Theme 2.2: Persuasive effects of sponsored content and disclosures of sponsored content A Fine Line Between Authentic and Sponsored - A Study on Co-Branding Effects
Student: Mia C. Atkins 12392340 Supervisor: Sophie Boerman
University of Amsterdam
Master Track Persuasive Communication Date: June 28th, 2019
Abstract ... 1
Introduction ... 1
Theory ... 4
Advertising Disclosures and The Persuasion Knowledge Model ... 4
The Effect of Disclosures on Brand Attitude and Purchase Intention ... 5
The Effect of Disclosures on The Dual Credibility Model ... 6
The Moderating Effect of Product Placement Types on Persuasion Knowledge ... 7
The Moderating Effect of Product Placement Types on Marketing Outcomes ... 9
The Underlying Mechanism of Para-Social Interaction ... 10
The Moderated Serial Mediation Model ... 12
Methodology ... 12
Experimental Design and Sample ... 12
Pre-Test ... 13 Procedure ... 14 Stimulus Materials ... 15 Measures ... 15 Manipulation Check ... 17 Results ... 17
Manipulation and Randomization Check ... 18
Disclosure and Product Placement Type Effects ... 18
Moderating Effect of Product Placement Types ... 20
Mediation Models ... 20
Serial Mediation Model ... 21
Serial Moderated Mediation Model ... 22
Conclusion ... 26
Discussion ... 26
Habituating to Native Advertising ... 27
Advertising Recognition on Marketing Outcomes ... 28
Product Placement Ramifications ... 29
Para-Social Interaction ... 30
Implications for Managers ... 31
References ... 34
Appendix A ... 41
Appendix B ... 44
Appendix C ... 47
Abstract
The past decade has seen an influx of Instagram influencers who collaborate with brands, which has led to a large scale of consumers exposed to native advertising on Instagram. In response, the Federal Trade Commission has enforced disclosure guidelines. This study set out to explore the effect of sponsorship disclosures in combination with product placement types on raising ad recognition, the subsequent effect on para-social interaction, and the successive marketing outcomes. By using the renowned persuasion knowledge theory in combination with the dual-credibility model, managerial implications for both the company and the influencer could be made. This produced a 2 (sponsorship disclosure: disclosed vs. not disclosed) x 2 (Product placement type: explicit vs. moderate product placement)
between-subjects design. Results of the study (N = 181) showed that sponsorship disclosures did not evoke ad recognition, as the ad recognition was already quite high in the sample population. Ad recognition negatively predicted influencer trustworthiness and brand attitude, while level of PSI positively predicted influencer credibility, corporate credibility, brand attitude and purchase intention. Furthermore, explicit product placements posts have more negative consequences on the trustworthiness of an influencer than moderate product placement posts do. Lastly, there are no significant findings for serial moderated mediation models nor serial mediation models. This suggests that Instagram users do not need
disclosure cues to identify the commercial aim of the Instagram post as today’s young
females already have a high level of persuasion knowledge. However, this does not mean that consumers always use this ad literacy when making purchasing decisions. The perceived relation with the influencer appears to have a much larger impact on advertising outcomes.
Keywords: Persuasion knowledge model, dual-credibility model, sponsorship disclosures, Instagram, product placement types
Introduction
Companies are increasingly opting for advertising hybrids such as native advertising, aiming to minimize consumer’s resistance strategies that are caused by advertising
recognition (Lee, Kim & Ham, 2016). Native advertising can be conceptualized as branded content with the look and feel of content that users share on social media, making it appear more trustworthy and sincere. Most importantly, the persuasive intent of the message remains obscured (Amazeen & Wojdynski, 2018; Matteo & Zotto, 2015). The online platform
Instagram has been a profitable avenue for such advertising, with 800 million active users per month (“Social Media Use”, 2018). For brand managers, the use of influencer marketing as a native advertising tactic has become imperative, driving brand awareness, attitudes, and store traffic (Brouwer, 2017).
Despite the influx, the Federal Trade Commission has raised concerns whether the potency of native advertising is due to the consumer’s inability to recognize it as such (FTC, 2018). The concern is that consumers are more likely to respond positively towards native content than traditional advertising, possibly buying products they otherwise would not have (Campbell & Marks, 2015). This has ethical complications, as consumers should have the right to know when they are being subjected to advertising (Cain, 2011). In response to this, the FTC has created disclosure guidelines (Evans et al., 2017). While the FTC does not mandate specific wording, the disclosure has to be visible and conspicuous, without hidden or vague attempts (“Endorsement Guides”, 2019). Nonetheless, the issue persists that disclosure guidelines are broadly interpretable and thus the effectiveness of disclosures can become dependent on conditions such as characteristics of the disclosure or of the receiver (Boerman & van Reijmersdal, 2016).
Existing research on sponsorship disclosures in native advertising is prevalent, generally finding that ad recognition through sponsorship cues leads to negative consumer reactions (Boerman, Willemsen & van der Aa, 2017; Evans et al., 2017). However, recent
research has also found that consumers are readily habituating to native advertising (Jung & Heo, 2019; Johnson, Potocki & Veldhuis, 2019). Consumers can recognize native advertising by previous encounters with such advertising rather than through disclosures cues, which disputes the necessity of disclosures. Therefore, additive research is needed to examine if Instagram sponsorship disclosures remain useful in aiding consumers in identifying persuasive intent, but also which conditions determine its effectiveness. Persuasion knowledge literature has shown that sponsorship disclosures can lead to an increase in ad recognition on Instagram (Evans et al., 2017; Coursaris, van Osch & Kourganoff, 2018), which subsequently can have a negative effect on brand attitudes and purchase intention (Wojdynski & Evans, 2016). The first aim of this study is to replicate these previous findings of disclosures on behavioural and attitudinal outcomes.
Next to the known marketing outcomes of sponsorship disclosure effects, ad recognition is also found to lower influencer credibility (de Veirman & Hudders, 2019; Boerman, Willemsen & van der Aa, 2017) and trustworthiness (Main, Dahl & Darke, 2007). Jin and Muqaddam (2019) find that associations of influencer credibility can spill-over on corporate credibility, in line with the dual credibility model (Goldsmith et al., 2000). The second aim of this study is to analyze the effect of ad recognition through sponsorship
disclosures based on the dual credibility model (Goldsmith et al., 2000). This study postulates that if source credibility is damaged by sponsorship disclosures, corporate credibility could take a fall as well. To current knowledge, the dual credibility model as a consequence of persuasion knowledge on Instagram posts has not been studied before and offers a pertinent research gap for native advertising literature.
A moderator that could impact the effectiveness of sponsorship disclosures in evoking ad recognition is product placement type. Jin & Muqaddam (2019) established two Instagram product placement types, namely explicit placements, where only the product is visible, and
moderate placements, where the influencer is posing together with the sponsored product. Posts that are perceived as traditional advertising, are more likely to evoke ad recognition than personal posts portraying the influencer wearing the item (Kim, Lee & Chung, 2018). Sponsored posts that appear more natural (moderate placement) score higher on perceived source credibility and brand attitudes, than posts that include products only (explicit placement) (Russel & Rasolofoarison, 2017). In sum, the third aim of this study is to
investigate if product placement types will moderate the effect of sponsorship disclosures on ad recognition and subsequently on brand attitude, purchase intention, influencer and
corporate credibility.
The final aim of this study is to investigate if the para-social relationship that
consumers have with the influencer could be an underlying mechanism to explain the effect of ad recognition on advertising outcomes. Para-social interaction literature has been investigated on various social platforms (PSI, Lee & Watkins, 2016; Tsai & Men, 2013; Chen, 2018). However, research on PSI to explain influencer marketing outcomes caused by sponsorship disclosures remains sparse. The rise of insta-fame has brought ‘personal
influence’ that could lead the follower to have feelings of intimacy and the illusion of a personal relationship (Tsai & Men, 2013). The resistance mechanisms triggered by ad recognition might be subdued by the pseudo-relationship, pardoning both the credibility of the influencer and brand (Jin & Muqaddam, 2019; Munnukka, Maity, Reinikainen, Luoma-aho, 2019). PSI can play a vital role for advertisers, as it can fuel purchase intentions and alter brand attitudes (Lee & Watkins, 2016; Hwang & Zhang, 2018). Therefore, the pseudo-relationship could also exonerate the negative reactions caused by ad recognition through sponsorship disclosures, thus alleviating the negative effects on brand attitude and purchase intentions (Hwang & Zhang, 2018).
The following research question has been formulated: Does exposure to sponsorship disclosure on an influencer’s Instagram post raise ad recognition and does this subsequently affect purchase intention, brand attitude, corporate credibility and influencer credibility? Additionally, does this effect of sponsorship disclosure on ad recognition differ when
interacting with product placement type? Lastly, can the negative effects of ad recognition on the credibility perceptions, purchase intention and brand attitude be mitigated by para-social interaction?
Theory
Advertising Disclosures and The Persuasion Knowledge Model
As this paper aims to address the effectiveness of sponsorship disclosures on endorsed Instagram posts, the study will draw on the persuasion knowledge model to explicate the effect of disclosures on activating ad recognition (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Persuasion knowledge refers to the comprehension of consumers regarding advertiser’s persuasive messages, consumer’s beliefs regarding its effectiveness, and their ability to cope with such tactics (Boerman et al., 2017). This understanding develops over time and allows consumers to not only recognize but also assess and remember persuasion efforts (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Once consumers have developed what constitutes persuasive intent, it can help activate coping strategies such as resistance, skepticism and distrusting beliefs (Evans et al., 2017; Boerman et al., 2017). Together, persuasion knowledge consists of a cognitive
dimension and an affective dimension (Boerman et al., 2018). According to literature, an enclosed disclosure that notifies the consumer will activate such persuasion knowledge and lead to recognition of the commercial intent (Evans, Wojdynski & Hoy, 2016).
Sponsorship disclosure labels can come in various forms, such as explicit and implicit text describing the endorsement, verbal audio disclosures, and built-in app features (e.g. Instagram’s branded content tool) (“The FTC’s Endorsement Guides”, n.d.; “Instagram
Business”, 2017). To test which disclosure language is the most effective for consumers, Evans and colleagues (2017) compared the disclosure types, “SP”, “Sponsored”, and “Paid Ad”. The disclosure “Paid Ad” was the most effective in raising advertising recognition. De Veirman and Hudders (2019) investigated the type of material connections in the disclosure, such as material or financial compensation, finding that a material connection disclosure had the strongest effect on ad skepticism compared to no disclosure. The field of disclosure research has not only delved into the various forms of disclosures but also on various
platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and Youtube (i.e. Boerman et al., 2017; Wojdynski & Evans, 2016; van Reijmersdal, Boerman, Buijzen & Rozendaal, 2016). Rather than
narrowing down the potency of various disclosure types, this study will focus on language (i.e. #PaidAd) as the disclosure source to communicate persuasive intent. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posed:
H1: A disclosure hashtag “#PaidAd” on an Instagram post will lead to increased ad recognition in comparison to an Instagram post without sponsorship disclosure.
The Effect of Disclosures on Brand Attitude and Purchase Intention
Following the activated persuasion knowledge, a sponsorship disclosure can also indirectly have consequences for marketing outcomes such as brand attitude and purchase intention (Johnson, Potocki & Veldhuis, 2019). According to resistance theories (Zuwerink & Cameron, 2003), consumers do not want to be persuaded by others, consequently activating resistance strategies (Boerman & van Reijmersdal, 2019). For an endorsed Instagram post, a disclosure notifying consumers of the persuasive intent should activate ad recognition, causing consumers to respond with negative cognitions, such as counterarguing, resulting in consumers rejecting the endorsed product message. Furthermore, the recognition of
persuasive intent will cause consumers to no longer perceive it as an authentic opinion, leading to more negative cognitions towards the endorsed product or brand (van Reijmersdal,
2016). The consequence of such coping strategies is found to have negative effects on marketing outcomes such as brand attitude, purchase intentions (Evans, Wojdynski & Hoy, 2016; van Reijmersdal et al., 2016) and sharing intentions (Boerman et al., 2017; Campbell & Evans, 2018). Overall, disclosure research suggests that disclosures have negative effects on marketing outcomes, mediated by activated persuasion knowledge. Based on existing literature, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2a: Exposure to advertising disclosure on Instagram posts will activate ad
recognition, which will lead to lower (a) brand attitude and (b) purchase intention than exposure to an Instagram post without sponsorship disclosure.
The Effect of Disclosures on The Dual Credibility Model
Other marketing related outcomes that may be caused by persuasion knowledge through disclosures are the perceived credibility of both the influencer and the corporation. The dual credibility theory proposed by Goldsmith and colleagues (2002) describes a dynamic relationship; both influencer and brand can benefit of each other’s perceived consumer attitudes and associations, while an incongruent match can harm both influencer and brand credibility perceptions through meaning transfer (Miller & Allen, 2012).
Sponsored posts offer such a dynamic dual credibility illustration, as one the one hand influencers can tag brands and lift off of their allure and status, while on the other hand, brands can enjoy added credibility by appealing and popular influencer posts (Jin & Muqaddam, 2019). Disclosure studies on Youtube vlogs and blogs have found that ad
recognition negatively affected influencer credibility (Evans et al., 2019; Janssen, van Sprang & Fransen, 2017). The revelation of hidden advertising and following negative reactions, will transfer towards the brand as well (Miller & Allen, 2012). Based on the suggested dynamic relationship, it is posited that the effect of disclosures and ad recognition on influencer credibility will also have a negative spill-over effect of associations on corporate credibility.
Influencer credibility is evaluated by consumers to the extent that a message’s influencer is believable and reliable (Rogers & Bhowmilk, 1970; Wilson & Sherrell, 1993). Ohanian (1990) validated the source credibility model with three dimensions, namely
attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise. Trustworthiness describes the extent to which a consumer has assurance and confidence in the truth of a source’s message (Ohanian, 1990). Similarly, young females report to feel more trust towards their Instagram community, including the celebrity endorsements (Djaforova & Rushworth, 2017). Expertise is defined as the degree to which the consumer believes the source has a certain amount of knowledge in a particular field above others, while perceived attractiveness is defined as the likeability of the source (Sokolova & Kefi, 2019) but also physical attractiveness (Baker & Churchill, 1977).
If ad recognition activated by disclosures can harm influencer credibility, this may also be true for corporate credibility. Negative reactions toward the influencer’s content activated by ad recognition could harm both parties of the co-branding effort (Lafferty, Goldsmith & Newell, 2002). Corporate credibility refers to the evaluation of consumers regarding the honesty and sincerity of the brand or organization (Goldsmith, Lafferty & Newell, 2000). According to Jin and Muqaddam (2019), corporation’s credibility can be damaged in Instagram collaborations as consumers render the brand deceitful for exploiting a sincere influencer’s content. This study then postulates that the sponsorship disclosure on an influencer’s Instagram post will harm both actors of the endorsement, as the negative
reactions activated by ad recognition towards the influencer will flow over towards the corporation. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2b: Exposure to advertising disclosure on an influencer’s Instagram post will lead to lower (a) influencer credibility and (b) corporate credibility than an Instagram post without sponsorship disclosure.
Next to disclosures, another condition that could activate persuasion knowledge is the explicitness of product placement types, which this study will explicate by discussing the warranting theory (Walther & Parks, 2002). Jin and Muqaddam (2019) have introduced two levels of product placement types for Instagram content, namely explicit and moderate. Respectively, this entails an Instagram post where only the product is visible versus a post where the influencer is shown with the product. For moderate product placements, because the influencer is shown it appears to be an authentic experience of the influencer and more akin to native advertising. In contrast, explicit product placements, are more alike to
traditional advertising and have more clear persuasive intent (Jin & Muqaddam, 2019). This paper then postulates that in relation to the persuasion knowledge theory, an explicit product placement would be more likely to activate ad recognition than a moderate product
placement, thus increasing the effect of a sponsorship disclosure on ad recognition. How consumers evaluate native advertising can be explained using the warranting theory by Walther and Parks (2002) and is dependent on how compatible different
advertising stimuli are to each other (Garretson & Niedrich, 2004). If influencer content does not appear to match with their typical content, consumers can ascertain if influencers have ulterior commercial motives besides authentic endorsement (Walther, van der Heide, Hamel & Shulman, 2009). However, if product placement within native advertising appears
authentic and expected, the persuasive intent is masked and thus increases the consumer’s endorsed product acceptance (Balasubramanian, Karhh & Patwardhan, 2006). According to the FTC (2018), this obfuscation would have ethical complications, suggesting a disclosure would be needed to guide consumers in activating their ad literacy. Therefore, this paper postulates that an Instagram post with a moderate product placement would not activate ad recognition, as the persuasive intent remains masked.
Consumers react more critically to explicit-product endorsements as this has clear persuasive intent (Jin, 2018). Cowley and Barron (2008) argue that explicit-product placements, albeit not labeled as advertising, can still be perceived as such. Therefore, the explicitness of a product placement can evoke ad recognition, which stands parallel to the effect of ad disclosures (Cowley & Barron, 2008). This similarity can be explained through the persuasion knowledge model, as increased prominence of a product or brand will lead to more cognitive processing (Friestad & Wright, 1994), counterarguing and irritation (Cowley & Barron, 2008). As both the explicitness of product placements and disclosures could lead to persuasion knowledge, the following hypothesis suggests an interaction effect on ad recognition:
H3: A sponsorship disclosure on an influencer’s Instagram post will be more likely to activate advertising recognition than a post without a sponsorship disclosure, and this effect will be more pronounced when the Instagram post includes an explicit product placement compared to a moderate product placement.
The Moderating Effect of Product Placement Types on Marketing Outcomes
Research indicates that the congruency of advertising stimuli can influence marketing outcomes (Russell & Rasolofoarison, 2017). For instance, Rossiter and Percy (1978) argue that the interaction of verbal (i.e. disclosures) and visual content (i.e. the image) reinforces ensuing marketing outcomes (Rossiter & Percy, 1978). As this paper hypothesizes that ad recognition of disclosures will be more prominent when the post includes explicit product placements, it also posits that the interaction will further enforce the succeeding negative reactions towards brand attitude and purchase intention (Evans et al., 2017). Furthermore, this study posits that if influencer credibility would be negatively affected by ad recognition evoked by ad disclosures (Wojdynski & Evans, 2016), an explicit product placement will further harm the perceived influencer credibility. According to the dual-credibility model, the
credibility of corporation will also be damaged due to meaning transfer (Jin, 2018). Based on the above-mentioned literature, the following hypotheses have been formulated:
H4: (a) Influencer credibility, (b) corporate credibility, (c) brand attitude, and (d) purchase intention will be lower after exposure to sponsorship disclosure on an Instagram post than a post without a sponsorship disclosure. This effect will be more pronounced if the participant has viewed an explicit product placement post than a moderate product placement.
The Underlying Mechanism of Para-Social Interaction
An important variable that may mediate the effect of ad recognition on marketing outcomes is the perceived relation a consumer has with the influencer (Giles, 2002). Research on para-social interaction indicates that consumers can feel an illusionary connection and or a sense of friendship to celebrities (Hwang & Zhang, 2018). The higher the emotional bond with the influencer, the stronger the perceived sense of intimacy the consumer has (Choi & Lee, 2019). This embodiment of a real relationship could act as a defense mechanism following persuasion knowledge, exonerating the negative behavioural and attitudinal reactions caused by ad recognition.
PSI is a unilateral relationship where the consumer perceived the celebrity to be part of their own social environment (Giles, 2002). Antecedents of PSI include homophily, social and physical attractiveness (Lee & Watkins, 2016). On Instagram, this pseudo-relationship develops through consumers liking, commenting on and following the daily lives of
influencers, whom can be perceived as micro-celebrities (Hwang & Zhang, 2018; Ashley & Tuten, 2015). The repeated exposure to influencer’s posts leads to consumers developing feelings of trust (Lee & Watkins, 2016).
Recognizing native advertising for its persuasive intent, or advertising literacy elicits resistance tactics and distrusting beliefs (de Veirman and Hudders, 2019). Therefore, when ad
recognition occurs through sponsorship disclosures, realization of commercial motives rather than genuine shared interest might come as mistrust (Boerman, Willemsen, and Van Der Aa 2017). This paper posits that consumers might initially perceive a drawback of the one-sided relationship with the influencer once ad recognition is activated. However, for consumers who have a strong sense of intimacy with the influencer, the negative advertising reactions following ad recognition might be alleviated.
Choi and Lee (2019) found that the emotional bond a consumer has with an influencer can have great impact on the perceived trustworthiness of an influencer, as well as
subsequent attitudes towards endorsed products. Research also shows that the perceived relation with influencers is found to predict source credibility (Tsai & Men, 2013; Munnukka, Maity, Reinikainen & Luoma-aho, 2019) and can mediate effects on source and product placement types on corporate credibility (Jin & Muqaddam, 2019). Furthermore, PSI
negatively mediates the effect of ad recognition on influencer credibility (Evans et al., 2019; Colliander & Erlandsson, 2015). According to the above findings, the hypothesized effects of ad recognition through disclosures on both influencer and corporate credibility will be
mediated by the relation a consumer has with the influencer.
Research has found that para-social relationships can affect consumer’s purchase intention when influencers post their opinion on products or services (Kim, Ko & Kim, 2015; Daugherty & Hoffman, 2014). Furthermore, findings also indicate that PSI also explained the effect of self-esteem, loneliness and empathy on purchase and sharing intentions (Hwang & Zhang, 2018; Sokolova & Kefi, 2019). In addition, PSI is also found to explain the effect of audience participation on brand attitude (Munnukka et al., 2019). This paper posits that the suggested negative effects on marketing outcomes such as brand attitudes and purchase intention caused by ad recognition will be alleviated by the relation a consumer has with the
influencer. Based on the multiple marketing outcomes, the following mediation hypothesis is suggested:
H5: When consumers are exposed to a sponsorship disclosure on an Instagram post, para social interaction with the influencer will mediate the effect of advertising recognition on (a) influencer credibility, (b) corporate credibility, (c) brand attitude, and (d) purchase intention.
The Moderated Serial Mediation Model
In sum, the following hypothesis combines all the visualized effects, suggesting a moderated serial mediation effect. This model is visualized in Figure 1 below.
H6: When an influencer’s Instagram post has a sponsorship disclosure and explicit product placements, advertising recognition will be more pronounced, resulting in a decreased perception of para-social interaction, which will then ultimately alleviate consumer responses (a) influencer credibility, (b) corporate credibility, (c) brand attitude, and (d) purchase intention.
Figure 1: hypothesized conceptual model
Methodology
The study design explicated a 2 (Sponsorship disclosure: disclosed vs. not disclosed) x 2 (Product placement type: explicit vs. moderate product placement) between-subjects design. The appropriate sample population included largely Dutch females who followed influencers on Instagram, above the age of eighteen and had obtained at least a high school diploma (“Percentage of U.S. internet users”, 2016). The study aimed to focus largely on females as women are more impressionable to social influence (Eagly, 1983), which is prevalent with online influencers on Instagram.
The study found its participant pool of N = 283 by using convenience sampling at the University of Amsterdam. 15 respondents were removed for their discomfort with the survey language or because they had no Instagram account. Subsequent analyses were conducted with N = 189. As intended, the sample consisted of 181 females (95.4%), was predominantly Dutch (79.7%), and the average age was M = 24.13 (range 18 to 56). 47% of the participants had a bachelor’s degree and 35.6% had completed their master’s degree. An attention check question was added to preserve the quality of data (Abbey & Meloy, 2017), of which 31.34% failed. Removing these participants would have made the sample population too small, which could have impacted the statistical power (Eng, 2003). While disappointing, the choice was made to include the participants in the survey.
Pre-Test
A pre-test to control for potential existing perceived influencer likeability was carried out (Evans et al., 2017). The popularity of online influencers is often indicated by number of followers (de Veirman, Cauberghe & Hudders, 2017). Accordingly, ten popular Dutch influencers were selected (See Table 1). Respondents first received the question if they knew the influencer (shown with their Instagram user name, real name, number of followers, and an Instagram post). If respondents knew the influencer, they were asked to fill in the para-social interaction scale.
Through convenience sampling, 58 respondents were collected. After removing the partial completions, subsequent analyses were conducted with N = 46. The sample consisted of predominantly female respondents, N = 45 (97.8%) and was largely Dutch (84.8%). The average age was M = 22.91 (Range 20 to 28). 58.7% of the participants had a bachelor’s degree and 32.60% had completed their master’s degree. Influencer Negin Mirsalehi was chosen based on the high level of para-social interaction and the moderate level of familiarity (See Table 1).
Table 1: Measured PSI levels of Dutch influencers
Influencer Respondents who knew the influencer (N) PSI (M) PSI (SD)
Negin 20 (43.50%) 3.95 1.19 Charlotte 2 (4.30%) 4.78 1.10 Romee 35 (76.1%) 3.69 1.35 Yara 12 (26.10%) 3.69 1.70 Monica 29 (63.00%) 3.67 1.39 Linda 8 (17.40%) 2.66 1.30 Claartje 26 (56.50%) 3.47 1.24 Noor 19 (41.30%) 3.33 1.51 Anna 36 (78.30%) 3.24 1.24 Lizzy 23 (50.00%) 3.06 1.13
*N = 46; ranked based on highest score of PSI, taking recall into consideration
Procedure
Respondents were able to participate in the study by opening an anonymous
distribution link. Before commencing, respondents were provided an ethics statement as well as a consent form. The introduction presented the stimulus Instagram post, leading
participants into one of four condition groups. All four conditions included an Instagram post by influencer Negin Mirsalehi, a description, and number of followers. The screenshot of Negin’s post included the picture, the caption and a few user comments (See Appendix A). A timer was added to ensure the participants inspected the Instagram post. Following this, the
various scales for source credibility, sharing intention, PSI, corporate credibility, band attitude, and purchase intention were presented, each including a forced-response.
Respondents were asked if they knew the brand and the influencer, followed by an attention check question. Then, the scales for ad recognition and commercial Appropriateness, the control questions, the manipulation questions and demographics followed. Additional checks were added to test for the comfort and proficiency of the English language. To complete the survey, the participants viewed a debrief and could provide feedback. Both sharing intention and appropriateness were not used in this analysis, however, were included for the totality of variables related to Instagram posts. Both are relevant measures for any action a user could take in regard to an Instagram post (See Appendix B for average scores).
Stimulus Materials
The disclosure manipulation is altered the Instagram post by including or not
including the disclosure hashtag within the caption (i.e. #PaidAd vs. no hashtag). The second independent variable was product placement type, which acted as a moderator. This was implemented by using Negin’s Instagram photos. In the explicit product placement post, a coffee table with a few accessories and the branded product (e.g. the Cluse watch) was shown. In the moderate product placement post, the influencer Negin was seen wearing the Cluse watch. While using non-fictional influencers might lead to less comparability, this study tried to control the manipulation by using two existing posts of the same influencer. Lastly, the brand Cluse was chosen because of its wide popularity in the Netherlands. With 917K followers and a strong influencer marketing strategy, Cluse appeared a proper match for this study.
Measures
Source credibility was measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale with 15 items measuring Trustworthy (e.g. safe-dangerous), Expertise, and Attractiveness (Ohanian, 1990). Principal component analysis revealed three components with an eigenvalue of 7.30, 2.08, and 1.30, respectively explaining 48.70%, 13.89% and 8.64% of the variance (Pallant, 2013). Three variables were computed with a minimum factor loading of .62, namely
Trustworthiness (M = 5.45, SD = 1.05; α = .92), Expertise (M = 4.27, SD = 1.05; α = .85) and Attractiveness (M = 4.93, SD = 1.13; α = .90). As trustworthiness is theoretically the most relevant and as a construct aligns most closely to defining credibility, it was used as the dependent variable for source credibility in the subsequent analyses.
Corporate credibility was measured by a two-dimensional 7-point Likert-scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), namely Expertise and Trustworthiness, both with 4 items (Newell & Goldsmith, 2001), such as, “Cluse has a great amount of experience”. Principal component analysis revealed two components with an eigenvalue of 4.67 and 1.19, respectively explaining 58.32% and 14.91% of the variance (Pallant, 2013). The Oblimin rotation showed that only two items loaded onto Trustworthiness, and by deleting these items it was improved to a Cronbach’s alpha of .91. Therefore, Corporate credibility was measured with one factor (M = 4.69, SD = .90), explaining 58.32% of the variance, with a minimum factor loading of .60.
Brand attitude was measured using a 3-item semantic differential scale (Bruner & Kumar, 2000) based on rating the brand Cluse (e.g. unfavourable - favourable). The variable Brand Attitude had an eigenvalue of 2.77, explaining 92.42% of the variance (M = 5.09 SD = 1.11, α = .96).
The dependent variable Purchase intention also from Baker and Churchill (1977) was measured by four statements using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree). The variable Purchase intention had an eigenvalue of 3.15, explaining 78.79% of the variance (M = 4.39 SD = 1.34, α = .91).
The mediating variable Advertising recognition included a 7-point Likert scale (de Veirman & Hudders, 2019) with 4 items (e.g. the post was advertising) (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The variable had an eigenvalue of 3.29, explaining 82.23% of the variance (M = 5.59 SD = 1.26, α = .93).
The mediating variable Parasocial interaction was measured with the nine item 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) by Russell & Stern (2006). The item ‘attractiveness’ was removed to improve the Cronbach’s alpha to α = .92. A
one-dimensional variable PSI was computed with an eigenvalue of 5.05, respectively explaining 63.10% of the variance and a minimum factor loading of .55 (M = 2.81, SD = 1.26).
This study similarly tested for confounding variables Instagram usage on a single item 6-point Likert scale (1 = daily, 6 = never) to which 85.10% said to use it daily (M = 1.24. SD = .63). Respondents were asked if they followed the influencer Negin (0 = No, 1 = yes) to which 73.30% said no (M = 1.73, SD = .44), and if they were familiar with the brand Cluse (0 = No, 1= Yes) , to which 73.1% said yes (M = 1.27, SD = .44). Additionally, the sample population was tested for age, education, gender and nationality. Nationality was recoded to compare the Netherlands to other countries (1 = Netherlands, 0 = else).
Manipulation Check
The manipulation check for sponsorship disclosure included a single item measure, (Boerman et al., 2017). Participants could indicate 1 = Yes, I saw the #PaidAd or 0 = No, I did not see the #PaidAd. The expected outcome was for the disclosure post to score higher than the non-disclosure group on advertising recall.
Manipulation and Randomization Check
For disclosure recall, 63.3% correctly said they saw the #PaidAd in the disclosure condition, while only 56.1% correctly said they did not see the #PaidAd in the no disclosure condition. The two condition groups significantly differed in the recall manipulation,
meaning the manipulation was successful, χ2 = 7.24 (1), p = .007.
The groups did not vary in regards to education, F(3,190) = 1.51, p = .212, age F(3,190) = 1.30, p = .276, and Instagram usage F(3,190) = .48, p = .698. Both the variables gender, χ2 = 3.25 (6), p = .748, and nationality, χ2 = 4.25 (3), p = .236, did not vary across conditions1, nor did familiarity with Negin, χ2 = 3.46 (3), p = .326, or followers of the brand Cluse, χ2 = 2.84 (3), p = .417, showing that the randomization was successful.
Disclosure and Product Placement Type Effects
H1 and H2 were tested with a MANOVA analysis in SPSS (Results in Table 2). The independent variable is the disclosure type (1 = sponsorship disclosure, 0 = no disclosure) and the dependent variables are ad recognition, brand attitude, purchase intention,
trustworthiness, expertise, attractiveness, and corporate credibility. Ad recognition did not significantly differ between the disclosure condition (M = 5.54, SD = 1.36) and the no
disclosure condition (M = 5.59, SD = 1.24), F(1,187) = .01, p = .789, which rejects H1. Brand attitude, F(1,185) = .25, p = .498, purchase intention, F(1,185) = .00, p = .913,
trustworthiness, F(1,185) = .25, p = .619, expertise, F(1,185) = .32, p = .571, attractiveness, F(1,185) = 1.23, p = .269, and corporate credibility, F(1,185) = .68, p = .681, did also not significantly differ between disclosure conditions, which rejects H2.
1 One of the assumptions of a chi-square analysis is that all cells have a minimum count of 5 (Pallant, 2013).
Both gender and nationality do not meet this assumption which requires the Lambda measure. Through this analysis, it was confirmed that both nationality (λ = .07, p = .203) and gender (λ = .01, p = .920) did not vary across conditions.
Table 2: Means of disclosure conditions on advertising outcomes Disclosure No Disclosure Dependent variables M(SD) M (SD) Ad recognition 5.54 (1.36) a 5.57 (1.25) a Trustworthiness 5.48 (.98) a 5.44 (1.13) a Corporate Credibility 4.70 (.87) a 4.66 (.90) a Purchase intention 4.40 (1.23) a 4.38 (1.41) a Brand attitude 5.14 (1.06) a 5.03 (1.14) a PSI 2.75 (1.15) a 2.85 (1.39) a
Note. a,b Means with a different subscript are significantly different at P < .001 across disclosure conditions
The MANOVA also tested for the effect of product placement types on the dependent variables. While not hypothesized, results showed a significant difference for perceived trustworthiness between product placement types, F(1,185) = 15.15, p < .001, with lower influencer trustworthiness for explicit product placement content (M = 5.17, SD = 1.06) than moderate product placement content (M = 5.72, SD = .98). All other effects of product placement types were found insignificant (See Table 2).
Table 3: Means of product placement type conditions on advertising outcomes
Explicit Moderate Dependent variables M(SD) M (SD) Ad recognition 5.68 (1.14) a 5.44 (1.38) a Trustworthiness 5.17 (1.06) a 5.73 (.98) b Corporate Credibility 4.65 (.83) a 4.71 (.94) a Purchase intention 4.37 (1.25) a 4.41 (1.38) a Brand attitude 5.10 (1.10) a 5.08 (1.10) a PSI 2.75 (1.12) a 2.84 (1.30) a
Note. a,b Means with a different subscript are significantly different at P < .001 across disclosure conditions
Moderating Effect of Product Placement Types
The interaction between product placement and disclosure exposure did not significantly predict ad recognition, F(1,185) = .16, p = .689, which rejects H3. Brand attitude, F(1,183) = .01, p = .939, purchase intention, F(1,183) = .03, p = .863,
trustworthiness, F(1,185) = .29, p = .589, and corporate credibility, F(1,183) = .26, p = .608, were also not significantly predicted by sponsorship disclosure, which rejects H4. The means are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Means of interaction effect of product placement types and disclosures
Disclosure No disclosure
Explicit Moderate Explicit Moderate
Dependent variables M(SD) M (SD) M(SD) M (SD) Ad recognition 5.69 (1.27) 5.38 (1.44) 5.57 (1.21) 5.67 (1.30) Trustworthiness 5.17 (.98) 5.80 (.87) 5.17 (1.15) 5.65 (1.08) Corporate Credibility 4.71 (.88) 4.70 (.88) 4.59 (.76) 4.71 (1.00) Purchase intention 4.39 (1.21) 4.40 (1.26) 4.34 (1.31) 4.41 (1.49) Brand attitude 5.12 (1.16) 5.16 (.96) 5.08 (1.04) 4.99 (1.22) PSI 2.89 (1.04) 3.10 (1.16) 3.00 (1.21) 3.20 (1.42)
Note: N = 189, No sig. difference between conditions for all measured variables
Mediation Models
To test for the serial mediation model and moderated serial mediation model proposed in H5 and H6, model 6 and 86 respectively were used in the PROCESS 3.3 Macro extension in SPSS (Hayes, 2018). For all four dependent variables, a bootstrap with 10,000 samples was included to estimate the confidence intervals that account for 95% of bias-correction. PROCESS Model 6 was conducted for the dependent variables, influencer trustworthiness2,
2 PROCESS model 6 and 86 was also run for the variables Expertise and Attractiveness. Results showed
corresponding effects, with three points of interest. First, like Trustworthiness, results showed significant effects of PSI on both Expertise (b = .58, SE = .05) and Attractiveness (b = .54, SE = .05). Furthermore, while ad recognition significantly predicted Trustworthiness (b = .15, SE = .05) and Attractiveness (b = .58, SE = .05), ad recognition did not significantly predict Expertise. Lastly, while product placement types had a direct effect on trustworthiness, it did not predict Expertise or Attractiveness.
corporate credibility, brand attitude, and purchase intention, with the independent variable disclosure and mediators, ad recognition, and PSI. PROCESS Model 86 included product placement types as a moderator (See Appendix C for models)
Serial Mediation Model
The total indirect effect of sponsorship disclosures via ad recognition and para-social interaction was insignificant for influencer trustworthiness (indirect effect = -.03, boot SE = .07, BCI [-.17, .11]), for corporate credibility (indirect effect = -.02, boot SE = .05, BCI [-.13, .07]), brand attitude (indirect effect = -.03, boot SE = .06, BCI [-.14, .09]), and purchase intention (indirect effect = -.04, boot SE = .08, BCI [-.20, .11]). As the indirect effect of sponsorship disclosure through ad recognition and para-social interaction on these marketing outcomes are not significant, H5 is rejected.
As confirmed by the MANOVA test, the findings further show that the effect of sponsorship disclosure on ad recognition was found insignificant (a1 = -.04, p = .848) for
each dependent variable. Also, results show that the effect of sponsorship disclosures on the level of PSI is insignificant (a2 = -.12, p = .511). Furthermore, ad recognition did not
significantly predict the level of para-social interaction (d21 = 0.01, p = .839).
Trustworthiness. The direct effect of sponsorship disclosures (c’ = .11, p = .534) on the perceived trustworthiness was insignificant. However, both pseudo-relationships with the influencer (b2 = .34, p < .001) and ad recognition (b1 = .16, p = .001) significantly predict
influencer trustworthiness.
Corporate credibility. Including a sponsorship disclosure on an influencer’s
Instagram post does not have a significant effect on the perceived corporate credibility (c’ = .07, p = .680). However, para-social interaction significantly predicts corporate credibility (b2
= .24, p < .001). The activation of ad recognition does not affect the perceived corporate credibility (b1 = .06, p = .199).
Brand attitude. Disclosures are not a significant predictor of brand attitudes (c’ = .08, p = .690). However, the consumer’s relation with the influencer does significantly predict brand attitude (b2 = .27, p < .001). The effect of ad recognition on perceived brand attitude is
also significant (b1 = .12, p = .033).
Purchase intention. The direct effect of a disclosure on the perceived purchase intention was insignificant (c’ = -.04, p = .879). PSI with the influencer, however, was found to significantly predict purchase intention (b2 = .40, p < .001). When ad recognition is
activated, it does not significantly predict perceived purchase intentions (b1 = .11, p = .120),
Serial Moderated Mediation Model
To test the additive effect of product placement types on the serial mediation model suggested in H6, the following section will discuss the results of PROCESS model 86 (See Table 5). First and foremost, the interaction effect of product placement types and disclosures on ad recognition was tested, finding an insignificant effect (ab1 = .24, p = .534).
The index of the moderated serial mediation model suggests that the explicitness of product placements on Instagram posts will strengthen the effect of sponsorship disclosures in activate ad recognition; these negative reactions on influencer trustworthiness, corporate credibility, brand attitude and purchase intention will be mediated by para-social interaction with the influencer. Results showed this moderated serial mediation was insignificant for influencer trustworthiness (index = .04, boot SE = .07, BCI [-.09, .18]), for corporate
credibility (index = .02, boot SE = .03, BCI [-.04, .09]), for brand attitude (index = .00, boot SE = .01, BCI [-.02, .02]), and for purchase intention (index = .01, boot SE = .01, BCI [-.02, .03]).
Figure 2 visualizes the tested effects of models 6 and 86, including the interaction effect of product placement types and disclosures directly on the outcome variables (ab2). This interaction does not follow the suggested activation of ad recognition from sponsorship
disclosures as suggested by the persuasion knowledge model. However, for totality of results, these effects are mentioned below and in Table 5 (column ab2). The interaction effect on the perceived influencer trustworthiness is insignificant (ab2 = -.13, p = .600), and also for
corporate credibility (ab2 = .12, p = .619), brand attitudes (ab2 = .05, p = .837), and for
purchase intention (ab2 = .13, p = .732).
Lastly, the explicitness of product placement types significantly negatively predicted influencer trustworthiness (c2 = -.56, p = .003). As the total effect of the interaction effect on
sponsorship disclosures in activating ad recognition, mediated by para-social interaction on these marketing outcomes are not significant, all of H6 is rejected. The statistical findings are summarized in Table 5; Table 6 summarizes the hypotheses.
Table 5: Results of moderated serial mediation PROCESS model 86 a1 a2 b1 b2 ab1 ab2 c1 (total) c2 c’ (direct) d21 Indirect effect Trustworthiness of influencer -.14 (.27) -.09 (.18) .16*** (.05) .34*** (.05) .24 (.39) -.13 (.25) -.03 (.18) -.56*** (.19) .16 (.05) .01 (.07) .00 (.01) [-.01, .02] Corporate credibility “” “” .06 (.05) .24*** (.05) “” .12 (.25) .19 (.18) -.09 (.18) .07 (.17) “” .00 (.01) CI [-.02, 03] Brand attitude “” “” .12* (.06) .27*** (.06) “” .05 (.30) .13 (.22) -.04 (.22) -.08 (.22) “” .00 (.01) CI [-.01, 02] Purchase intention “” “” .11 (.07) .40*** (.08) “” -.13 (.37) .09 (.27) -.07 (.27) -.04 (.25) “” .00 (.01) CI [-.02, 03] Notes: * p < .05, ** p < .01 *** p < .001, unstandardized coefficients (and boot SE). “” = identical to the above-mentioned effect size of the first row in the same column. CI = bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval
Figure 2. Effects measured in PROCESS model 6 and 86 Indirect effect of X on Y through M1 = aibi
Indirect effect of X on Y through serial = aid21bi
Conditional indirect effect of X on Y through Mi = (a1i ab2id21W)b2i
Table 6: Summary of hypotheses results
Hypothesis Outcome
H1: A disclosure hashtag “#PaidAd” on an Instagram post will lead to increased ad recognition in comparison to an Instagram post without sponsorship disclosure.
Rejected
H2a: Exposure to advertising disclosure on an influencer’s Instagram posts will activate ad recognition, which will lead to lower (a) brand attitude and (b) purchase intention than after exposure to an Instagram post without sponsorship disclosure.
Rejected
H2b: Exposure to advertising disclosure on an influencer’s Instagram post will lead to lower (a) influencer credibility and (b) corporate credibility than an Instagram post without sponsorship disclosure.
Rejected
H3: A sponsorship disclosure on an influencer’s Instagram post will be more likely to activate advertising recognition than a post without a sponsorship disclosure, and this effect will be more pronounced when the Instagram post includes an explicit product placement compared to a moderate product placement.
Rejected
H4: (a) Influencer credibility, (b) corporate credibility, (c) brand attitude, and (d) purchase intention will be lower after exposure to sponsorship disclosure on an Instagram post than a post without a sponsorship disclosure. This effect will be more pronounced if the participant has viewed an explicit product placement post than a moderate product placement.
Rejected
H5: When exposed to a sponsorship disclosure on an Instagram post, para-social interaction with the influencer will mediate the effect of the activated advertising recognition on (a) influencer credibility, (b) corporate credibility, (c) brand attitude, and (d) purchase intention.
Rejected
H6: When an influencer’s Instagram post has a sponsorship disclosure and explicit product placements, advertising recognition will be more pronounced, resulting in a decreased perception of para-social interaction, which will then ultimately alleviate consumer responses (a) influencer credibility, (b) corporate credibility, (c) brand attitude, and (d) purchase intention.
Rejected
Conclusion
Discussion
Native advertising on Instagram raises concerns regarding the ethicality of
obfuscating the commercial message (Johnson, Potocki, & Veldhuis, 2019). Accordingly, the first aim of this study was to deduce whether sponsorship disclosures can activate ad
recognition. Second, to explicate the effects of ad recognition on influencer trustworthiness, corporate credibility, purchase intention and brand attitude. Third, to investigate if explicit product placement types strengthen the effect of disclosures on activating ad recognition and
the subsequent outcomes, and lastly, to explore the mediating effect of para-social interaction. The results showed that disclosures did not induce ad recognition and no interaction effect with product placement types was found. However, explicit product placements more negatively affected influencer trustworthiness than moderate product placements do. Moreover, ad recognition increases both the trustworthiness of the influencer and the brand attitude. Not only this, PSI has a strong positive effect on influencer
trustworthiness, corporate credibility, purchase intention and brand attitude.
Habituating to Native Advertising
In regard to the first aim, this study failed to reproduce significant sponsorship disclosure effects on raising advertising recognition, which contradicts the current literature on sponsorship disclosures (Evans, Wojdynski & Hoy, 2017; Krouwer & Poels, 2017). However, a highly relevant finding of this study is that the respondents intelligibly recognized the commercial intent of the influencer’s Instagram post, suggesting that consumers possess an adequate level of persuasion knowledge (Friestad & Wright, 1994). The high level of ad recognition is consistent with more recent native advertising studies (Johnson, Potocki & Veldhuis, 2019), suggesting that prior experience with native advertising on Instagram could play an important role in building persuasion knowledge (Jung & Heo, 2019). The findings insinuate that although informative hashtags are prescribed by the FTC, Instagram users may not require disclosure cues to identify the commercial aim of the Instagram post as they already have a high level of ad recognition (Djafarova & Rushworth, 2017). Such persuasion knowledge suggests a development in the social media environment, particularly in consumers habituating to native advertising. Instagram users could be potentially becoming accustomed to influencers collaborating with brands so often, triggering less critical reactions than previously found. Both for theory as well for
practitioners, it is useful to further investigate if high ad recognition is prevalent for other influencers, without the aid of disclosures.
To further the academic dialogue on disclosure effectiveness, this study found a relative low score of disclosure recall, supporting other recall deficit findings (Boerman, Willemsen &van der Aa, 2017; Wojdynski et al., 2017; Boerman, Van Reijmersdal & Neijens, 2012; Campbell, Mohr & Verlegh, 2013). Recall in this study was moderate, as 36.7% of respondents exposed did not recognize the #PaidAd, and 43.9% said they saw the disclosure when there was none, marking the low attentiveness towards disclosures. Another factor that could have impacted the effectiveness of the disclosure was the low score of correct answers on the attention check question. The choice was made to keep the inattentive respondents, as it would have led to a small sample causing a larger likelihood of type two error (Abbey & Meloy, 2017). The impact however is less reliable data, as it means including inattentive respondents (Hauser & Schwarz, 2015). To determine if respondents pay enough attention to the disclosure, future research could create eye-tracking studies to examine the fixation time on the disclosure (Menon et al., 2016). For practitioners and the FTC, the disclosure recall deficit signifies that although collaborating brands and influencers might include a disclosure, it may not successfully inform consumers as intended.
Advertising Recognition on Marketing Outcomes
Concerning the second aim, this study found advertising recognition to positively predict both influencer trustworthiness and brand attitude. The positive effect contradicts both the reactance theory (Zuwerink & Cameron, 2003) and existing evidence for the negative effects of ad recognition (Evans et al., 2017; 2019; Jin & Muqaddam, 2019). This suggests that no reactance strategies such as counterarguing were activated (Boerman & van Reijmersdal, 2019), but rather acceptance towards the influencer’s trustworthiness and the attitude towards the brand. A possible delineation for the increase in influencer
trustworthiness and the brand attitude is the measured high level of perceived appropriateness (M = 5.01, SD = .91) with the influencer Negin showing the brand Cluse in her Instagram post. Furthermore, research has shown that consumers can appreciate disclosure explicitness, as it informs them of influencer’s potential bias and external influence of a corporation, which then reduces cognitive dissonance therefore increasing blogger credibility (Carr & Hayes, 2014). Moreover, it also stands in line with the postulation that young females feel more trusting towards both their Instagram community and its celebrity endorsements (Djaforova & Rushworth, 2017). However, as this study only used one influencer and one brand, it is hard to make generalizations for the perceived appropriateness of all Instagram influencers or various brands. Therefore, future research could compare several influencers or multiple brands and see if there is a relation between the perceived appropriateness and the impact of ad recognition on influencer credibility and brand attitude.
Product Placement Ramifications
With respect to the third aim, this study showed the importance of the explicitness of the product placement: Instagram posts with explicit product placement led to more negative perceived influencer trustworthiness than moderate product depiction did, which is in line with the product placement type research of Jin and Muqaddam (2019). However, this study did not find evidence for product placement explicitness on Instagram posts to strengthen the effect of disclosures on activating ad recognition, as suggested by the warranting theory (Walther & Parks, 2002) and the persuasion knowledge model (Friestad & Wright, 1994). A possible delineation is that respondents already scored high on ad recognition, thus
consumers did not require visual aid through product placement explicitness to strengthen the effect of disclosures on ad recognition. Respondents needed neither disclosure nor product placement to activate their persuasion knowledge, thus verifying why no interaction effect was found.
The study does offer novel insights in regard to a direct negative effect of product placement types on influencer trustworthiness compared to moderate product placements. This study can corroborate in that explicit product placements posts appear incongruent with the influencer’s typical profile as it leads to negative reactions, which stands in line with previous studies that shown explicit product placements to appear intrusive (Li, Edwards & Lee, 2002). Furthermore, in line with Jin (2018), the explicitness appears less congruent to the influencer’s honest product opinion, but rather a corporation’s dictations. Such
incongruency activates more critical processing towards the trustworthiness of the influencer. In retrospect, the explicit and moderate product placement stimuli used could have been more distinct in product promotion. For instance, the photo used for explicit product placement showed a coffee table with different items (i.e. a book, laptop, sunglasses). This could have been more lucid in which item was being endorsed, allowing respondents to identify more with reactions towards purchase intentions.
Para-Social Interaction
Concerning the last aim, this study did not find a mediating effect of PSI on the relation of ad recognition on advertising outcomes. Rather, this study found that the para-social relationship of a consumer positively predicts both influencer and corporate credibility, as well as purchase intention and brand attitude, which is in accordance with existing
advertising literature (Jans, Cauberghe & Hudders, 2019; Tsai & Men, 2013; Sokolova & Kefi, 2019; Munnukka et al., 2019). In line with the para-social interaction literature (Giles, 2002), the findings explicate the strength of the perceived pseudo consumer-influencer relationship on behavioural and attitudinal outcomes. This corroborates that consumers go through an affective cognitive process when going through purchasing decisions and
attitudinal evaluations, none withstanding the presence of ad recognition (Johnson, Potocki & Veldhuis, 2019; Sokolova & Kefi, 2019). Moreover, this study offers additive insights to
those of Jin and Muqaddam (2019), by showing that the relation with the influencer can strengthen the perceived credibility of the advertised brand. In relation to the dual credibility model proposed by Goldsmith and colleagues (2000), these results enforce the importance of the associative link that the follower has with the influencer, as this can ultimately have a spill-over effect on corporate credibility. For brands it is thus important to select influencers to collaborate with whom the consumers have a deep one-sided connection. Future research should consider incorporating the mechanism of para-social interaction next to ad recognition in native advertising studies.
This study opted to use the PSI scale intended for pseudo-relations with television characters by Russell and Stern (2006), originating in 1985. This scale choice was made with the consideration that the scale measured a pseudo-relationship rather than a momentary para-social experience. Researchers have recently developed a new PSI scale (Dibble, Hartman & Rosean, 2016), which is adjusted to the digital modernization, measuring the specific experience of PSI through vlogging. As Voorveld, van Noort and Muntinga (2018) explicate, there is a differentiating role of platform type in consumer engagements. The user-interface of Instagram requires platform-specific engagements with the influencer and uses static photo content unlike video platforms. For future research, it could be beneficial to adapt the vlogging PSI scale to the platform of Instagram as navigating the feed is a
particular kind of engagement different to that of Youtube or watching TV. As respondents could identify more with the experience of PSI on Instagram, an adjusted scale could improve evidence for para-social interaction effects on the dual credibility model, purchase intentions and brand attitude.
Implications for Managers
Given the influx of native advertising on Instagram, it is imperative for both company and influencer to carefully consider all aspects of a collaboration. This study suggests that
Instagram users do not need disclosure cues to identify the commercial aim of the Instagram post as they already have a high level of persuasion knowledge. For brands, this suggests that the success of native advertising is not conditional on its hidden commercial intent (Johnson, Potocki, Veldhuis, 2019). Furthermore, while consumers possess ad recognition, they do not always use their persuasion knowledge, as there is no effect found of ad recognition on purchase intentions and evaluating brand attitudes. Rather, evidence showed that brand attitudes and purchase intentions outcomes can be a result of the perceived relation with the influencer. For brands wanting to endorse, incorporating influencers with whom their consumers have close relations and thus utilizing these interpersonal appeals, can vastly improve advertising outcomes.
In lieu of the dual-credibility model (Goldsmith et al., 2000), this study showed that both the corporation and the influencer can benefit when there is a strong relation with the influencer, however the influencer’s reputation can be damaged when this collaboration is too visibly obvious. Influencers can benefit in updating their collaboration guidelines, ruling out explicit product placements in sponsored posts. The endorsed content of the influencer therefore has to be congruent with their archetypal content, otherwise leading to critical reactions towards the perceived trustworthiness. Accounts that have an overload of commercial intent could have serious ramification such as consumers unfollowing the influencers (Djafarova & Trofimenko, 2018).
As this study did not find any added benefit of disclosure cues in raising advertising recognition, the advice for FTC is to reconsider the development of the social media
environment and the evolving persuasion knowledge of women. The ad recognition of these women is relatively high, yet results show that they do not always use it in influencing their behavioural and attitudinal outcomes. Rather, consumers are more influenced by the strength of the unilateral relationship with said influencer. In a broader context, disclosure cues can
remain important for adolescents who have not yet fully developed persuasion knowledge (van Reijmersdal, Boerman, Buijzen & Rozendaal, 2016). In any case, the FTC should move forward into developing clarity for consumers regarding the illusion of para-social
References
Abbey, J. D., & Meloy, M. G. (2017). Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations
Management, 53, 63-70.
Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media marketing: An exploratory study of branded social content and consumer engagement. Psychology &
Marketing, 32(1), 15-27.
Amazeen, M. A., & Wojdynski, B. W. (2018). The effects of disclosure format on native advertising recognition and audience perceptions of legacy and online news publishers. Journal of Journalism.
Baker, M. J., & Churchill Jr, G. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing research, 14(4), 538-555.
Balasubramanian, S. K., Karrh, J. A., & Patwardhan, H. (2006). Audience response to
product placements: An integrative framework and future research agenda. Journal of advertising, 35(3), 115-141.
Boerman, S. C., & van 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. 115-146. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Boerman, S. C., Willemsen, L. M., & Van der Aa, E. (2017). “This post is sponsored” Effects of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion knowledge and electronic word of mouth in the context of Facebook. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 82-92.
Boerman, S. C., Dima, A. L., van Reijmersdal, E. A. & Rozendaal, E. (2018). Development of the persuasion knowledge scales of sponsored content (PKS-SC). International Journal of Advertising, 37(5), 671-697.
Brouwer, B. 2017. Why brands are investing more into influencer marketing in 2017. Econtent
Ma.
http://www.econtentmag.com.eur.idm.oclc.org/Articles/Column/Screen- Time/Why-Brands-Are-Investing-More-Into-Influencer-Marketing-in-2017-117732.htm. Accessed 7 Feb 2019.
Bruner, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2000). Web commercials and advertising hierarchy-of-effects. Journal of advertising research, 40(1-2), 35-42.
Cain, R. M. (2011). Embedded advertising on television: Disclosure, deception, and free speech rights. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(2), 226-238.
Campbell, C., & Evans, N. J. (2018). The role of a companion banner and sponsorship transparency in recognizing and evaluating article-style native advertising. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 43, 17-32.
Campbell, C., & Marks, L. J. (2015). Good native advertising isn’t a secret. Business Horizons, 58(6), 599-606.
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.
Colliander, J. & Erlandsson, S. (2015). The blog and the bountiful: Exploring the effects of disguised product placement on blogs that are revealed by a third party. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21, 110-124.
Cowley, E., & Barron, C. (2008). When product placement goes wrong: The effects of program liking and placement prominence. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 89-98. Daugherty, T., & Hoffman, E. (2014). eWoM and the importance of capturing consumer
attention within social media. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), 82-102.
Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., & Rosaen, S. F. (2016). Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21-44.
Djafarova, E., & Rushworth, C. (2017). Exploring the credibility of online celebrities' Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 1-7.
Djafarova, E., & Trofimenko, O. (2018). ‘Instafamous’–credibility and self-presentation of micro-celebrities on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 1-15. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American
Psychologist, 38(9), 971.
Eng, J. (2003). Sample size estimation: how many individuals should be studied? Radiology, 227(2), 309-313.
Evans, N. J., Jun, H., Lim, J. & Phua, J. (2017). Disclosing Instagram influencer advertising: The effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, and
