Good Content is King: How Argument Quality and Sponsorship
Disclosure Timing in Online Blog Reviews Affect Consumer
Responses
By:
Niels van der Plas (11194995)
Master’s Thesis for Master’s Programme Communication Science
Graduate School of Communication
Supervised by:
dr. Young-shin Lim
1 Abstract
Since the U.S. Federal Trade Commission launched their new regulations regarding
sponsorship disclosures for online content, both academics and marketers have devoted a fair
share of their time to answering the question “what is an effective sponsorship disclosure?”.
With an online experiment, this study examines the effects of argument quality (high vs. low)
and sponsorship disclosure timing (before vs. after) on brand attitude, through perceived
blogger trustworthiness and perceived blogger expertise in the context of a sponsored blog
review. Argument quality was found to be significant predictor of perceived blogger
trustworthiness, perceived blogger expertise and brand attitude. Unexpectedly, sponsorship
disclosure timing showed no significant direct effects on perceived trustworthiness or
perceived expertise. A significant interaction effect between argument quality and
sponsorship disclosure timing was found with perceived blogger trustworthiness as the
dependent variable. In further support of the source credibility theory, both perceived blogger
trustworthiness and perceived blogger expertise were found to have a significant positive
effect on brand attitude. Results from the analyses also show that the relationship between
argument quality and brand attitude is mediated by both perceived trustworthiness and
perceived expertise. Possible explanations for these results are proposed, as well as limitations
of the study and suggestions for future research. This study contributes to a better
understanding of sponsorship disclosures and further emphasizes the necessity of high quality
argumentation in sponsored content.
Keywords: Argument Quality, Sponsored Content, Blogs, Blogger Trustworthiness,
2
Good Content is King: How Argument Quality and Sponsorship Disclosure Timing in Online Blog
Reviews Affect Consumer Responses
The growing influence of popular bloggers has not gone unnoticed by brands and
organizations exploring opportunities to promote their products and services (Hsu & Lin,
2008). Smudde (2005) defines blogging as continually posting one’s own opinions, ideas and
other elements on an online weblog. Businesses and organizations are, at an increasing rate,
exploring opportunities to exploit blogs commercially. According to Mendoza (2010), the
influence of popular bloggers continues to grow and some have reached a status similar to
that of celebrities. Unsurprisingly, brands are eager to promote their products or services
through bloggers that have a substantial loyal follower base (Hsu & Lin, 2008).
Promotion of products of services through bloggers often takes the form of product or
service reviews that are sponsored by a brand. Generally, marketers provide bloggers with a
free product or service in exchange for a positive review. However, as the reach and
popularity of bloggers increases, so does the sponsorship that they can demand. Nowadays,
popular bloggers often receive monetary compensation for a positive review. Boerman and
van Reijmersdal (2016) define sponsored content as the purposeful integration of brands or
branded persuasive messages into traditionally editorial media content, in exchange for
compensation from the sponsor. In the case of a sponsored blog review, the commercial
message from the brand is integrated into the traditionally non-commercial media outlet (i.e.
the blog). With a sponsored blog review, advertisers can maintain a certain level of control
over the content and can cost-effectively address their persuasive messages to a very specific
audience by cooperating with the most relevant blogger (Chu & Kamal, 2008). Over the
years, bloggers have begun targeting niche audiences to differentiate themselves. This
development allows marketers to target very specific audiences through these specialized
3
In a sponsored product or service blog review, the lines between editorial and
commercial content are blurred and the commercial intent can sometimes be masked. As
such, advertisers may, to some degree, avoid the problem of advertising avoidance and
possibly reduce resistance towards the persuasive message (Wojdybski & Evans, 2016). This
form of advertising, known as native advertising, is promising for publishers and bloggers
because they can charge premiums for potentially avoiding the advertisement resistance that
occurs when an audience is exposed to a regular advertisement (Wojdybski & Evans, 2016).
To avoid the activation of consumer’s persuasion knowledge, which can lead to more critical processing, marketers aim to keep the true source of the persuasive message hidden.
Concerns about the growing practice of this form of hidden advertising in sponsored
blog reviews are growing. In 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) declared that
any sponsorship in a blog post must be disclosed to the audience. Later, in 2013, the FTC
published a set of guidelines containing the requirements for effective disclosures in online
media (Federal Trade Commission, 2013). The introduction of mandatory disclosures sparked
further interest in the topic from both academics and marketers. The answer to the question
“what is a successful sponsorship disclosure?” is relevant for academics, marketers, brands, bloggers, blog readers, and those in charge of sponsorship disclosure regulations. Recent
academic studies have explored sponsorship disclosures and revealed that disclosures do have
an impact on the effectiveness of this hidden marketing. Campbell, Mohr, and Verlegh (2013)
found that the timing of sponsorship disclosure in a blog influences the audiences’ brand
recall and attitude towards the brand. In their study, Carr and Hayes (2014) found differences
in effects between different levels of explicitness of a sponsorship disclosure.
In this era of content marketing, consumers are, in their daily lives, exposed to an
increasing number of messages, often from corporate sources. There are growing concerns
4
bloggers, it is essential that they maintain their relevance by providing high quality content to
their audiences. Zhang and Watts (2008) found a significant main effect for both source
credibility and argument quality on information adoption. Providing relevant content, with
strong argumentation, and being perceived as a credible source should thus be cornerstones
for every blogger.
The goal of this study is to expand the current knowledge of sponsorship disclosures
by including argument quality as a main independent variable and exploring the interaction
between argument quality and sponsorship disclosure timing as well as the mediating role of
perceived blogger trustworthiness and perceived blogger expertise. Brand attitude is the main
dependent variable.
A better understanding of disclosure effects and the role of argument quality in
sponsored blog reviews is essential for marketers working on marketing strategies that
involve sponsored blog reviews. Understanding the effects of disclosure timing is equally
relevant for those responsible for regulation as well as academics trying to understand
consumer responses to this relatively new form of advertising. The results of this study are
also important for bloggers, who, in some cases, can have real influence on consumers’
decision making.
In summary, the aim of this study is to investigate how the timing of sponsorship
disclosure in a blog review, combined with the quality of arguments, influences consumer
responses. The goal is to provide insights into the interaction effect between argument quality
and sponsorship disclosure timing in online blog reviews that will help regulators, marketers,
and bloggers deal with sponsored blog reviews. Furthermore, by exploring the effects of
argument quality, this study aims to provide insight into the role of high quality content for
5 Theoretical Framework
Argument quality. Arguments are linguistic procedures aimed at establishing the
validity of an assertion (Boller, Swasy, & Munch, 1990). This often occurs through the
presentation of a highly structured set of reasons in support of the assertion. Boller et al.
(1990) claim, based on Toulmin’s model of argumentation, that there are four crucial elements to an argument. Namely, claim assertions, evidence, authority and probability.
Assertions are a natural part of blog reviews as the bloggers are required to describe their
experiences with the reviewed product or service. To support the assertion, provision of
evidence is required. For online blog reviews, evidence generally takes the form of the
bloggers’ personal experience with the product or service as well as general product information (Wang & Chien, 2012).
Online reviews. The increasing reliance of consumers on online information to make
purchase decisions is an important factor for marketers that are considering to promote their
products or services through a blogger (Lee, Park, & Han, 2008). According to Dellarocas
(2003), consumers deeply value the opinions of other consumers when considering
purchasing a product or a service. A positive review from a credible and influential blogger
about a product or service could thus serve as a cue for consumers still in doubt about
purchasing the product or service (Bae & Lee, 2011).
Mudambi and Schuff (2010) found review depth (i.e., the extensiveness of the
information provided by the reviewer) to have a significant positive effect on the perceived
helpfulness of the review. Providing readers with a detailed analysis of the product or service
increases the chance of readers appreciating the review. Thus, if a blogger aims to increase the
perceived helpfulness of their product or service review, a thorough and well-structured
6 Information overload. In today’s hectic media environment, consumers all over the
world are exposed to an increasing number of, often sponsored, messages. As the popularity
and influence of bloggers grew, their increasing reach attracted the attention of marketers.
With the growing number of branded messages that are directed at consumers, it comes as no
surprise that consumers can reach a point of information overload: a state in which informed
decision making is negatively affected by the high amount of information that a person is
exposed to (Eppler & Mengis, 2004). In this state, the attention towards the content will be
limited as there is too much information to process properly. In an era where content is
perceived as the holy grail by many marketers, relevant and highly structured content is what
makes bloggers stand out.
Source credibility. The source credibility theory entails that audience members are
more likely to be persuaded by a message when the source of that message presents itself as
credible (Hovland, Janis, & Kelly, 1953; Ohanian, 1990). Within the current source
credibility models, trustworthiness and expertise are the most common dimensions of source
credibility. Trustworthiness is defined as “the perceived willingness of the source to make valid assertions” (McCracken, 1989, p. 311). That is, the extent to which the audience believes that the source of the message provides information in an honest way. Expertise
refers to “the perceived ability of the source to make valid assertions” (McCracken, 1989, p. 311). That is, the extent to which the source of the message is qualified to provide accurate
and valid information. Thus, information from sources that are perceived as experts and as
trustworthy is more likely to be adopted by the receivers.
However, consumers can be exposed to a blog review of a blogger that discloses little personal information on which the consumer could base their perception of trustworthiness or expertise. Chu and Kamal (2008) found that in such a scenario, the audience is likely to rely
7
on perceived argument quality to determine the perceived blogger trustworthiness and perceived blogger expertise. Therefore the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a: There is a significant positive relationship between argument quality and perceived blogger trustworthiness.
H1b: There is a significant positive relationship between argument quality and perceived blogger expertise.
Sponsorship disclosure. In 2009, the FTC declared that any type of sponsorship in a
blog post must be disclosed to the audience. Four years later, the FTC published a set of
guidelines with all the requirements for effective sponsorship disclosures in online media
(Federal Trade Commission, 2013). The regulations dictate that disclosures need to be
prominent, aligned with the sponsored content, and easy to understand for the audience.
Several studies examined the effect of sponsorship disclosures on consumer responses, with
contradictory results. Sponsorship disclosure was found to increase brand memory by serving
as a cue or prime to direct the attention of consumers towards the brand (Van Reijmersdal,
Tutaj, and Boerman, 2013). However, other studies failed to show any effects of sponsorship
disclosure on brand memory (Campbell et al., 2013; Tessitore & Geuens, 2013). Similarly,
studies on sponsorship disclosures have found mixed results when testing for the effect on
brand attitudes.
Sponsorship Disclosure Timing. The timing of sponsorship disclosure (i.e., a
disclosure being presented before, during or after exposure to the content) has been studied
before (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal & Neijens, 2014; Campbell et al., 2013), with
contradicting results. Boerman et al. (2014) conducted an experiment in which participants
were exposed to one of four different levels of disclosure timing. Participants were asked to
8
of the program either before exposure, concurrent with exposure, after exposure to the
content, or not at all. The authors found that disclosure before or concurrent with the brand
placement, as opposed to a disclosure after the brand placement or no disclosure at all,
resulted in more negative brand attitudes through higher levels of persuasion knowledge and
critical processing. Disclosing sponsorship before or concurrent with the placement, they
argue, enables the audience to critically assess the content and shield themselves against the
persuasive attempt.
The findings of the study by Campbell et al. (2013) contradict the previously
mentioned findings by Boerman et al. (2014). The authors found that disclosing the sponsored
nature of the television program after the participants were exposed to it yielded less
favourable brand attitudes than disclosing the sponsored nature before exposure or not
disclosing it at all (Campbell et al., 2013). The authors claim that consumers use flexible
correction to adjust their brand attitudes. With flexible correction, consumers re-evaluate the
content differently after being made aware of the sponsored nature. Consumers might feel
tricked by the product of the content if sponsorship is disclosed only after they were exposed
to it. As a result, their overall evaluation of the content as well as the attitude towards the
product is negatively affected.
Van Reijmersdal et al. (2013) argue that a disclosure of brand placement may be
perceived by the audience as both informative and helpful as it informs the audience of the
sponsored nature that otherwise would be hidden. However, disclosing sponsorship after
exposure to the content could be an indication for the audience that the author deliberately
masked the hidden advertising until the content was completely consumed.
Colliander and Dahlén (2011) found that blog readers expect bloggers to be honest
9
prefer. Thus, if a blogger writes a product or service review, the audience expects the blogger
to actually prefer that product or service over comparable offers. Disclosing the sponsored
nature of the review before exposing the audience to it, is thus likely to increase the perceived
credibility through the appreciation of honesty and sincerity. On the other hand, disclosing the
sponsored nature of the content only after exposing the audience to it might instigate feelings
of betrayal. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2a: There is a significant positive relationship between sponsorship disclosure timing and perceived blogger trustworthiness such disclosure before exposure to the blog review yields higher perceived blogger trustworthiness than disclosure after exposure to the blog review.
H2b: There is a significant positive relationship between sponsorship disclosure timing and perceived blogger expertise such disclosure before exposure to the blog review yields higher perceived blogger expertise than disclosure after exposure to the blog review.
Elaboration Likelihood Model. Based on the elaboration likelihood model (ELM),
an interaction effect between argument quality and sponsorship disclosure timing is expected.
The ELM posits that attitude-formation primarily depends on the level of message
elaboration, which in turn primarily depends on the audiences’ ability and motivation to do so
(Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann, 1983). Following the line of reasoning of the ELM, a
sponsorship disclosure can serve as a cue to instigate systematic and critical processing. Thus,
sponsorship disclosure before exposure to the blog review might lead to central processing of
the content. Central processing involves thoughtful consideration, critical thinking, and the
careful evaluation of information (Petty et al., 1983). Heuristic processing involves far less
10
argument quality will have a larger effect on perceived blogger trustworthiness and perceived
blogger expertise. If central processing occurs, it is expected that argument quality will have a
larger positive effect on perceived trustworthiness and expertise in the ‘high argument quality’ conditions whereas a larger negative effect is expected in the ‘low argument quality’ conditions. In the ‘sponsorship disclosure after exposure to the blog review’ conditions,
participants are less likely to critically assess the content. While they might use flexible
correction to alter their attitudes towards the blogger and reviewed product, this correction is
more likely to be based on a feeling of betrayal rather than the quality of arguments. Thus, an
interaction effect between argument quality and sponsorship disclosure is expected. It is
therefore hypothesized that:
H3a: There is a significant interaction effect between argument quality and sponsorship disclosure timing for perceived blogger trustworthiness.
H3b: There is a significant interaction effect between argument quality and sponsorship disclosure timing for perceived blogger expertise.
Source Credibility Theory. The third crucial element of argumentation according to
Toulmin’s argumentation model is authority (Toulmin, 2003). Authority is related to the source credibility that was mentioned earlier in the theoretical framework. According to the
source credibility theory, consumers are more likely to be persuaded by a message if the
source of the message comes across as a credible person (Hovland, Janis & Kelly, 1953;
Ohanian, 1990). Previous studies on source credibility theory found that both perceived
trustworthiness and perceived expertise play a critical role in persuading consumers by
influencing their attitudes (Harmon & Coney, 1982; McGinnies & Ward, 1980; Wu &
Shaffer, 1987). Being perceived as an expert on a certain topic and being considered a
11
rely on information that they deem irrelevant or biased. However, if a blogger manages to
retain his or her credibility and is perceived as an expert on a certain topic, the audience is
more likely to rely on the information that is presented in the blog (Chu & Kamal, 2008). It is
therefore hypothesized that:
H4a: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived blogger trustworthiness and brand attitude such that higher levels of perceived blogger trustworthiness yield more favourable brand attitudes.
H4b: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived blogger expertise and brand attitude such that higher levels of perceived blogger expertise yield more favourable brand attitudes.
Argument quality and information adoption. Zhang and Watts (2008) found a main
effect for argument quality on information adoption, meaning that information with higher
quality arguments is adopted faster by the audience. This main effect of argument quality on
information adoption is in line with findings by Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit (2011), who
found that consumers of brand-related content expose themselves to such content because
they require either information or entertainment. In other words, for those in need of
information, the use of relevant, and well-structured arguments increases the likelihood of
information adoption. These findings support the assumption that high quality arguments ,
containing relevant information, in a blog review will yield more favourable brand attitudes
than low quality arguments.
As mentioned in the first paragraph of the theoretical framework, arguments are
linguistic procedures aimed at establishing the validity of an assertion (Boller et al., 1990).
According to Zhang and Watts (2008) the persuasive message is more likely to be adopted if
12
well-structured and provides clear argumentation in favor of a certain product or service, the
attitude towards the reviewed product and the brand will change accordingly. It is therefore
hypothesized that:
H5: There is a significant positive relationship between argument quality and brand attitude.
Mediation effect of perceived trustworthiness and perceived expertise. Perceived
trustworthiness and perceived expertise have been found to play a critical role in persuading
audiences and influencing brand attitude (Harmon & Coney, 1982; McGinnies & Ward, 1980;
Wu & Shaffer, 1987). However, the mediating roles that perceived trustworthiness and
perceived expertise play in the relation between argument quality and brand attitude are
relatively unexplored. Reimer, Mata, and Stoecklin (2004) found a partial mediation effect of
perceived source expertise on the relationship between argument quality and brand attitude.
The authors argue that systematic processing of information includes a direct as well as an
indirect path to subsequent attitudes. Additionally, they argue that audience members are
likely to rely more on perceived credibility than is generally expected in persuasion literature
(Reimer et al., 2004).
Based on Lupia and McCubbins’ (2000) study on political advertisements, it is argued that a credible blog reviews resonates with the audience. That is, when the content of the blog
is in line with the expectations of the audience. Thus, blog reviews are expected to be most
effective if they fulfil the expectations of the audience. As mentioned previously, Muntinga et
al. (2011) found that consumers expose themselves to brand-related content for either
entertainment or information. By providing relevant, thorough, and detailed information about
the reviewed product or service, the likelihood that information from the blog review is
13
credibility primarily increases the utilitarian function reviews, indicating that that the direct of
argument quality on brand attitude might be mediated by perceived trustworthiness and
perceived expertise.
Based on the review and discussion of the literature, the following hypotheses are
proposed regarding the mediating effects of perceived blogger trustworthiness and perceived
blogger expertise:
H6a: Perceived blogger trustworthiness mediates the relationship between argument quality and brand attitude.
H6b: Perceived blogger expertise mediates the relationship between argument quality and brand attitude.
Conceptual model. To consolidate the proposed hypotheses and clarify the associations
between the research variables, a conceptual model has been developed (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
Sponsorship Disclosure Timing Perceived Credibility - Perceived Blogger Trustworthiness - Perceived Blogger Expertise
14 Method
Participants. The analyses were conducted with a sample that consisted of 150
participants (48.7% men, 51.3% women) with an average age of 26.01 (SD = 7.38).
Participants were recruited through social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and
through personal networks. Most participants were highly educated. The highest achieved
education was a bachelor’s degree for 49,3% (N = 74) of participants, a master’s degree for 25,3% (N = 38) and high school or less for 25,3% (N = 38) of participants.
Study design. This study examines whether there is an interaction effect between
argument quality and sponsorship disclosure timing on perceived blogger trustworthiness and
perceived blogger expertise in the context of a sponsored blog review. In addition, the
mediating roles of perceived blogger trustworthiness and perceived blogger expertise on the
relation between argument quality and brand attitude are explored. The study employs a 2
(argument quality: high vs. low) x 2 (sponsorship disclosure timing: before exposure to the
blog review vs. after exposure to the blog review) between subjects design.
Stimulus Material. The blog review was designed from scratch and no information
about the blogger was displayed to the participants. Both the ‘high argument quality’ blog
review and the ‘low argument quality’ blog review contained seven arguments and were
approximately 280 words long. The ‘high argument quality’ blog review provided relevant
arguments in favour of the reviewed product and quoted findings from a credible source (i.e.
the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) whereas the ‘low argument quality’ blog review
contained irrelevant arguments about the factory the product was made in, as well as personal
opinions from family members based on articles they had read on social media. Only
disclosure timing and quality of arguments differed between the experimental conditions, the
15
stimuli materials are included in appendix D. A fictive brand was invented to prevent any
previous experiences with an existing brand from influencing the findings.
For the experiment, the guidelines for clear and unambiguous disclosures, as
mentioned in the publications by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission, 2013), were followed.
The disclosure was to the point, no other cues served as distractions in the post, and the
language was easy to understand for the participants. Participants were exposed to a
sponsorship disclosure saying “Core Food Company paid me for a review of this product” either before or after reading the blog. Some white space was placed between the text and the
disclosure in case of the ‘disclosure after exposure to the blog review’ experimental
conditions to ensure that participants would not be exposed to the disclosure before finishing
reading the blog.
Procedure. The online experiment took place through Qualtrics. Participants were
formally asked to complete the online experiment on their laptop or desktop as the stimuli
material was difficult to read on mobile devices.
Prior to exposure to the blog review, participants were presented a welcome text
introducing the online experiment and explaining the ethical standards under which this
experiment was developed (see Appendix A). Subsequently, participants were randomly
assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. Following exposure to the stimuli
material, participants were asked questions about perceived source credibility, argument
quality, brand attitude, and the control variables: health consciousness, product involvement,
and blog review reliance.
Measures
Argument Quality. The variable argument quality was measured using seven items,
16
and Han (2008), and Nabi and Hendriks (2003). Based on findings in the pre-test, the item
easy to understand / difficult to understand from Lee, Park and Han (2008) was excluded.
Participants were asked to indicate their overall feelings towards the arguments presented in
the blog review on a three-item, seven-point semantic differential scale anchored by
irrelevant/relevant, unreliable/reliable, and insufficient/sufficient, and a four-item seven-point
semantic differential scale anchored by weak/strong, bad/good, invalid/valid and
unconvincing/convincing (Cronbach’s α= .96; M = 3.14, SD = 1.47).
Perceived blogger trustworthiness. The variable perceived blogger trustworthiness
was measured using four items, each on a seven-point semantic differential scale. The scale
was based on Ohanian’s (1990) source credibility model anchored by dishonest/honest, insincere/sincere, unreliable/reliable, and untrustworthy/trustworthy (Cronbach’s α= .90; M =
3.19, SD = 1.34).
Perceived Blogger Expertise. The variable perceived blogger expertise was measured
using five items, each on a seven-point semantic differential scale. The scale was based on
Ohanian’s (1990) source credibility model anchored by not an expert/an expert,
inexperienced/experienced, not knowledgeable/knowledgeable, unqualified/qualified and
unskilled/skilled (Cronbach’s α= .96; M = 2.96, SD = 1.46).
Brand attitude. The variable brand attitude was measured using five items based on a
study by Priester and Petty (2003). Participants were asked to indicate their overall feelings
about the reviewed product, Core Food Company’s Superfood, Nuts & Seeds mix.
Participants were asked to select the point that best described their feelings toward the product
on a five-item seven-point semantic differential scale anchored by harmful/beneficial,
foolish/wise, bad/good, unfavourable/favourable and negative/positive (Cronbach’s α = .94;
17 Control variables. To ensure that the results of the experiment could not have been
caused by possible differences between the experimental groups, several control variables
were included. With regard to the product that the fictional product was based on, participants
were asked whether they knew of the Superfood, Nuts & Seeds mix from Body en Fit (1 =
yes, 2 = no). In total, 11.33% (n = 17) of the 150 participants indicated to be familiar with the
Superfood, Nuts & Seeds mix from Body en Fitshop that the fictional product was based on.
Of those who were aware of the product by Body en Fit, none recognized the packaging that
the fictional product was based on. Randomization analyses indicated that there were no
significant differences between the experimental conditions in terms of health consciousness,
product involvement, blog review reliance or any of the demographic variables. Thus, no
control variables were included as covariates in subsequent analyses.
Results
Manipulation Checks. Sponsorship disclosure timing was one of the main
independent variables of the study. Therefore, it was crucial that the participants actually
noticed the disclosure and were exposed to the disclosure at the right moment. Two items
were used to measure whether the sponsorship disclosure timing was successfully
manipulated. First, respondents were asked “While reading the blog review, have you
received any information that the review was sponsored by Core Food Company?” answering
yes/no to ensure successful manipulation of sponsorship disclosure. Subsequently, to measure
the manipulation of sponsorship disclosure timing, respondents were asked “At what moment were you made aware that the blog was sponsored?” answering before/after. A Chi Square analysis was conducted to measure whether the manipulation of sponsorship disclosure timing
was successful. The results indicate that sponsorship disclosure timing was significantly
manipulated, χ2
18
Regardless of the successful manipulation of argument quality in the pre-test, a
one-way ANOVA was conducted to test whether argument quality was successfully manipulated.
The results indicate a successful manipulation of argument quality F(1,148) = 130.50, p = <
.001. The levels of perceived argument quality were statistically significantly higher in the
‘high argument quality’ condition (M = 4.14, SD = 1.18) than in the ‘low argument quality’ condition (M = 2.14, SD = .95).
Hypotheses Testing. A two-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the main effects
of argument quality and sponsorship disclosure timing on perceived blogger trustworthiness
(H1a and H2a) as well as the interaction effect between argument quality and sponsorship
disclosure timing (H3a). Argument quality included two levels (high vs. low) and disclosure
timing consisted of two levels (before vs. after). The main effect of argument quality on
perceived blogger trustworthiness yielded an F ratio of F(1,146) = 32.18, p = < .001, η2 = .18,
indicating a significant difference between high argument quality (M = 3.73, SD = 1.28) and
low argument quality (M = 2.65, SD = 1.17). Thus, H1a is supported.
The main effect for sponsorship disclosure timing yielded an F ratio of F(1,146) = .27,
p = .60, η2 = .002, indicating that the effect for disclosure timing was not significant. There
was no statistically significant difference between disclosure before (M = 3.25, SD = 1.42),
and disclosure after (M = 3.14, SD = 1.27). Thus, H2a is not supported. The interaction effect
between argument quality and sponsorship disclosure timing on perceived blogger
trustworthiness was found to be significant, F(1,146) = 7.26, p = < .001, η2 = .05. Thus, H3a
is supported.
Similarly, a two-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the main effects of
argument quality and sponsorship disclosure timing on perceived blogger expertise (H1b and
19
timing (H3b). The main effect for argument quality on perceived blogger expertise yielded an
F ratio of F(1,146) = 104.64, p = < .001, η2 = .42, indicating a significant difference between
high argument quality (M = 3.89, SD = 1.23) and low argument quality (M = 2.03, SD = 1.01).
Thus, H1b is supported. The main effect for sponsorship disclosure timing yielded an F ratio
of F(1,146) =.09, p = .76, η2 = .001, indicating that the effect for disclosure timing was not
significant. There was no statistically significant difference between disclosure before (M =
2.93, SD = 1.57), and disclosure after (M = 2.99, SD = 1.36). Thus, H2b is not supported. The
interaction effect between argument quality and sponsorship disclosure timing on perceived
blogger expertise was found to be insignificant F(1,146) = 1.56, p = .21 η2 = .01. Thus, H3b
is not supported.
Based on the source credibility theory, it was hypothesized that both perceived blogger
trustworthiness and perceived blogger expertise would have a significant positive effect on
brand attitude (H4a and H4b). It was hypothesized that argument quality would have a
significant positive effect on brand attitude (H5), and that perceived blogger trustworthiness
and perceived blogger expertise would mediate the relationship between argument quality and
brand attitude (H6a and H6b).
To test these hypotheses, a regression analysis was conducted using the PROCESS
Macro Model 4 in SPSS with ‘argument quality’ as independent variable, ‘perceived blogger
trustworthiness’ and ‘perceived blogger expertise’ as mediators, and ‘brand attitude’ as dependent variable. Sponsorship disclosure timing was included as a covariate. The indirect
effects were measured with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) based on 5,000
bootstrap samples (Hayes, 2013).
The regression model with brand attitude as dependent variable, and argument quality,
20
was found to be significant, F(3, 146) = 46.15, p < .001. The regression model can therefore
be used to predict brand attitude. The strength of the prediction is moderate: 49% of the
variance in brand attitude can be explained by argument quality, perceived blogger
trustworthiness, and perceived blogger expertise (R2 = .49). Argument quality b = 1.06, t =
6.13, p = < .001, 95% CI [.72, 1.40], perceived blogger trustworthiness b = .30, t = 4.50, p = <
.001, 95% CI [.17, .43] and perceived blogger expertise b = .32, t = 4.48, p = < .001, 95% CI
[.18, .47] were each found to be significantly related to brand attitude. Thus, hypotheses H4a,
H4b and H5 are supported.
Perceived blogger trustworthiness and perceived blogger expertise were expected to
function as mediators for the relationship between argument quality and brand attitude. The
mediation effect of perceived blogger trustworthiness was found to be significant: point
estimate = .33 (SE = .09), 95% bootstrap CI = [.18, .55]. Thus, H6a is supported. The
mediation effect of perceived blogger expertise was also found to be significant: point
estimate = .60 (SE = .17), 95% bootstrap CI = [.29, .95]. Thus, H6b is supported.
Discussion
In summary, the results show that the use of high quality arguments in a sponsored
blog review has a positive effect on perceived blogger trustworthiness, perceived blogger
expertise, and brand attitude. The results further demonstrate that timing of sponsorship
disclosure has no significant direct effects on perceived trustworthiness and perceived
expertise. A significant interaction between argument quality and sponsorship disclosure
timing was found for the dependent variable perceived blogger trustworthiness. The findings
indicate that source credibility is also a significant predictor of brand attitude in the context of
sponsored blog reviews. Both perceived trustworthiness and perceived expertise had a
21
were found to function as mediators for the relationship between argument quality and brand
attitude.
The results show that respondents rated brand attitude, perceived trustworthiness and
perceived blogger expertise significantly higher in the ‘high argument quality’ conditions than
in the ‘low argument quality’ conditions. This indicates that, in case of a sponsored product or
service review, the use of weak arguments can damage the credibility of bloggers as well as
the attitude towards the reviewed product or service. According to Colliander and Dahlén
(2011), consumers expect bloggers to write reviews only for products and services they
actually prefer. Weak argumentation in support of the product or service might be an
indication for the audience that the review was written solely for the monetary compensation
rather than for the purpose of promoting a product the blogger actually prefers.
Contradictory to the findings of previous studies (Boerman et al., 2014; Campbell et
al., 2013), the timing of sponsorship disclosure was found to have no significant direct effects
on consumer responses. This might indicate that for sponsored blog reviews, disclosure
timing is less relevant for predicting consumer responses. In the case of sponsored blog
reviews, it is reasonable to assume that the consumer who is confronted with it had either
been actively looking for information regarding the reviewed product or service, or is a
frequent reader of the blog. In these scenarios, it comes as no surprise that argument quality,
rather than the timing of sponsorship disclosure, has a significant effect on perceived
trustworthiness and perceived expertise. While sponsorship disclosure timing was found to
have significant effects on consumer responses in sponsored television content (Boerman et
al., 2014; Campbell et al., 2013), the findings of this study suggest that it is less relevant in
22
The findings do show a significant interaction effect between argument quality and
sponsorship disclosure timing. This might be an indication that central processing occurs
when sponsorship is disclosed before exposure to the blog review. From a marketers’
perspective, the findings of this study could suggest that sponsorship disclosure before
exposure to the content could potentially increase brand awareness and brand memory.
However, to benefit from the more thorough processing of content, the quality of arguments
in the blog review should be as high as possible. In this case, the perceived blogger
trustworthiness, perceived blogger expertise, and the attitude towards the brand will be
positively affected. However, careful and thorough processing of weak argumentation yields
the complete opposite effects. In this scenario, the perceived credibility of the blogger, as well
as the attitude towards the reviewed product or service will decrease.
The results of this study provide a validation of the source credibility theory in the
context of sponsored blog reviews. Higher levels of perceived blogger trustworthiness and
perceived blogger credibility were found to yield more favourable brand attitudes. These
findings are in line with previous findings that perceived trustworthiness and perceived
expertise positively influence brand attitude (Harmon & Coney, 1982; McGinnies & Ward,
1980; Wu & Shaffer, 1987). In other words, if a blogger is perceived as a trustworthy source
of information and an expert in a certain area, the audience is more likely to accept the
content of the blog. One implication is that sponsored blog reviews by niche bloggers could
be great opportunities for brands to promote their products or services to a very specific
audience.
In addition, the results of this study support the findings by Zhang and Watts (2008)
that higher argument quality increases the likelihood of information adoption. Brand attitude
was statistically significantly higher in the ‘high argument quality’ conditions than in the ‘low argument quality’ conditions, indicating that an assertion that is supported by well-structured
23
and relevant arguments is more likely to persuade those who are exposed to the message. If a
product or service review contains low quality arguments the information is more likely to be
rejected by the audience. In such a scenario, information adoption from the blog review will
be lower and the audience will be less likely to be persuaded by the review.
Perceived blogger trustworthiness and perceived blogger expertise were both found to
function as mediators for the relationship between argument quality and brand attitude. This
indicates that the positive relationship between argument quality and brand attitude is, at least
to some degree, explained by perceived blogger trustworthiness and perceived blogger
expertise. Thus, the previously mentioned direct effect of argument quality on brand attitude
is explained by both perceived trustworthiness and perceived expertise. This indicates that
argument quality only has an indirect effect on brand attitude, through perceived blogger
trustworthiness and perceived expertise.
Practical Implications. The findings of this study extend on past research conducted
on the effect that high quality arguments have on information adoption. The findings by
Zhang and Watts (2008) that high quality arguments lead to information adoption were
reproduced in the context of a sponsored blog review. In summary, the findings of this study
indicate that the use of high quality argumentation in a sponsored blog review is the key
factor in achieving the goals of both the sponsored brand as well as the blogger. By using high
quality arguments, the audience would be provided with the most relevant information about
the reviewed product or service whilst the perception of the blogger as being a trustworthy
and knowledgeable source of information is strengthened. As a result, the consumers’ attitude
towards the reviewed product or service is positively influenced.
The findings of this study have important implications now that sponsorship disclosure
24
disclosure timing, and the results of these studies have been mixed. The findings of the
present study indicate that timing of sponsorship disclosure seems of relatively low
importance in the case of sponsored blog reviews. However, the significant interaction effect
does indicate that sponsorship disclosure before exposure to the content might serve as a cue
for central processing. This finding is especially relevant for marketers aiming to increase the
levels of brand awareness and brand memory. If the content is processed more carefully,
consumers are more likely to remember the brand and product that were mentioned in the
blog review.
For those in charge of regulations regarding sponsorship disclosures in blog reviews,
the findings of this study have some practical value. They can be used in support of the
argument that disclosing sponsorship before exposure to the sponsored content will not have a
larger effect on perceived trustworthiness or perceived expertise of the blogger than
disclosure after exposure to the content.
Limitations and future research. First, it should be noted that the sample for this
experiment was, for the largest part, highly educated. This decreases the generalizability of
the results as a more representative sample might have showed different results. A follow-up
study with a representative sample could replicate the current study to further explore the
effects of education level on the interaction effect between argument quality and sponsorship
disclosure timing.
It should also be noted that no distinction could be made between those who regularly
read blogs and those who do not read blogs based on the questions in the survey. The
individual differences between participants who regularly read blogs and participants who
never read blogs may have influenced the results of this study. Thus, a follow-up study could
25
This follow-up study could provide new insights into the interaction between sponsorship
disclosures and argument quality in the context of sponsored blog reviews.
Finally, this study only included perceived blogger trustworthiness and perceived
blogger expertise as mediating variables. According to the source credibility theory however,
perceived source attractiveness plays an equally critical role in the persuasion process
(Ohanian, 1990). Source attractiveness was deliberately left out of the analyses because no
information about the source of the message was given to the audience during the experiment.
A follow-up study exploring the interaction between argument quality and sponsorship
disclosure timing in combination with perceived blogger attractiveness could provide valuable
additional insights. By manipulating and measuring source attractiveness, another dimension
of the interaction between argument quality and source credibility can be explored. Such a
study could provide a better understanding of the interaction between argument quality and
disclosure timing in the context of sponsored blog reviews.
Conclusion. This study sheds light on the importance of high quality arguments in
sponsored blog reviews. The findings also suggest that sponsorship disclosure timing does not
significantly influence the perceived trustworthiness or perceived expertise of the blogger. In
summary, the findings suggest that exposing consumers to high quality sponsored blog
reviews can be an effective strategy to promote products or services. A product or service
review with low quality arguments will damage the reputation of the blogger as well as the
attitude towards the reviewed product. While many marketers in this digital age believe that
‘content is king’, the findings of this study suggest that high quality content combined with strong argumentation is the true king.
26 References
Bae, S., & Lee, T. (2011). Product type and consumers’ perception of online consumer reviews. Electronic Markets, 21(4), 255-266.
Ballantine, P. W., & Au Yeung, C. (2015). The effects of review valence in organic versus sponsored blog sites on perceived credibility, brand attitude, and behavioural intentions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(4), 508-521.
Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of information science, 35(2), 180-191.
Boerman, S. C., & Reijmersdal, E. A. (2016). Informing Consumers about “Hidden” Advertising: A Literature Review of the Effects of Disclosing Sponsored Content. In Advertising in new formats and media: Current research and implications for
marketers (pp. 115-146). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Boerman, S. C., Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2014). Effects of sponsorship disclosure timing on the processing of sponsored content: A study on the effectiveness of
European disclosure regulations. Psychology & Marketing, 31(3), 214-224.
Boller, G. W., Swasy, J. L., & Munch, J. M. (1990). Conceptualizing argument quality via argument structure. NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 17.
Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. (2013). Can disclosures lead consumers to
resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosures timing and type of
response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 483-495.
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
27
Chu, S. C., & Kamal, S. (2008). The effect of perceived blogger credibility and argument quality on message elaboration and brand attitudes: An exploratory study. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 26-37.
Colliander, J., & Dahlén, M. (2011). Following the fashionable friend: The power of social media. Journal of advertising research, 51(1), 313-320.
Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management science, 49(10), 1407-1424.
Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The information society, 20(5), 325-344.
Federal Trade Commission. (2013). Disclosures: How to make effective disclosure in digital
advertising. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/
attachments/press-releases/ftc-staff-revises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines/
130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf
Harmon, R. R., & Coney, K. A. (1982). The persuasive effects of source credibility in buy and lease situations. Journal of Marketing research, 255-260.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change.
28
Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J. C. C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information &
management, 45(1), 65-74.
Lee, J., Park, D. H., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electronic commerce research
and applications, 7(3), 341-352.
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (2000). Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the
bounds of rationality. Cambridge University Press.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of consumer research, 16(3), 310-321.
McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 467-472.
Mendoza, M. (2010). I Blog. You Buy. How bloggers are creating a new generation of product endorsers. Digital Research & Publishing, 7, 114-122.
Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com, MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185-200.
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of
advertising, 30(1), 13-46.
Nabi, R. L., & Hendriks, A. (2003). The persuasive effect of host and audience reaction shots in television talk shows. Journal of Communication, 53(3), 527-543.
29
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of
advertising, 19(3), 39-52.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of consumer
research, 10(2), 135-146.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2003). The influence of spokesperson trustworthiness on message elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 408-421.
Reimer, T., Mata, R., & Stoecklin, M. (2004). The use of heuristics in persuasion: Deriving cues on source expertise from argument quality. Current Research in Social
Psychology, 10(6), 69-84.
Smudde, P. M. (2005). Blogging, ethics and public relations: A proactive and dialogic approach. Public Relations Quarterly, 50(3), 34.
Tessitore, T., & Geuens, M. (2013). PP for ‘product placement’or ‘puzzled public’? The effectiveness of symbols as warnings of product placement and the moderating role of brand recall. International Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 419-442.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Tutaj, K., & Boerman, S. C. (2013). The effects of brand placement disclosures on skepticism and brand memory. Communications-The European
30
Wang, C. C., & Chien, H. Y. (2012). Believe or Skepticism? An Empirical Study on
Individuals' Attitude to Blog Product Review. International Journal of Innovation,
Management and Technology, 3(4), 343.
Wojdynski, B. W., & Evans, N. J. (2016). Going native: Effects of disclosure position and language on the recognition and evaluation of online native advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 45(2), 157-168.
Wu, C., & Shaffer, D. R. (1987). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 52(4), 677.
Zhang, W., & Watts, S. A. (2008). Capitalizing on content: Information adoption in two online communities. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(2), 73.
31 Appendices
A. Introduction text
Dear participant,
With this message, I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam.
Please complete this survey on a desktop or laptop. It is possible to complete the survey on a mobile device but the blog post will be harder to read.
The title of the study for which I am requesting your cooperation is ‘An exploration of responses to online blogs’. You will be exposed to an online blog review. After reading the blog you will be presented with a series of questions concerning your reaction to the
blog. Participating in this study will take around 10 minutes of your time for which I am
very grateful.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:
1. Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express permission for this.
2. You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your
participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to
be used in the research.
3. Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any
appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you,
and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
4. No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
For more information about the research you are welcome to contact the project leader Niels van der Plas at any time at niels.vanderplas@student.uva.nl.
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the procedures it involves, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐ fmg@uva.nl. Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which I greatly appreciate.
Kind regards,
32
"I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the
right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware
that I may quit my participation in the experiment at any time.
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal
data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Niels.vanderplas@student.uva.nl. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl."
If you do not agree to the above terms and do not wish to proceed, please close this window now.
After you click through to the next page you will be presented with an online blog review. Please take your time to read this blog carefully and then answer all of the questions that follow. You will not be able to return to the blog review after you click through.
B. Survey
Q1-1 After reading the blog review, I think the author of this blog is:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Undependable:Dependable (1) Dishonest:Honest (2) Unreliable:Reliable (3) Insincere:Sincere (4) Untrustworthy:Trustworthy (5)
Q1-2 After reading the blog review, I think the author of this blog is:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)
Not an expert:An expert (1)
Inexperienced:Experienced (2) Not Knowledgeable:Knowledgeable (3) Unqualified:Qualified (4) Unskilled:Skilled (5)
33 Q2 On the scales below, indicate your feelings about the reviewed product, Core Food Company's Superfood, Nuts & Seeds mix. Please select the point that best describes your feelings towards the product, Core Food Company's Superfood, Nuts & Seeds mix.
Q3 Please state to what extent you agree with the following statements:
Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) While reading the blog review, I criticized the message of the author about Core Food Company's superfood, nuts & seeds mix. (1) While reading the blog review, I was skeptical towards the arguments presented in the blog about Core Food Company's superfood, nuts & seeds mix. (2) 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Harmful:Beneficial (1) Foolish:Wise (2) Bad:Good (3) Unfavourable:Favourable (4) Negative:Positive (5)
34 Q4-1 The arguments presented in the blog in favour of Core Food Company's Superfoods, Nuts & Seeds mix were:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Irrelevant:Relevant (1) Unreliable:Reliable (2) Unsufficient:Sufficient (3)
Q4-2 The arguments presented in the blog in favour of Core Food Company's Superfoods, Nuts & Seeds mix were:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Weak:Strong (1) Bad:Good (2) Invalid:Valid (3) Unconvincing:Convincing (4)
Q5-1 While reading the blog review, have you received any information that the review was sponsored by Core Food Company?
Yes (1) No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Block
Q5-2 At what moment were you made aware that the blog was sponsored? I was told the blog was sponsored before reading the blog (1)
35 Q6 The following questions are not related to the blog review you just read. Please indicate to what extent you agree to the following statements about blog reviews in general:
Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I can depend on getting the truth in
most blog reviews (1)
Blog reviews generally aim to inform the consumer
(2) I believe blog reviews are informative (3)
Blog reviews are
generally truthful (4)
Blog reviews are a reliable source of information about the quality and performance of products (5) In general, blog reviews present a true description of the product being
reviewed (6)
I feel I've been accurately informed
after viewing most blog reviews (7)
Most blog reviews provide consumers
with essential information (8)
36 Q7 Please select to what extent the following statements apply to you:
Does not describe you at all (1) Describes you a little (2) Describes you about 50/50 (3) describes you fairly well (4) Describes you very well (5) I reflect about my health a lot (1)
I'm very self-conscious about my health (2) I generally pay a lot of attention to my inner feelings about my health (3) I'm constantly examining my health (4) I'm alert to changes in my health (5) I'm usually aware of my health (6) I'm aware of the state of my health as I go through the day
(7) I notice how I feel physically as I go through the day (8) I'm very involved with my health (9)
37 Q8 Please indicate your overall feeling about Superfood products in general:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Unimportant:Important (1) Boring:Interesting (2) Irrelevant:Relevant (3) Unexciting:Exciting (4) Mean nothing to me:Mean a lot to me (5) Unappealing:Appealing (6) Mundane:Fascinating (7) Worthless:Valuable (8) Uninvolving:Involving (9) Not needed:Needed (10)
Q9 The next question is about your current feelings. Please select `Not telling you` regardless of how you are feeling at the moment. This way we will know you have carefully read the description of each question. Entertained (1) Irritated (2) Sad (3) Excited (4) Neutral (5) Angry (6)
38 Q10 What is your gender?
Male (1) Female (2)
Q11 What is you age? (please use 2 digits to answer)
Q12 What is the highest level of education you have completed? High school or lower (1)
Bachelor's Degree (2) Master's degree (3) PhD (4)
39 Q13 Please select the country of your nationality:
Afghanistan (1) Albania (2) Algeria (3) Andorra (4) Angola (5)
Antigua and Barbuda (6) Argentina (7) Armenia (8) Australia (9) Austria (10) Azerbaijan (11) Bahamas (12) Bahrain (13) Bangladesh (14) Barbados (15) Belarus (16) Belgium (17) Belize (18) Benin (19) Bhutan (20) Bolivia (21)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (22) Botswana (23) Brazil (24) Brunei Darussalam (25) Bulgaria (26) Burkina Faso (27) Burundi (28) Cambodia (29) Cameroon (30) Canada (31) Cape Verde (32)
Central African Republic (33) Chad (34)
Chile (35) China (36) Colombia (37) Comoros (38)
Congo, Republic of the... (39) Costa Rica (40)
Côte d'Ivoire (41) Croatia (42) Cuba (43) Cyprus (44)
40 Czech Republic (45)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (46) Democratic Republic of the Congo (47) Denmark (48) Djibouti (49) Dominica (50) Dominican Republic (51) Ecuador (52) Egypt (53) El Salvador (54) Equatorial Guinea (55) Eritrea (56) Estonia (57) Ethiopia (58) Fiji (59) Finland (60) France (61) Gabon (62) Gambia (63) Georgia (64) Germany (65) Ghana (66) Greece (67) Grenada (68) Guatemala (69) Guinea (70) Guinea-Bissau (71) Guyana (72) Haiti (73) Honduras (74)
Hong Kong (S.A.R.) (75) Hungary (76)
Iceland (77) India (78) Indonesia (79)
Iran, Islamic Republic of... (80) Iraq (81) Ireland (82) Israel (83) Italy (84) Jamaica (85) Japan (86) Jordan (87) Kazakhstan (88) Kenya (89)
