Investigating the effects of sponsorship and forewarning disclosures on recipients’ reactance

Wolfgang J. Weitzl 1 , Jens Seiffert-Brockmann 2 , and Sabine Einwiller 3
  • 1 Corporate Communication Research Group, Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Seeburg Castle University, Vienna, Austria
  • 2 Corporate Communication Research Group, Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • 3 Corporate Communication Research Group, Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Wolfgang J. Weitzl
  • Corresponding author
  • Corporate Communication Research Group, Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Seeburg Castle University, Department of Management, Seekirchen, Austria, Vienna, Austria
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
, Jens Seiffert-Brockmann
  • Corporate Communication Research Group, Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
and Sabine Einwiller
  • Corporate Communication Research Group, Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar

Abstract

Due to increasing consumer skepticism towards promotional messages, companies are looking for new ways to communicate with their target audiences in a less obtrusive way than traditional advertising. Sponsored content disseminated on the online portals of newspapers (i. e., online advertorials) is regarded as a promising way to promote products and brands. Regulations require communicators to inform consumers about the commercial nature of this ‘masked’ persuasion attempt by including an explicit sponsorship disclosure (i. e., a ‘Sponsored’ label). This study demonstrates that such an explicit advertising cue may not be enough to alert recipients. Furthermore, this study investigates the effects of promotional messages by means of a 2 (no disclosure vs. disclosure) x 2 (no forewarning vs. forewarning) experiment. Results show that both (i) foregoing instructions aimed at activating consumers’ persuasion knowledge (i. e., an additional forewarning message) and (ii) recipients’ prior media literacy can foster the effect of sponsorship disclosures in triggering situational distrust towards brand-related content, and in turn, increasing consumers’ reactance.

  • An, S., & Stern, S. (2011). Mitigating the effects of advergames on children. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 43–56.

  • Bennett, M., Pecotich, A., & Putrevu, S. (1999). The influence of warnings on product placements. In B. Dubois, T. M. Lowrey, L. J. Shrum, & M. Vanhuele (Eds.), European advances in consumer research, 4th ed. (pp. 193–200). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

  • Berkowitz, L., & Alioto, J. T. (1973). The meaning of an observed event as a determinant of its aggressive consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(2), 206–217.

  • Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1047–1064.

  • Boerman, S. C., van 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(1), 214–224.

  • Boerman, S. C., Willemsen, L. M., & van der Aa, E. P. (2017). “This post is sponsored”: Effects of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion knowledge and electronic word of mouth in the context of Facebook. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 82–92.

  • Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 165.

  • Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press: New York.

  • Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Brown, C. L., & Krishna, A. (2004). The skeptical shopper: A metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 529–539.

  • Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83.

  • Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2008). I know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it: The use of the persuasion knowledge model in consumer research. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 549–575). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah.

  • 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.

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.

  • Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114–127.

  • Eagle, L. (2007). Commercial media literacy: What does it do, to whom—and does it matter? Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 101–110.

  • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (2013). Com disclosures. How to make effective disclosures in digital advertising. Retrieved October 27, 2017 from www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-staff-revises-onlineadvertising-disclosure-guidelines/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf.

  • Foreh, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349–356.

  • Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.

  • Ham, C.-D., Nelson, M. R., & Das, S. (2015). How to measure persuasion knowledge. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 17–53.

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press: New York.

  • Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936.

  • Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology and Marketing, 24(8), 723–742.

  • International Advertising Bureau (IAB) (2013). The native advertising playbook. International Advertising Bureau: New York.

  • Isaac, M. S., & Grayson, K. (2017). Beyond skepticism: Can accessing persuasion knowledge bolster credibility? Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 895–912.

  • John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty‐five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183–213.

  • Kaikati, A. M., & Kaikati, J. G. (2004). Stealth marketing: How to reach consumers surreptitiously. California Management Review, 46(4), 6–22.

  • Koc, M., & Barut, E. (2016). Development and validation of new media literacy scale (NMLS) for university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 834–843.

  • Lang, A. (1995). Defining audio/video redundancy from a limited-capacity information processing perspective. Communication Research, 22(1), 86–115.

  • Lindsey, L. L. (2005). Anticipated guilt as behavioral motivation: An examination of appeals to help unknown others through bone marrow donation. Human Communication Research, 31(4), 453–481.

  • Livingstone, S. (2014). Developing social media literacy: How children learn to interpret risky opportunities on social network sites. Communications, 39(3), 283–303.

  • MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48.

  • Minton, E., Lee, C., Orth, U., Kim, C.-H., & Kahle, L. (2012). Sustainable marketing and social media. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 69–84.

  • Nielsen (2015). Global trust in advertising: Winning strategies for an evolving media landscape. Retrieved October 27, 2017 from http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/reports/2015/nielsen-global-trust-inadvertising-report-september-2015.pdf.

  • Ofcom (2018). About media literacy. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/media-literacy.

  • 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.

  • Rains, S. A. (2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 39(1), 47–73.

  • Reinhart, A. M., Marshall, H. M., Feeley, T. H., & Tutzauer, F. (2007). The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 229–255.

  • Robertson, A. (2013). FTC questions whether online ‘sponsored’ content is deceptive advertising. Retrieved April 29, 2018 from https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/5/5178566/ftc-questions-whether-online-sponsored-content-is-deceptive-advertising.

  • Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Carpentier, F. D. (2009). Media priming: An updated synthesis. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 74–93. New York: Routledge.

  • Rozendaal, E., Lapierre, M. A., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Buijzen, M. (2011). Reconsidering advertising literacy as a defense against advertising effects. Media Psychology, 14(4), 333–354.

  • Shapiro, S. (1999). When an ad’s influence is beyond our conscious control: Perceptual and conceptual fluency effects caused by incidental ad exposure. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 16–36.

  • Shrum, L. J. (2012). The psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

  • Silverblatt, A. (2001). Media literacy: Keys to interpreting media messages (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.

  • Stubb, C. (2018). Story versus info: Tracking blog readers’ online viewing time of sponsored blog posts based on content-specific elements. Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 54–62.

  • Uribe, R., Buzeta, C., & Velásquez, M. (2016). Sidedness, commercial intent and expertise in blog advertising. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4403–4410.

  • van Reijmersdal, E. A., Lammers, N., Rozendaal, E., & Buijzen, M. (2015). Disclosing the persuasive nature of advergames: Moderation effects of mood on brand responses via persuasion knowledge. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 70–84.

  • Verein Arbeitsgemeinschaft Media Analysen (2017). Media Analyse. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from http://www.media-analyse.at/table/2997.

  • Wojdynski, B. W. (2016). The deceptiveness of sponsored news articles. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1475–1491.

  • 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.

  • Zhu, J. Y., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2007). Effectiveness of blog advertising: Impact of communicator expertise, advertising intent, and product involvement. International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2007. Canada: Montreal.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Search