University of Groningen Native Advertising: Effective, Deceptive, or Both? Harms, Bianca

(1)

University of Groningen

Native Advertising: Effective, Deceptive, or Both?

Harms, Bianca

DOI:

10.33612/diss.162005726

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2021

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Harms, B. (2021). Native Advertising: Effective, Deceptive, or Both?. University of Groningen, SOM research school. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.162005726

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

555090-L-sub01-bw-Harms 555090-L-sub01-bw-Harms 555090-L-sub01-bw-Harms 555090-L-sub01-bw-Harms Processed on: 2-2-2021 Processed on: 2-2-2021 Processed on: 2-2-2021

Processed on: 2-2-2021 PDF page: 111PDF page: 111PDF page: 111PDF page: 111

(3)

⎪Appendices 112

Appendices to chapter 3 A: Stimuli of study Banner advertisements:

(4)

(5)

⎪Appendices 114

B: Items and scales

C-1: Significance of direct relation between advertising type and brand effects

Endogenous construct R2 _Q2 Brand effect 0.003 0.002 Relation Path coefficient p-value Bias-corrected 95% confidence interval

Ad Type: native vs. banner 0.054 0.008 [ 0.019; 0.095]

Notes: Although the R2 of 0.003 shows a weak coefficient of determination (Hair et al. 2014), the effect is significant. The predictive relevance is assessed with Stone-Geisser’s predictive relevance (Q2_{), derived from the blindfolding procedure in SmartPLS. Since the value of Q}2 _is greater than zero, the model has predictive relevance.

Construct Measurements

Indicate how you rate the following statements with regard to this advertisement (5-point Likert scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree):

Ad attitude Ad attitude 1 Amusing Ad attitude 2 Nice Ad attitude 3 Attractive Ad credibility Ad credibility 1 Believable

Ad credibility 2 Convincing

Indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements (5-point Likert scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree):

Understanding of message intent

INT 1 Selling intent: the aim of this banner/text is to sell products/services

INT 2 Persuasive intent: the aim of this banner/text is to influence your opinion

INT 3 Informational intent: the aim of this banner/text is to give information about the products/services

Indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements (5-point Likert scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree): Through this advertisement, I… Brand effect: brand

interest & purchase intention

E1 Am more interested in the brand E2 Plan to buy.. (brand)

(6)

C-2: Significance of direct relation between understanding of message intent and brand effects

Endogenous construct R2 _Q2 Brand effect 0.171 0.146 Relation Path Coefficient p-value Bias-Corrected 95% Confidence Interval

Ad Type: native vs. banner 0.414 0.000 [ 0.374;0.453]

(7)

⎪Appendices 116

Appendices to chapter 4

D: Sample distribution per experimental condition

Age Control Spoken Written

Written and Spoken Total 8 18 21 19 10 68 9 21 24 13 21 79 10 14 16 11 18 59 11 19 17 18 18 72 12 22 14 25 17 78 13 14 18 13 20 65 14 9 11 24 19 63 15 8 20 15 13 56 16 18 20 18 13 69 Total 161 143 156 149 609 E: Links to conditions 1) Written disclosure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsgRQOrLq-k&feature=youtu.be 2) Spoken disclosure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNCuV_wSoEI&feature=youtu.be

3) Written + Spoken disclosure:

https://youtu.be/wXyOgexgt_4

4) No disclosure:

(8)

F: Contingency table manipulation check

Control Spoken Written Written and

Spoken This is always the case in these types of

vlogs

59 (44.7%) 32 (27.6%) 46 (36.2%) 36 (29%)

This information was mentioned verbally in the video

13 (9.8%) 39 (33.6%) 12 (9.4%) 25 (20.2%)

This information was in text on screen 8 (6.1%) 10 (8.6%) 20 (15.7%) 11 (8.9%)

This information was both in text and mentioned verbally

23 (17.4%) 23 (19.8%) 26 (20.5%) 40 (32.3%)

None of these reasons 12 (9.1%) 2 (1.7%) 5 (3.9%) 5 (4.0%)

I don’t know 17 (12.9%) 10 (8.6%) 18 (14.2%) 7 (5.6%)

G: Fornell-Larcker Criterion

Act. Mediation Brand

Effect Res. Mediation Attitude Vlogger

Attitude Video Act. Mediation. 0.874 Brand Effect 0.091 0.876 Res. Mediation. 0.426 0.065 0.876 Attitude Vlogger 0.033 −0.573 0.017 0.818 Attitude Video 0.046 0.649 0.014 −0.687 0.910

(9)