictory findings were found regarding PSI: only a low level of PSI mitigated the
relation between alcohol-related posts and alcohol outcomes. These results highlight the
importance for further research on influencers’ alcohol-related posts.
Introduction
Organizations use social networking sites (SNSs) strategically to market their goods
and services (Carr & Hayes, 2014). By attempting to influence consumers, companies can
work together with someone who has power in these social networks, i.e. an influencer.
Influencers are regarded as internet personalities who have a large amount of followers on
social media and exert influence on their followers (Agrawal, 2016; Varsamis, 2018). By
making and sharing posts on social media, these ‘’ordinary individuals’’ have become
‘’online celebrities’’ (Lou & Yuan, 2019). They are generally perceived as experts in a certain niche, such as lifestyle, beauty or food (Lou & Yuan, 2019). Recently, brands such as Audi
and Samsung have observed the extensive impact and viral growth potential this influencer
marketing can bring (see Carr & Hayes, 2014). A novel report showed that 94% of marketers
who have used influencer marketing deemed these campaigns successful (Ahmad, 2018).
3
more affordable compared to more acclaimed celebrities (Hall, 2015). Furthermore,
influencers are generally already specialized in a particular niche (Lou & Yuan, 2019). This
implies that when influencers form partnerships with brands that align with this area of
expertise, the campaign is perceived as more trustworthy (Hall, 2016).
One of the social networking sites, Instagram, seems to be mostly beneficial for
influencer marketing, since it enables brands and products to be visually displayed and named
in the caption of the image (de Veirman, Cauberghe & Hudders, 2017). Previous research has
investigated influencer marketing on Instagram, in relation to concepts such as brand attitude
(e.g., de Veirman et al,. 2017) and purchase intention (e.g., Evans, Phua, Lim & Jun, 2017).
However, studies that examine the effects on individuals’ alcohol consumption are lacking,
yet partnerships between alcohol brands and influencers exist (see Medialogica, 2018). These
advertisements seem to reach youth the most, considering the use of social media among
different age groups. In the Netherlands, most of 18 to 25-year-olds (43%) use social media
for one to three hours a day (Statista, 2019). Longitudinal studies have frequently shown that
exposure to alcohol advertising serves as a powerful factor in whether youth will start
drinking alcohol, and the amount they will drink if they have already consumed alcohol
before (e.g., Smith & Foxcroft, 2009).
Among youth, students drink more excessively compared to individuals who do not
attend college (Hoffman, Pinkleton, Weintraub-Austin & Reyes-Velázquez, 2014). A study in
the Netherlands showed that approximately 53% of male students and 47% of female students
drink too much (Trubendorffer, n.d.). Since alcohol advertisers have now extended their reach
through social media and influencers, it seems crucial to investigate to what extent students
are influenced in this new era of digital communication. A large body of research has already
investigated the association of alcohol-related social media posts with drinking outcomes,
4
Campbell & Ellis, 2012). Previous literature has also researched alcohol marketing on social
media (e.g., Nicholls, 2012; Winpenny, Marteau & Nolte, 2013). However, no study has investigated the influence of exposure to influencers’ alcohol-related posts on alcohol
outcomes among students. Therefore, the aim of the current study is first of all to research the
extent to which influencers’ Instagram posts influence students’ attitude and intention
regarding alcohol. This will expand the existing body of knowledge on influencer marketing,
as these effects have not been studied yet, while youth are likely exposed to influencers’
alcohol-related posts.
Influencers are generally perceived as relatable since they share personal content and
interact with their followers (Abidin, 2016). This could engender parasocial interaction among influencers’ followers (De Veirman et al., 2017). In general, PSI is referred to as an unreal, one-sided relationship with an individual whom one knows well (Horton & Wohl, 1956). Since influencers’ endorsements are also usually highly personal, they could be regarded as influencers’ own attitudes and can therefore be very persuasive (Abidin, 2015). Therefore, the second aim of this study is to investigate the extent to which PSI moderates the relation
between alcohol-related posts and alcohol outcomes.Despite the likelihood that these feelings
occur with influencers (De Veirman et al., 2017), it has not been investigated yet.
The commercial intent of influencer marketing may not be clear to individuals as the
posts resemble editorial content (Boerman & Van Reijmersdal, 2016). In general, disclosures
make individuals more aware of the persuasive intent of the content and can activate their
persuasion knowledge (Boerman & Van Reijmersdal, 2016). This implies that people can feel
more sceptic toward the content (Nelson, Wood & Paek, 2009), process it more critically
(Shrum, Liu, Nespoli & Lowri, 2012) or attempt to avoid it (Cho & Cheon, 2004). Therefore,
the third and final aim of this study is to examine the extent to which a sponsorship disclosure
5
presence of a disclosure in Facebook posts and blogs has been researched before (e.g.,
Boerman, Willemsem & Van der Aa, 2017; Carr & Hayes, 2014; Hwang & Jeong, 2016),
similar studies regarding Instagram posts are scarce.
The outcomes of this study could raise awareness on how students can be influenced
in this new era of digital communication. Thus, it could benefit health authorities with making
policies and developing campaigns in relation to students and alcohol. In addition, it could
motivate social networking sites to possibly change it guidelines regarding alcohol-related
posts. The results could also provide valuable insights for influencers and brands, since it can
make them more aware of how students are affected by their content.
Theoretical Background
Attitude and intention regarding alcohol
Longitudinal research has shown that youth’s exposure to alcohol advertising is
related to their initial and continued alcohol consumption (e.g., Smith & Foxcroft, 2009). A systematic review on longitudinal studies published since 2008 showed that ‘young people who have greater exposure to alcohol marketing appear to be more likely subsequently to initiate alcohol use and engage in binge and hazardous drinking’ (Jernigan, Noel, Landon, Thornton & Lobstein, 2017, p. 7). One study among students found a positive association
between participants’ exposure to alcohol marketing on social media and their problematic
alcohol consumption (Hoffman et al., 2014). While no study has investigated exposure to
influencers’ alcohol-related posts on drinking outcomes, there is research on celebrity
endorsement and smoking. These studies indicate that young people are more likely to smoke
cigars and e-cigarettes when they have been exposed to celebrity endorsed smoking
6
Celebrities express their personalities when they endorse a brand, which affects opinions (Jin
& Phua, 2014; Salmon & Atkin, 2003). Compared to celebrities, influencers narrate their lives
in a highly personal way and interact with their followers (Abidin, 2016). Their endorsed
content is often also very personal (Abidin, 2015). Moreover, these posts are interwoven with
the ‘’regular’’ posts in which they narrate their lives, which makes it likely that they will be
seen as the influencers’ own attitudes and could therefore have relevant persuasion abilities
(Abidin, 2015). Therefore, it seems plausible that influencers’ alcohol-related posts affect students’ attitude toward alcohol and intention to consume alcohol. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1. Influencers’ alcohol-related posts will have a more positive effect on a) attitude toward alcohol, and b) intention to consume alcohol, than more neutral posts.
Parasocial interaction and alcohol outcomes
Parasocial interaction (PSI) can be defined as a ‘seeming face-to-face relationship
between spectator and performer’ (Horton & Wohl, 1956, p. 215). The interaction is
‘one-sided, nondialectical, controlled by the performer, and not susceptible of mutual development’
(Horton & Wohl, 1956, p. 215). Generally, individuals who are engaged in a PSI believe that
they are a part of a direct two-way discourse as they imagine that the mediated persona is
communicating directly to him or her (Levy, 1979). This one-sided relationship stimulates
individuals to use media (Kim, 2005), which in turn fulfils their need to connect (Nordlund,
1978). Feelings of PSI can reach the extent where people start to perceive the mediated
persona as a ‘’real friend’’ (Stern, Russell & Russell, 2007). Previous research has shown associations between media usage and PSI with celebrities (Rubin, Perse & Powell, 1985),
implying that individuals who use media are also likely to feel a certain attachment to
7
with celebrities and social media use (Kim et al., 2015) and Twitter usage specifically (Kim &
Song, 2016). Compared to regular celebrities, influencers are perceived as accessible, credible
and intimate (Abidin, 2016). They can be relatable to their followers because they post
personal, often publicly inaccessible parts of their lives (Abidin, 2016; Schau & Gilly, 2003).
This could engender feelings of PSI (De Veirman et al., 2017). If a follower develops this
imagery bond with an influencer, he or she is also likely to perceive the influencer as
trustworthy (Labrecque, 2014).
Drawing from social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), people can learn by observing
others. Consequently, identifying oneself with media protagonists has a big impact on
individuals’ own opinions, values, beliefs and actions (Phua et al., 2018). A study on smoking habits found that if consumers perceive a celebrity endorser in an advertisement as a role
model, this can in turn positively affect attitudes and intentions toward smoking e-cigarettes
(Phua et al., 2018). In addition, previous studies have found associations between PSI and
purchase tendencies, where higher PSI resulted in greater tendencies (Kim et al., 2015; Xiang,
Zheng, Lee & Zhao, 2016). A study on thin media ideals found that PSI moderates the effect of exposure to a thin media ideal on women’s body image, indicating that participants who felt high PSI towards the media figure, experienced greater body satisfaction compared to
participants who felt less PSI (Young, Gabriel & Sechrist, 2012). The authors argue that
feeling this imagery bond with a media protagonist can increase feelings of similarity,
whereas an absence of PSI is more likely to lead to contrastive effects (Young et al., 2012). In
line with this, it is expected that people who feel high PSI toward an influencer will
experience more positive effects compared to people who feel less PSI. Therefore, the
8
H2. Parasocial interaction (PSI) will moderate the effect of alcohol-related posts on a)
attitude toward alcohol, and b) intention to consume alcohol, so that people with high PSI
will experience more positive effects than people who have less PSI.
Sponsorship disclosure and alcohol outcomes
Research has indicated that the commercial intent in non-traditional commercials such
as social media advertisements is more difficult to recognize compared to traditional
advertising formats (e.g., Van Noort, Antheunis & Van Reijmersdal, 2012). Similarly,
influencer marketing can be difficult to recognize for individuals, as the posts are made to
look like editorial content while they are in fact paid advertisements (Evans et al., 2017). The
paid relationship between the influencer and the sponsoring brand may not be obvious for the
followers (Evans et al., 2017). The ambiguity of the relationship as well as the number of
followers of the influencer can lead individuals to believe that the posts are based on the
influencer’s own attitudes (Evans et al., 2017). If content is not recognized as persuasive, it
draws more attention, is seen as more believable, and exerts a stronger influence on affective
reactions (e.g., Matthes, Schemer & Wirth, 2007). In order to make consumers more aware of
the commercial intent of the content, new official guidelines advocate that influencers have to
disclose the commercial nature of their content clearly (Hosie, 2018). The rules suggest to use
hashtags such as ‘’ad,’’ ‘’advertising,’’ or ‘’advert,’’ and avoid hashtags such as ‘’spon,’’ ‘’in association with,’’ or ‘’thanks to [brand] for making this possible,’’ as these are not clear enough (Hosie, 2018).
A number of studies has investigated the impact of sponsorship disclosure on
consumers (Boerman & Van Reijmersdal, 2016). Generally, disclosures increases consumers’ awareness about the persuasive intent of the message (e.g., Boerman, Van Reijmersdal &
9
about social media specifically (e.g., Boerman, et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2017). Also,
sponsorship disclosures can activate consumers’ persuasion knowledge (Boerman & Van
Reijmersdal, 2016), which can be explained with the persuasion knowledge model (PKM;
Friestad & Wright, 1994). The PKM posits that individuals are exposed to different
persuasive content throughout their lives, which helps them establish knowledge and an
understanding about persuasive intent (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Persuasion knowledge can
be regarded as the group of theories and notions about persuasion and its strategies that
individuals form in their lives (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Thus, people gain knowledge over
time from experience about what persuasive content entails and how to develop coping
strategies in order to deal with the persuasive message (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Examples
of these responses are increased scepticism (Nelson et al., 2009), critical processing (Shrum,
et al., 2012) avoidance (Cho & Cheon, 2004), and resistance (Fransen, Verlegh, Kirmani &
Smit, 2015). This implies that when individuals recognize the commercial intent of a
message, they may feel more sceptic, think more critically and try to avoid or resist the
persuasion attempt. Examples of these responses can also be found in studies regarding social media. For instance, a study about celebrities’ sponsored Facebook posts found that
respondents’ ability to recognize the posts as sponsored engendered critical and sceptical beliefs about the content. These beliefs in turn decreased the intention to share the message
(Boerman et al., 2017). In addition, a study on sponsorship disclosure in influencer
advertising on Instagram showed that a disclosure (compared to no disclosure) resulted in a
less favourable brand attitude. Advertising recognition and memorizing a disclosure message
combined also decreased the intention to share the content (Evans et al., 2017). Moreover, a
recent study about advertising on the Chinese platform Sinaweibo found a moderating
negative effect of sponsorship disclosure on the relation between the post’s number of
10
of the amount of likes on consumers’ positive brand attitude (Seo, Kim, Choi & Li, 2019). Since research generally points to more negative attitudes and intentions resulting from
disclosures, it is plausible that the same would occur for the current study. In addition, in line
with the research of Seo et al. (2019), I expect a moderating effect of sponsorship disclosure
on the relation between alcohol-related posts and alcohol outcomes. Since influencers’
endorsed content on its own is likely to have persuasive abilities due to its personal nature
(Abidin, 2015; Jin & Phua, 2014; Salmon & Atkin, 2003), it seems more plausible that effects
would be moderated instead of mediated by the presence of a sponsorship disclosure.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H3. Sponsorship disclosure will moderate the effect of alcohol-related posts on a) attitude
towards alcohol, and b) intention to consume alcohol, so that exposure to a sponsorship
disclosure will result in less positive effects compared to no sponsorship disclosure.
Sponsorship disclosure, parasocial interaction and alcohol outcomes
It is anticipated that an alcohol-related post will result in a more positive attitude
toward alcohol and greater intention to drink alcohol, compared to a more neutral post
(hypothesis 1). Furthermore, it is hypothesized that individuals who have high PSI toward the
influencer compared to individuals who feel less PSI, will experience more positive effects
(hypothesis 2). In addition, I expect that the presence of a sponsorship disclosure will result in
less positive effects, compared to the absence of a sponsorship disclosure (hypothesis 3).
Based on these hypotheses, it is expected that exposure to an alcohol-related post, in
combination with high PSI and the lack of a sponsorship disclosure will result in a more
positive attitude toward alcohol and a greater intention to consume alcohol. Consecutively,
11
H4. There is a three way interaction between an alcohol-related post, PSI and sponsorship
disclosure on a) attitude toward alcohol, and b) intention to consume alcohol, so that an
alcohol-related post in combination with high PSI and a lack of sponsorship disclosure will
result in more positive effects, compared to a more neutral post in combination with low PSI
and the presence of a sponsorship disclosure.
Method
Sample and Design
In total, 173 Dutch female students with an Instagram account participated in the study
(Mage = 21.23, SD = 2.21). Only women were recruited because the stimulus material included
a female influencer, which may not engender feelings of PSI in men and could therefore skew
the results. Participants who filled out the survey via the university’s website could earn
credits. The majority of the respondents (59) used Instagram five to seven times a day
(34.10%). The median also lies at the seventh point of the scale (five to seven times a day).
They spend 107.64 minutes on the platform daily, on average (SD = 274.98). In this study, we
adopted a 2 (alcohol vs. neutral) × 2 (sponsorship disclosure present vs. sponsorship
disclosure not present) between-subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned to one
of four conditions: an alcohol-related post with sponsorship disclosure, an alcohol-related post
without sponsorship disclosure, a neutral post with sponsorship disclosure, or a neutral post
without sponsorship disclosure.
Procedure
Participants were primarily recruited through the university’s lab website (lab.uva.nl),
12
Facebook and LinkedIn, which explicitly stated that only students could participate. This was
also stated in the fact sheet of the survey. Friends and acquaintances of whom the author knew
were students, have been personally asked to participate.
After giving their consent, participants could fill out the questionnaire. First, they were
asked brief questions about their Instagram usage, after which they were randomly assigned to
one of four conditions. Participants were made aware that they were going to be exposed to an
Instagram post and that they could continue the survey after viewing the post for at least 10
seconds. After being exposed to the stimulus material, participants were asked questions
about brand recognition and brand attitude. Subsequently, questions about their attitude
toward alcohol, intention to consume alcohol and previous alcohol consumptions were asked.
Next, PSI and attitude toward the influencer were measured. In addition, questions regarding
alcohol recognition, advertising recognition, disclosure memory were asked. Finally, they
were asked if they were familiar with the influencer and the brand(s) they had or had not seen
in the Instagram post. All participants were debriefed after completing the survey.
Pretest
The aim of the pretest was to determine the content of the stimulus material for the
experiment. Participants (N = 11, Mage = 22.91, SD = 1.81, 90.90% female) were presented
four altered Instagram posts, in which alcohol was removed from the photo, and were asked
how realistic they found these posts. The four original posts were selected from Instagram. In
order to be selected, the post had to meet the following criteria: 1) the post was shared by an
individual who is primarily known for being an influencer, instead of an actor or presenter for
example, and 2) the photo included a clean background so that the alcohol in the photo was
13
Participants were asked, using a scale ranging from 1 (unrealistic) to 7 (realistic), how
realistic they found the altered posts that originally included the brand Liefmans (M = 4.55;
SD = 1.44), Heineken (M = 3.00; SD = 1,76), KetelOne (M = 5.00; SD = 1.69) and Moët (M =
4.18; SD = 1.78). Since the four original posts depicted an alcohol brand, participants’ attitude
toward these brands was assessed. They were asked how they felt, using 7-point semantic
differentials: unattractive-attractive/unpleasant-pleasant/boring-interesting/not
nice-nice/negative-positive/bad-good (Bruner & Kumar, 2000) towards Liefmans (Cronbach’s α =
0.81, M = 5.56, SD = 0.69, N = 9), Heineken (Cronbach’s α = 0.74, M = 5.0, SD = 0.82, N =
11), KetelOne (Cronbach’s α = 0.95, M = 4.80, SD = 1.43, N = 5) and Moët (Cronbach’s α =
0.83, M = 4.52, SD = 0.99, N = 9). Furthermore, PSI and attitude were measured regarding
three Dutch influencers who were ranked high in the list of ‘’most influential Dutch
influencers’’ (De Media 100, 2019). To measure PSI, participants were presented ten items
and asked to rate them on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree;
based on the Revised Parasocial Interaction Scale, Rubin & Perse, 1987). Based on factor
analyses, two subscales were created for PSI towards Anna Nooshin (Cronbach’s α = 0.84, M
= 1.89, SD = 0.79; Cronbach’s α = 0.72, M = 3.00, SD = 1.32, N = 7). Similarly, two
subscales were created for PSI towards Monica Geuze (Cronbach’s α = 0.95, M = 2.19, SD =
1.39; Cronbach’s α = 0.70, M = 2.61, SD = 0.71, N = 6) and Enzo Knol (Cronbach’s α = 0.85,
M = 1.43, SD = 0.61; Cronbach’s α = 0.85, M = 2.36, SD = 1.22, N = 7). To assess attitude,
participants were asked how they felt, using 7-point semantic differentials:
unpleasant-pleasant/boring-interesting/not nice-nice/negative-positive/bad-good (Bruner & Kumar,
2000), towards Anna Nooshin (Cronbach’s α = 0.78, M = 4.67, SD = 0.72, N = 7), Monica
Geuze (Cronbach’s α = 0.88, M = 3.73, SD = 1.12, N = 6) and Enzo Knol (Cronbach’s α =
14
Based on the results of the pretest, the post which depicted the brand Liefmans was
chosen, because the altered post was considered fairly realistic. Participants reported a slightly
higher score regarding the post in which a bottle of KetelOne was removed. However, the
photo included a cocktail with syrup and whipped cream, so it could also be perceived as a
dessert. This could interfere with the results of the study. Unfortunately, little to no feelings of
PSI toward the three influencers were expressed by the participants. Therefore, the influencer
was chosen based on attitude. Since the influencer would not be present in the picture of the
stimulus material, it might be less likely that PSI would occur. However, it may be more
likely if the influencer is well-liked. Participants in the pretest expressed the most positive
attitude toward Anna Nooshin.
Stimuli
Participants were exposed to a fictitious Instagram post by Anna Nooshin
(@annanooshin). The photo included a platter of snacks and two filled glasses (one of which
is a red-coloured drink) on a white background. In the alcohol conditions, the photo included
a bottle of Liefmans, which was also referred to in the text of the post. The alcohol with
sponsorship disclosure condition included the hashtag ‘’advertisment’’ and the phrase ‘’paid
partnership with Liefmans.’’ The neutral conditions did not show the bottle of Liefmans nor
references to alcohol in the text. To avoid that participants thought the posts contain alcohol,
the red-coloured drink was referred to as cassis in the texts. Similarly, the neutral with
sponsorship disclosure condition included the hashtag ‘’advertisement’’ and the phrase ‘’paid
15 Measures
Alcohol Attitude and Intention
Attitude towards alcohol was measured using 7-point semantic differentials with the
statement ‘’if I were to drink alcohol the following week, I would find that
unpleasant-pleasant/not nice-nice/unwise-wise/harmless-harmful/negative-positive/bad-good’’ (Cronbach’s α = 0.89, M = 4.50, SD = 1.03; based on TBP; Azjen, 1991). Intention to consume alcohol was measured by asking participants to rate the statements ‘’I plan to drink
alcohol during the following week’’ and ‘’I intent to drink alcohol during the following
week’’ (based on TBP; Azjen, 1991) on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree; M = 3.94, SD = 2.00).
Parasocial Interaction (PSI)
PSI was assessed based on the Revised Parasocial Interaction Scale (Rubin & Perse,
1987). Rubin & Perse’s scale originally measured PSI with a television soap opera character.
Therefore, the ten items were slightly altered in order to make them more accurate for the
present study. Participants were asked to rate statements such as ‘’Anna Nooshin feels like a
friend to me’’ and ‘’I look forward to seeing Anna Nooshin on Instagram,’’ on a scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A factor analysis showed three components
with an eigenvalue higher than 1. As a result, two subscales were made, with the first
including items ‘’Anna Nooshin feels like a friend to me,’’ ‘’I look forward seeing Anna
Nooshin on Instagram,’’ ‘’If I would see Anna Nooshin on another Instagram account, I would follow this account,’’ ‘’Anna Nooshin seems to understand the kinds of things I want to know’’ and ‘’I miss seeing Anna Nooshin if she does not post anything’’ (Cronbach’s α =
16
saw a story about Anna Nooshin in a newspaper or magazine, I would read it,’’ ‘’I would like
to meet Anna Nooshin in person,’’ ‘’I feel sorry for Anna Nooshin when she makes a
mistake’’ and ‘’I find Anna Nooshin to be attractive’’ (Cronbach’s α = 0.71, M = 3.26, SD =
1.18; Bruner & Kumar, 2000). Since the first subscale seems to depict attachment toward the
influencer, it was called the ‘’attachment subscale of PSI.’’ Items of the second subscale seem
to show admiration and was therefore named ‘’the admiration subscale of PSI.’’ Item 2 (‘’I
see Anna Nooshin as a natural, down-to-earth person’’) served as a component on its own and
was therefore not included in either of the subscales.
Manipulation Checks
To assess whether participants noticed a brand in the stimulus material, they were
firstly asked if they saw a brand in the Instagram post (0 = no or I am not sure and 1 = yes).
Secondly, they were asked ‘’which brand did you see in the post?’’. All participants were
presented with different brands to choose from including an option ‘’none of these brands.’’
This was then recoded into 0 = ‘’I do not remember’’ or ‘’none of these brands’’ and 1 = did
report a brand. In addition, to measure if participants acknowledged alcohol in the stimulus
material, the question ‘’was there alcohol present in the post?’’ was posed (0 = no or I am not
sure and 1 = yes). In order to assess whether participants noticed the persuasive intent of the
stimulus material, advertising recognition and disclosure memory were measured. Advertising
recognition was measured by asking the participants to answer the following statement: ‘’indicate to what extent you think the Instagram post you just saw was an advertisement,’’ on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree; M = 5.63; SD = 1.70;
Boerman et al., 2012). This was followed by an open ended question: ‘’why do you think that
the post was or was not an advertisement?’’ (Wojdynsk & Evans, 2016), which was later
17
disclosure present). Participants’ disclosure memory was assessed by asking them whether or
not they had seen one or more of the following terms or hashtags in the post: #sponsored,
#adv, paid partnership with Liefmans, paid partnership with Fanta, #collaboration, paid
partnership with Hero, #advertisement. This was then recoded into 0 = did not report a
disclosure and 1 = did report a disclosure.
Control Variables
To measure participants’ familiarity with the brands, for each brand they were asked whether they were familiar with it before participating in the study (0 = no or I am not sure
and 1 = yes). Most participants reported to be familiar with Liefmans (74.00%) as well as
Hero (83.20%). The same question was posed about Anna Nooshin. Most participants
(87.90%) reported to be familiar with the influencer. Additionally, these 152 participants were
asked whether they follow Anna Nooshin on Instagram (0 = no or I am not sure and 1 = yes).
Most of these participants indicated that they did not (69.10%). Furthermore, participants’
attitude toward the alcohol brand Liefmans was assessed, using 7-point semantic differentials:
unattractive-attractive/unpleasant-pleasant/boring-interesting/not
nice-nice/negative-positive/bad-good (Cronbach’s α = 0.94, M = 4.91, SD = 1.04; Bruner & Kumar, 2000). The
same scale was used to assess participants’ attitude toward Hero (Cronbach’s α = 0.94, M =
4.60, SD = 0.95; Bruner & Kumar, 2000). In order to establish participants’ attitude toward
Anna Nooshin, the same questions were posed about the influencer (Cronbach’s α = 0.88, M
= 4.39, SD = 1.00; Bruner & Kumar, 2000). The first item (unattractive-attractive) was
removed, since participants already answered this question in the PSI scale. Moreover, the
survey included questions about participants’ average Instagram usage (‘’how much do you
use Instagram on average?’’ 0 = less than once a month, 1 = monthly, 2 = once a week, 3 =
18
a day, 7 = eight times a day or more; median = five to seven times a day) and daily Instagram
usage (‘’on average, how much hours and/or minutes do you spend on Instagram daily?’’; M
= 107.64; SD = 274.98; Sheldon, Rauschnabel, Antony & Car, 2017). Finally, participants’
alcohol consumption was measured by asking them to estimate the amount of alcoholic drinks
they consumed for each day in the previous week (M = 1.15; SD = 1.16, based on the Daily
Drinking Questionnaire; DDQ; Collins, Parks & Marlatt, 1985).
Results
Manipulation Checks
Crosstabs showed a significant difference for brand recognition, χ2(1) = 52.98, p <
0.001. The majority of the participants (74.60%) who were exposed to a brand indicated
correctly that they noticed a brand. Regarding the condition without a brand, most of the
participants (88.40%) correctly stated that they did not notice a brand. In addition, there was a
significant difference between groups regarding brand memory, χ2(1) = 58.31, p < 0.001.
Most of the participants (75.40%) who were part of the conditions with brand indicated that
they saw a brand. The majority of the participants (90.70%) who were part of the condition
without a brand reported to have not seen a brand. Regarding alcohol recognition, there was
significant difference between conditions, χ2(1) = 59.52, p = 0.00. The majority of the
participants (74.70%) within the alcohol conditions reported to have noticed alcohol. In the
neutral conditions, 72 participants (83.70%) indicated that they did not see alcohol. With
respect to the closed question that measured advertising recognition, a significant difference
between participants in disclosure conditions (M = 6.11; SD = 1.33) and conditions without
disclosure (M = 5.18; SD = 1.88), F(1, 171) = 13.90, p < 0.001 was found. Also, a significant
difference was found between conditions regarding the open-ended question, χ2(1) = 9.16, p =
19
that there was a disclosure present. However, only 26 participants (29.20%) who were part of
the conditions without a disclosure correctly reported that there was not a disclosure present,
whereas 63 participants (70.80%) in these conditions incorrectly reported that there was a
disclosure present. With respect to disclosure memory, a significant difference was found
between conditions, χ2(1) = 96.06, p < 0.001. Most of the participants (72.60%) who were
part of the disclosure conditions checked one or more of the disclosures. In the conditions
without a disclosure present, the majority of the participants (89.90%) did not report a
disclosure.
Randomization
Analyses of variance and chi-square analyses showed that respondents between the
alcohol and the neutral conditions did not differ regarding age, F(1, 171) = .00, p = 0.994,
average Instagram usage, F(1, 171) = .66, p = 0.417, daily Instagram usage, F(1, 171) = .48, p
= 0.490, familiarity with Liefmans, χ (1) = 0.05, p = 0.827, familiarity with Hero, χ(1) = 0.33,
p = 0.685, familiarity with the influencer, χ2(1) = .07, p = 0.820, whether they followed the
influencer on Instagram, χ2(1) = .40, p = 0.600, or alcohol consumption, F(1, 171) = .23, p =
0.633, demonstrating successful randomisation.
Analysis
To test hypotheses 1 and 3, a MANOVA was conducted with alcohol condition
(alcohol vs. neutral) and disclosure condition (sponsorship disclosure present vs. sponsorship
disclosure not present) as independent variables. Attitude toward alcohol and intention to
20
Multivariate tests showed no significant multivariate effect from alcohol-related posts,
Wilks’ lambda = 0.96, F(3, 167) = 2.24, ns. Sponsorship disclosure also did not have a multivariate effect, Wilks’ lambda = 0.99, F(3, 167) = 0.61, ns. In addition, no interaction
effect was found from alcohol-related posts and sponsorship disclosure, Wilks’ lambda =
0.99, F(3, 167) = 0.60, ns.
Regarding hypothesis 1a, no significant effects were found, F(1, 169) = 2.60, p =
0.109, ηp2= 0.015 and 1b, F(1, 169) = .12, p = 0.733, ηp2= 0.001, indicating that exposure to an alcohol-related post did not result in a more positive attitude toward alcohol nor a greater
intention to consume alcohol, compared to exposure to a more neutral post.
With respect to hypothesis 3a and 3b, the analysis showed no moderation effect from
disclosure on the relationship between post and attitude toward alcohol, F(1, 169) = 0.04, p =
0.847, ηp2< 0.001, and intention to consume alcohol, F(1, 169) = 0.05, p = 0.827, ηp2< 0.001. This means there were no significant differences in alcohol outcomes between respondents
who saw a sponsorship disclosure and respondents who did not see a sponsorship disclosure.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for attitude toward alcohol and intention to consume alcohol by conditions (N = 173)
Alcohol Neutral
Mean SD Mean SD
Attitude toward alcohol 4.63 0.97 4.38 1.07
Intention to consume alcohol 3.98 1.99 3.89 2.03 ___________________________________________________________________
21
In order to test hypotheses 2 and 4, Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2012) was used, with respectively Model 1 and Model 3. Regarding hypothesis 2a, results demonstrated that
the attachment subscale of PSI was not a significant moderator of the relation between
alcohol-related posts and attitude toward alcohol (b = -0.24, SE = 0.19, p = 0.199). A
significant moderation effect was found from the admiration subscale of PSI (b = -0.28, SE =
0.13, t = -2.12, p = 0.035). The conditional interaction effect of the admiration subscale of
PSI was positive and significant until value 3.00 (b = 0.598, SE = 0.23, t = 1.98, p = 0.049),
indicating that only for individuals who reported a low level of PSI, an alcohol-related post
resulted in a more positive attitude toward alcohol.
With respect to hypothesis 2b, findings indicated no significant moderation effect from
the attachment subscale of PSI on the relation between alcohol-related posts and intention to
consume alcohol (b = -0.10, SE = 0.37, p = 0.785). A significant moderation effect was found
from the admiration subscale of PSI (b = -0.55, SE = 0.26, t = -2.10, p = 0.037). The
conditional interaction effect of the admiration subscale of PSI was positive and significant
only at value 1.00 (b = 1.32, SE = 0.66, t = 1.99, p = 0.048), demonstrating that only for
participants who experienced low feelings of PSI, an alcohol-related post led to a higher
intention to consume alcohol. Additionally, marginal negative significant effects were found
from value 5.25 (b = -1.01, SE = 0.60, t = -1.67, p = 0.096), which implies that for
participants who experienced high feelings of PSI, exposure to an alcohol-related post led to a
lower intention to consume alcohol. However, this effect is only marginally significant.
Regarding hypothesis 4a, findings demonstrated that there is no significant three way
interaction between alcohol-related p, sponsorship disclosure and the attachment subscale of
PSI on attitude towards alcohol (b = 0.50, SE = 0.39, p = 0.199). Similar results were found
regarding the admiration subscale of PSI (b = -0.10 , SE = 0.27, p = 0.714). This implies that
22
present and who experienced high feelings of PSI did not have a more favourable attitude
toward alcohol compared to participants who saw a more neutral post with a sponsorship
disclosure and who felt low feelings of PSI.
With respect to hypothesis 4b, no significant three way interaction alcohol-related
posts, sponsorship disclosure and the attachment subscale of PSI on intention to drink alcohol
was found (b = 0.07, SE = 0.76, p = 0.924). Similar results were found regarding the
admiration subscale of PSI (b = 0.26, SE = 0.53, p = 0.629). This means that an
alcohol-related post without a sponsorship disclosure present in combination with high feelings of PSI
did not result in a stronger intention to consume alcohol compared to a more neutral post with
a sponsorship disclosure present in combination with low feelings of PSI.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine to what extent influencers’ alcohol-related Instagram posts influence students’ attitude and intention regarding alcohol. The study also
aimed to investigate to what degree sponsorship disclosure and PSI moderated these relations.
Assumptions were tested among 173 Dutch female students in an experimental design.
Results of the study firstly show that the expected influence from alcohol-related posts
has not been found: exposure to influencer’s alcohol-related posts did not result in a more
positive attitude nor a greater intention to consume alcohol, in comparison to more neutral
posts. An explanation for this unexpected finding could be that participants only saw one post.
This may not have been enough exposure in order to affect alcohol outcomes. Another
explanation may be that the average alcohol consumption among participants was low. They
may not be interested in alcohol enough in order to be affected by an alcohol-related post. In
23
advertisements in general. These studies show associations between exposure to alcohol
marketing and alcohol consumption among students (e.g., Smith & Foxcroft, 2009). However,
the relation between influencer marketing and alcohol outcomes may not be as
straightforward. Other factors may play a significant role regarding the persuasive abilities of
the content, such as the influencer’s perceived popularity (see De Veirman et al., 2017) or
advertising recognition (see Evans et al., 2017).
Second, significant moderating effects from PSI on the relations between
alcohol-related posts on alcohol outcomes were partly found. That is, only the admiration subscale of
PSI was found to cause significant effects. Interestingly, this subscale had a reversed effect:
only low feelings of PSI mitigated the influence of alcohol-related posts, so that it resulted in
a more positive attitude toward alcohol and a higher intention to consume alcohol, compared
to more neutral posts. A possible explanation for these contradictory findings could be the
perceived ‘’fit’’ between the influencer and the brand. Anna Nooshin does not (regularly)
share alcohol-related messages nor does she seem to endorse any alcohol brands. Liefmans
may therefore not align with her values. Participants who reported low feelings of PSI toward
Anna Nooshin may not be aware of this, whereas participants who experienced high feelings
of PSI are likely more familiar with the influencer’s values.
Third, no moderation effect of sponsorship disclosure was found. This means that a
disclosure did not mitigate a potential effect of alcohol-related posts on alcohol outcomes. A
clarification for this unanticipated finding may be that the majority of participants who were
in the conditions without a disclosure present believed that the post they saw to be an
advertisement. Thus, a disclosure did not have an effect. Influencers’ posts were still regarded
24
Fourth, the expected three-way interaction between alcohol-related posts, sponsorship
disclosure and PSI on alcohol outcomes was not found. The same clarifications given for the
unexpected results of hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 could explain this unexpected finding.
Limitations and Future Research
Similar to other studies, this research has not been conducted without its limitations.
First of all, results of this study may be hard to generalize to other female students, as students
in general drink more (Hoffman et al., 2014; Trubendorffer, n.d.) compared to the low
average alcohol intake of the participants in the current study. Second, participants were
exposed to only one post. This may not be sufficient in order to affect individuals’ attitudes
and intentions. Future research could investigate whether showing more posts results in
different findings. Third, comments were removed from the stimulus material, as they could
have driven attention away from the picture and text. While this improves internal validity, it
reduces the ecological validity of the study. Moreover, this could influence the outcomes of
the study as people may be affected by perceptions of others. Fourth, there exist other
variables besides PSI and sponsorship disclosure that could mitigate (i.e., moderate) or
explain (i.e., mediate) the potential persuasive effects of these posts. Prior studies that
investigated influence from endorsers of brands on perceptions regarding these brands,
showed that certain characteristics of celebrity endorsers could positively affect the
successfulness of the advertisement (Bergkvist, Hjalmarson & Magi, 2016). For instance, the ‘’fit’’ between the influencer and the endorsed brand may be important, as suggested by the ‘’match-up hypothesis’’ (e.g., Till & Busler, 2000). Influencers are often specialized in a certain area (Lou & Yuan, 2019), which can make a campaign perceived as more credible if it
entails a brand that aligns with this particular niche (Hall, 2016). Source credibility, which can
25
of a message’’ (Ohanian, 1990), can influence individuals’ attitudes (Pornpitakpan, 2004). An
important determinant of source credibility is perceived popularity (Jin & Phua, 2014), which
individuals can derive from ‘’cues’’ on social media (Utz, 2010). Examples of these cues are
the user’s amount of friends (e.g., Tong, Van der Heide, Langwell & Walther, 2008; Utz,
2010) or followers (e.g., De Veirman et al., 2017; Jin & Phua, 2014). Future studies should
explore whether these factors influence the effects of exposure to influencers’ alcohol-related
posts.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Despite its limitations, this study contributes to the literature in several ways. It is the
first study to research influencer marketing in relation to alcohol outcomes. The
nonsignificant and contradictory results demonstrate the need for an improved theoretical
framework. Due to the growing popularity of influencer marketing and the potential harmful
effects alcohol advertising can have on young people’s drinking tendencies, it is relevant to investigate the effects of alcohol-related posts on alcohol outcomes further.
An important finding of the study was the negative moderation of the admiration PSI
subscale on the relation between alcohol-related posts and alcohol outcomes. This contradicts
prior research that have shown positive associations between PSI and smoking attitudes and
intentions (Phua et al., 2018) and purchase tendencies (Kim et al., 2015; Xiang et al., 2016).
In addition, one study found a positive moderated effect of PSI on the relation between
exposure to a thin media ideal and body satisfaction (Young et al., 2012). Presumably, the
contradictory findings can be explained by the lack of fit between the influencer and the
endorsed brand. The values of the endorsed brand and the ones of the influencer in the current
study plausibly did not align. Participants with high PSI reported reactions that may be more
26
participants with low PSI. The findings then support the notion that high PSI results in
responses similar to the media protagonist, while low PSI causes contrastive effects (Young et
al., 2012). However, these are assumptions and they should be tested further before making
any conclusive statements.
Furthermore, this study contributes to our understanding of advertising recognition on
Instagram. Previous research indicates that the presence of a sponsorship disclosure can
increase people’s awareness about the persuasive intent of a message (e.g., Boerman et al., 2012; Boerman et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2013; Evans et al., 2017). However, the current
study showed no differences regarding advertising recognition between participants in
conditions with and without a disclosure. This suggests that without the presence of a sponsorship disclosure, influencers’ post are still likely to be perceived as advertisements.
At a practical level, the results first of all indicate that PSIs play an important role in a campaign’s persuasive abilities. It seems crucial that the values of the influencer align with the values of the endorsed brand or product. An advice for brands would therefore be to form
partnerships with influencers that align with its values and vice versa. Secondly, findings
indicate that Instagram’s new influencer guidelines (see Hosie, 2018) may not be used
sufficiently by influencers. If they would be used correctly, users would not still perceive an
Instagram post without a proper disclosure as an advertisement. An advice for the social
network could be to make the use of disclosures more salient. For instance, by notifying a
user about their disclosure policy anytime they post anything. For influencers, the results
indicate that they should attempt to be more transparent about their endorsements. Users
27 References
Abidin, C. (2015). Communicative intimacies: Influencers and perceived
interconnectedness. Ada, 8, 1-16. Retrieved from https://adanewmedia.org/issues/
Abidin, C. (2016). Visibility labour: Engaging with influencers’ fashion brands and
#OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram. Media International Australia, 161(1), 86–100.
doi:10.1177/1329878X16665177
Agrawal, A.J. (2016). Why Influencer Marketing Will Explode in 2017. Retrieved
from https://www.forbes. com/sites/ajagrawal/2016/12/27/why-influencer-marketing-
will-explode-in-2017/#3bfaf85c20a9
Ahmad, I. (2018). The Influencer Marketing Revolution. Retrieved from https://
www.socialmediatoday.com/news/the-influencer-marketing-revolution-infographic/517146/
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organization Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bergkvist, L., Hjalmarson, H., & Mägi, A. W. (2016). A new model of how celebrity
endorsements work: attitude toward the endorsement as a mediator of celebrity source and
endorsement effects. International Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 171–184.
doi:10.1080/02650487.2015.1024384
Boerman, S. C., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2016). Informing consumers about
28
De Pelsmacker (ed.), Advertising in new formats and media: Current research and
Implications for marketers (pp. 115–146). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship
disclosure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of
Communication, 62(6), 1047–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01677.x
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2016.12.002
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2014.909296
Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. (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), 483–495.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.10.012
Cho, C. H., & Cheon, H.J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the
internet?. Journal of advertising, 33(4), 89–97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2004.10639175
De Media 100. (2019). DeInfluencer50. Retrieved from
http://www.demedia100.nl/deinfluencer50.html
de Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram
29
attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798–828.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035
Evans, N. J., Phua, J., Lim, J., & Jun, H. (2017). Disclosing instagram influencer
advertising: The effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, and
behavioral intent. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17(2), 138–149.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2017.1366885
Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W., Kirmani, A., & Smit, E. G. (2015). A typology of
consumer strategies for resisting advertising, and a review of mechanisms for countering
them. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 6–16. doi:10.1080/02650487.2014.995284
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people
cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.
doi:10.1086/209380
Hall, J. (2015). Build Authentic Audience Experiences through Influencer Marketing.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnhall/2015/12/17/buildauthentic-
audience-experiences-through-influencer-marketing/# 589d25fa4ff2.
Hall, K. (2016). The Importance of Authenticity in Influencer Marketing. Retrieved
from https://www.sproutcontent.com/blog/the-importance-ofauthenticity-
in-influencer-marketing.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf
Hoffman, E. W., Pinkleton, B. E., Weintraub Austin, E., & Reyes-Velázquez, W. (2014). Exploring college students’ use of general and alcohol-related social media and their associations with alcohol-related behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 62(5), 328–
30
Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social
interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
Hosie, R. (2018). There's now an official guide for social media influencers posting
adverts. Retrieved from
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/social-media-influencers-adverts-guide-asa-law-instagram-cma-a8559406.html
Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S. H. (2016). “This is a sponsored blog post, but all opinions are my own”: The effects of sponsorship disclosure on responses to sponsored blog
posts. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 528–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.026
Jernigan, D., Noel, J., Landon, J., Thornton, N., & Lobstein, T. (2017). Alcohol
marketing and youth alcohol consumption: a systematic review of longitudinal studies
published since 2008. Addiction, 112, 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13591
Jin, S. A. A., & Phua, J. (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), 181–195.https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.827606
Kim, J. K. (2005). Parasocial interaction with favorite television characters. Korean
Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 19, 255–285
Kim, H., Ko, E., & Kim, J. (2015). SNS users' para-social relationships with
celebrities: social media effects on purchase intentions. Journal of Global Scholars of
Marketing Science, 25(3), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2015.1043690
Kim, J., & Song, H. (2016). Celebrity's self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial
relationships: A mediating role of social presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 570–
31
Labrecque, L. I. (2014). Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media
environments: The role of parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2),
134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.003
Levy, M. R. (1979). Watching TV news as para‐social interaction. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 23(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838157909363919
Lou, C., & Yuan, S. (2019). Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and
Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social Media. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501
Nelson, M. R., Wood, M. L., & Paek, H. J. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08900520903332626
Nicholls, J. (2012). Everyday, everywhere: alcohol marketing and social media—
current trends. Alcohol and alcoholism, 47(4), 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/ags043
Nordlund, J. E. (1978). Media interaction. Communication Research, 5(2), 150–175.
doi:10.1177/009365027800500202
Matthes, J., Schemer, C., & Wirth, W. (2007). More than meets the eye: Investigating
the hidden impact of brand placements in television magazines. International Journal of
Advertising, 26(4), 477–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2007.11073029 Medialogica. (2018). Alcoholreclame op Instagram. Retrieved from
https://www.human.nl/medialogica/kijk/online/alcoholreclame.html
Moreno, M. A., Christakis, D. A., Egan, K. G., Brockman, L. N., & Becker, T. (2012).
Associations between displayed alcohol references on Facebook and problem drinking among
college students. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 166(2), 157–163.
32
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191
Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Hahm, J. M. (2018). Celebrity-endorsed e-cigarette brand
Instagram advertisements: effects on young adults’ attitudes towards e-cigarettes and smoking intentions. Journal of health psychology, 23(4), 550–560.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317693912
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of
five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 243–81. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
Ridout, B., Campbell, A., & Ellis, L. (2012). ‘Off your Face (book)’: alcohol in online social identity construction and its relation to problem drinking in university students. Drug
and alcohol review, 31(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00277.x
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, para-social
interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12, 155–
180. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x
Salmon, C. T., & Atkin, C. (2003). Using media campaigns for health promotion.
In T.L. Thompson et al. (Eds), Handbook of health communication (pp.449–472). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Schau, H.J., & Gilly, M.C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal
web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), pp 385–404. doi:10.1086/378616
Seo, Y., Kim, J., Choi, Y. K., & Li, X. (2019). In “likes” we trust: likes, disclosures and firm-serving motives on social media. European Journal of Marketing.
33
Shrum, L. J., M. Liu, M. Nespoli, and T.M. Lowrey. 2012. Persuasion in the
marketplace: How theories of persuasion apply to marketing and advertising. In
J. Dillard and L. Shen (Eds.), The Persuasion Handbook (pp. 314–30). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage
Statista (2019). Netherlands: hours spent per day on social media, by age group 2017.
Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/861834/hours-per-day-on-social-media-in-the-netherlands-by-age-group/ (accessed March 1, 2019).
Smith, L. A., & Foxcroft, D. R. (2009). The effect of alcohol advertising, marketing
and portrayal on drinking behaviour in young people: systematic review of prospective cohort
studies. BMC public health, 9(51), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-51
Stern, B. B., Russell, C. A., & Russell, D. W. (2007). Hidden persuasions in soap
operas: Damaged heroines and negative consumer effects. International Journal of
Advertising, 26(1), 9–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2007.11072994
Sterling, K. L., Moore, R. S., Pitts, N., Duong, M., Ford, K. H., & Eriksen, M. P.
(2013). Exposure to celebrity-endorsed small cigar promotions and susceptibility to use
among young adult cigarette smokers. Journal of environmental and public health, 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/520286
Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness,
expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of
advertising, 29(3), 1–13.doi: 10.1080/00913367.2000.10673613
Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too much of a
good thing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on
Facebook. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 13(3), 531–549.
34
Trubendorffer (n.d.). Binge drinken | alcoholprobleem onder studenten. Retrieved
from https://www.trubendorffer.nl/alcoholprobleem-onder-studenten/
Utz, S. (2010). Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are:
How one's profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on
social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(2), 314–335.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01522.x
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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.620764
Varsamis, E. (2018). Are Social Media Influencers the Next-Generation Brand
Ambassadors?. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2018/06/13/aresocial-
media-influencers-the-next-generation-brandambassadors/# 2d8b9e82473d.
Winpenny, E. M., Marteau, T. M., & Nolte, E. (2013). Exposure of children and
adolescents to alcohol marketing on social media websites. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 49(2),
154–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agt174
Xiang, L., Zheng, X., Lee, M. K., & Zhao, D. (2016). Exploring consumers’ impulse
buying behavior on social commerce platform: The role of parasocial
interaction. International Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 333–347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.002
Young, A. F., Gabriel, S., & Sechrist, G. B. (2012). The skinny on celebrities:
Parasocial relationships moderate the effects of thin media figures on women’s body image. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 659–666.
35 Appendix A: Stimulus Materials
Condition 1: Alcohol post with sponsorship disclosure.
36 Condition 3: Neutral post with sponsorship disclosure.
37 Appendix B: Survey
Informatieblad
Beste student,
Je bent uitgenodigd deel te nemen aan een onderzoek dat wordt uitgevoerd onder
verantwoordelijkheid van onderzoeksinstituut ASCoR, onderdeel van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. ASCoR doet wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar media en communicatie in de samenleving. Het onderzoek waarvoor ik je medewerking heb gevraagd, is getiteld ‘Instagramgebruik onder studerende vrouwen.’ Aan dit onderzoek kunnen vrouwelijke studenten met een Instagram account deelnemen. In de online survey zul je vragen
beantwoorden over je Instagramgebruik. Het doel van het onderzoek is om meer te weten te komen over Instagramgebruik onder studenten en de effecten hiervan. Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal ongeveer 10 minuten duren. Omdat dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd onder de verantwoordelijkheid van ASCoR, Universiteit van Amsterdam, heb je de garantie dat:
1. Je anonimiteit is gewaarborgd en dat je antwoorden of gegevens onder geen enkele
voorwaarde aan derden zullen worden verstrekt, tenzij je hiervoor van tevoren uitdrukkelijke toestemming hebt verleend.
2. Je zonder opgaaf van redenen kunt weigeren mee te doen aan het onderzoek of je deelname voortijdig kunt afbreken. Ook kun je achteraf (binnen zeven dagen na deelname) je
toestemming intrekken voor het gebruik van je antwoorden of gegevens voor het onderzoek. 3. Deelname aan het onderzoek geen noemenswaardige risico’s of ongemakken voor je met zich meebrengt, geen moedwillige misleiding plaatsvindt, en je niet met expliciet
aanstootgevend materiaal zult worden geconfronteerd.
Voor meer informatie over dit onderzoek en de uitnodiging tot deelname kun je te allen tijde contact opnemen met Zenna Guijt, per adres: Universiteit van Amsterdam,
postbus 15791, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; zenna.guijt@student.uva.nl. Mocht je naar aanleiding van je deelname aan dit onderzoek toch klachten of opmerkingen hebben over het verloop van het onderzoek en de daarbij gevolgde procedure, dan kun je contact opnemen met het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat,
020-38
525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl. Een vertrouwelijke behandeling van je klacht of opmerking is daarbij gewaarborgd.
Ik hoop je hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd en bedank je bij voorbaat hartelijk voor je deelname aan dit onderzoek dat voor mij van grote waarde is.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Zenna Guijt
Informed consent
Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard en methode van het onderzoek, zoals uiteengezet in de uitnodigingsmail voor dit onderzoek.
Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud daarbij het recht deze instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden hoef op te geven. Ik besef dat ik op elk moment mag stoppen met het onderzoek.
Als mijn onderzoeksresultaten gebruikt worden in wetenschappelijke publicaties, of op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, dan zal dit volledig geanonimiseerd gebeuren. Mijn persoonsgegevens worden niet door derden ingezien zonder mijn uitdrukkelijke toestemming. Als ik meer informatie wil, nu of in de toekomst, dan kan ik me wenden tot Zenna
Guijt, per adres: Universiteit van Amsterdam, postbus 15791, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; zenna.guijt@student.uva.nl. Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kan ik me wenden tot het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, postbus 15791, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
39
Dank je wel voor je deelname. Je zult eerst wat korte vragen over jezelf beantwoorden.
A1. Heb je een Instagram account?
Nee
Ja
A2.Wat is je geslacht? Man
Vrouw
Zeg ik liever niet
A3.Wat is je leeftijd? ____
A4. Hoe vaak gebruik je gemiddeld Instagram? (hiermee wordt bedoeld de applicatie openen of naar de website gaan)
Minder dan een keer per maand
Maandelijks
Een keer per week
Meerdere keren per week
Een keer per dag
Twee tot vier keer per dag
Vijf keer tot zeven keer per dag
Acht keer per dag of vaker
A5. Gemiddeld genomen, hoeveel uren en/of minuten gebruik je Instagram dagelijks? (Mocht je geen uren en/of minuten Instagram gebruiken, vul dan het getal 0 in.)
Aantal uur ____
40 M
o
Op de volgende pagina zul je een Instagram post te zien krijgen. Neem de tijd om deze post goed te bekijken. Na 10 seconden kun je doorklikken en een aantal vragen beantwoorden over de post.
C1. Zag je een merk in de Instagram post die je zojuist gezien hebt? Nee
Ja
Ik weet het niet meer
C2. Welk merk zag je in de post? Fanta
Liefmans Heineken
Hero
Ik weet het niet meer
Ik heb geen merk in de post gezien
