The Impact of Source Identification on the Evaluation of Consumer Generated Advertising

CONCEPT FOR DIPLOMA THESIS IN MARKETING

THE IMPACT OF SOURCE IDENTIFICATION ON
THE EVALUATION OF CONSUMER GENERATED ADVERTISING

Andreas Mahringer | 0716538 | Supervisor: Dr. Oliver Koll & MSc Roland Schroll

CONCEPT FOR DIPLOMA THESIS
AGENDA

‣ INTRODUCTION
‣ USER GENERATED CONTENT
‣ THE SOURCE EFFECT
‣ SOURCE CREDIBILITY
‣ COGNITIVE RESPONSE THEORY
‣ RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
‣ THE STRUCTURE
‣ TIME SCHEDULE
‣ REFERENCE LIST

IN 2006 TIME MAGAZINE NAMED
"YOU" PERSON OF THE YEAR.

Source: TIME 2006

YOU CONTROL
T H E
INFORMATIO
N AGE.
Source: TIME 2006

YOU CONTROL .

Source: TIME 2006

YOU .

Source: TIME 2006

FROM
FEW SOURCES
OF COMMUNICATION

TO
MANY SOURCES
OF COMMUNCIATION

USER GENERATED CONTENT
DEFINITION

C O N T E N T M A D E P U B L I C LY
AVAILABLE OVER THE INTERNET,
WHICH REFLECTS A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF CREATIVE EFFORT AND
WHICH IS CREATED OUTSIDE OF
PROFESSIONAL ROUTINES AND
PRACTICES.
Source: OECD 2007

DISTINCTION

USER BRAND
GENERATED RELATED

BRANDS ARE A COMPLEX
SYMBOL. IT IS THE
INTANGIBLE SUM OF A
PRODUCT'S ATTRIBUTES,
ITS NAME, PACKAGING
AND PRICE, ITS HISTORY,
REPUTATION, AND THE
WAY IT'S ADVERTISED.

A BRAND IS ALSO DEFINED
BY CONSUMER'S
IMPRESSION OF PEOPLE
WHO USE IT, AS WELL AS
THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE.

- DAVID OGILVY, 1955

COMMUNICATION ADVANTAGES

"CONSUMERS VOICE MORE TRUST IN PRODUCT INFORMATION CREATED
BY OTHER CONSUMERS THAN GENERATED BY MANUFACTURERS [...]
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER PARTICIPANTS VIEW POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE
INFORMATION."

Source: Cheong & Morrison 2010


"CONSUMERS VIEW PEOPLE POSTING UGC ON DISCUSSION BOARDS OR
REVIEWER SITES AS OPINION LEADERS WHOSE INPUT IS STILL
CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS EVEN IF THEY DO NOT
CONCUR WITH THE STATED OPINION."



"CONSUMERS DO NOT ONLY LOOK FOR ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY THEIR PEERS DUE TO UTILITARIAN MOTIVES, BUT AS PART
OF A RISK MINIMIZING STRATEGY."

Source: Goldsmith & Horowitz 2006


UGC,
A VITAL PART IN OUR
EVERYDAY DECISION MAKING
PROCESSES.

CONSUMER-GENERATED ADVERTISING
DEFINITION

"ANY PUBLICLY DISSEMINATED,
CONSUMER-GENERATED
ADVERTISING MESSAGE WHOSE
SUBJECT IS A COLLECTIVELY
RECOGNIZED BRAND."

Source: Berthon et al. 2008

DISTINCTION

USER BRAND
GENERATED RELATED

ADVERTISING

WHAT WE KNOW
"CONSUMERS CAN BE QUITE
SKILLED IN THE CREATION OF
"WITH THE PROLIFERATION OF PERSONAL DIGIT
B R A N D - R E L E V A N T
MEDIA TECHNOLOGY, TODAY'S CONSUMERS HAVE
COMMUNICATIONS, APPLYING
TO TO O L B OX TO C H E A P LY A N D Q U I C K LY
THE STYLES, LOGICS, AND
P R O D U C E , D I S T R I B U T E A N D E N GAG E I N THE MOTIVES:
GRAMMAR OF ADVERTISING."
SOPHISTICATED MARKETING CONTENT." - INTRINSIC ENJOYMENT
Source: Muniz & Schau 2007 - SELF-PROMOTION
- CHANGE PERCEPTIONS

STRATEGIC STANCES TAKEN BY FIRMS:
THE ADS: - FACILITATE (active & positive)
- RELATIONSHIP WITH OFFICIAL BRAND MESSAGE (ASSONANT - DISSONANT) - APPLAUD (passive & positive)
- MESSAGE (POSITIVE - NEGATIVE) - DISAPPROVE (passive & negative)
Source: Berthon et al. 2008 - REPEL (active & negative)

WHAT WE KNOW

LOSS OF
CONTROL

WHAT WE DON'T KNOW

HOW
EFFECTIVE?

THE SOURCE EFFECT
DEFINITION

"SOURCE EFFECT THEORY SUGGESTS THAT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN
AD IS IMPACTED BY THE CONSUMER'S PERCEPTION OF ITS SOURCE, THE
FRAMING OF CLUES AND STIMULI."

Source: Steyn et al. 2010

THE SOURCE EFFECT
THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL

TWO ROUTES TO PERSUASION

- THE CENTRAL ROUTE
- THE PERIPHERAL ROUTE

Source: Petty et al. 1983

ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL
THE CENTRAL ROUTE

• EFFORTFUL COGNITIVE ACTIVITY
• EXPERIENCES & KNOWLEDGE
• CAREFUL EVALUATION OF MESSAGE

NEED FOR MOTIVATION


ISSUE INVOLVEMENT

WHEN Y
OU'RE I
NVOLVE
YOU'RE D,
MOTIVA
TED!

ISSUE INVOLVEMENT (MODERATOR)
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ATTITUDINAL
ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS OF
PERSONAL RELEVANCE.

THE CENTRAL ROUTE

• EFFORTFUL COGNITIVE ACTIVITY
• EXPERIENCES & KNOWLEDGE
• CAREFUL EVALUATION OF MESSAGE

HIGH ISSUE INVOLVEMENT


THE PERIPHERAL ROUTE

• MESSAGE CUES, SIGNALS, STIMULI (+/-)
• ASSOCIATION OF ISSUE WITH CUES
• MAKING OF INFERENCES
• SUBLIMINAL PROCESS

LOW ISSUE INVOLVEMENT

THE SOURCE EFFECT
DEFINITION

ONE OF SUCH MESSAGE CUES:

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SOURCE.


SOURCE CREDIBILITY
TWO FACTORS

EXPERTISE

"THE EXTENT TO WHICH A COMMUNICATOR IS
PERCEIVED TO BE A SOURCE OF VALID
ASSERTATIONS."
Source: Hovland et al. 1953

SOURCE CREDIBILITY
TWO FACTORS

TRUSTWORTHINESS

"THE DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE IN THE
COMMUNICATOR'S INTENT TO COMMUNICATE
THE ASSERTIONS HE CONSIDERS MOST VALID."
Source: Hovland et al. 1953

SOURCE CREDIBILITY
THE STUDIES

A VARIETY OF STUDIES AND EXPERIMENTS HAVE CONFIRMED THE
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF THESE TWO VARIABLES - INDIVIDUALLY OR
COMBINED - ON PERSUASION EFFECTIVENESS, OPINION AGREEMENT,
LIKING AND ATTITUDE CHANGE.

Source: Crano 1970; Mills and Harvey 1972; Horai et al. 1974; Ohanian 1990; Goldsmith et al. 2000; Newell and Goldsmith 2001

PERCEIVED SIMILARITY
DEFINITION

"THE EXTENT TO WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL BELIEVES A PORTRAYAL SEEMS
TO REALISTICALLY REFLECT HIS OR HER OWN EXPERIENCES, OR AS
SIMILAR TO THEMSELVES BASED ON CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES."

"ATTRIBUTES MAY INCLUDE DEMOGRAPHICS, SHARED VALUES, SHARED
IDEAS AND COMMON EXPERIENCES."

Source: Andsager et al. 2006, Salmon and Atkin 2003

THE STUDIES
"PERCEIVED SIMILARITY IS
POSITIVELY RELATED TO
"WHEN CONTENT IS CONSUMER-GENERATED, THE CONSUMER
MESSAGE
VIEWS THE SOURCE OF THE MESSAGE AS SIMILAR TO
EFFECTIVENESS."
THEMSELVES, THUS RENDERING THE COMMUNICATION AS
Andsager et al. 2006
MORE PERSUASIVE."
Price, Feick and Higie 1989;

"CONTENT PRODUCED
"SOURCES WHOM AUDIENCES PERCEIVE
BY A PERCEIVABLY
AS SIMILAR TO THEMSELVES ARE MORE
SIMILAR PEER WERE
LIKELY TO PRODUCE PERSUASION THAN
MORE EFFECTIVE IN THE
SOURCES WHOM AUDIENCES PERCEIVE AS
ENHANCEMENT OF
DISSIMILAR."
ATTITUDES"
Perloff 2003
Paek et al. 2011

REVISITING ISSUE INVOLVEMENT AS MODERATOR

"THE EFFECT OF A PERCEIVABLY SIMILAR PRODUCER IS MORE
PRONOUNCED WHEN VIEWERS HAVE A LOW RATHER THAN HIGH ISSUE
INVOLVEMENT."

Source: Paek et al. 2011

SO ONE MIGHT
CONCLUDE
THAT CGA
EFFECTIVENES

EXCEEDS THE
O N E
TRADITIONAL
ADS 'CAUSE OF:

HIGER SOURCE
CREDIBILITY &
PERCEIVED
SIMILARITY

THE STUDIES
1) LAWRENCE ET AL. 2009

"THE EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATES SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE
ADVANTAGES FOR CGAs IN TERMS OF PERSONAL RELEVANCE,
PERCEPTIONS OF EXECUTIONAL QUALITY, ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE AD,
BRAND INTEREST AND PURCHASE INTENT.

THE STUDIES
2) STEYN ET AL. 2010

"THE EXPERIMENT DID NOT FIND ANY SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT
CGAs ARE PREFERRED OVER AGENCY-CREATED ADS."

THE STUDIES
3) STEYN ET AL. 2011

"THE STUDY DID NOT FIND ANY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT CGAS
ARE PREFERRED OVER AGENCY CREATED ADS."

"CONSUMERS SEEM TO BE MORE CRITICAL TOWARDS AN AD WHEN THEY
ARE EXPOSED TO CUES THAT INFORM THEM WHO CREATED THE AD."

COGNITIVE RESPONSE THEORY
INSIGHTS

"IN RESPONSE TO A PERSUASIVE APPEAL, INDIVIDUALS REHEARSE
THEIR ISSUE-RELEVANT THOUGHTS, AS WELL AS THOSE PRESENTED TO
THEM."

THE MORE CREDIBLE THE SOURCE, THE MORE THE REHEARSAL OF
THEIR [THE INDIVIDUALS'] OWN REPERTOIRE OF ATTITUDE RELEVANT
THOUGHTS GETS SUPPRESSED BY THE APPEAL.

Source: Sternthal et al. 1978a, 1978b

COGNITIVE RESPONSE THEORY
INSIGHTS

"DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUALS' INITIAL PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS
THE ADVOCACY - IN FAVOR VS AGAINST - THE PERSUASIVE EFFECT OF
THE APPEAL CAN BE MODERATED BY THE LEVEL OF SOURCE
CREDIBILITY."

Source: Sternthal et al. 1978a, 1978b

THE
THEORY

AN APPEAL PRESENTED BY A MODERATELY CREDIBLE SOURCE TO AN
INDIVIDUAL WITH A POSITIVE INITIAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ISSUE,
MIGHT BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE SAME APPEAL PRESENTED BY A
HIGHLY CREDIBLE SOURCE.

THIS THEORY WAS REPLICATED IN TWO EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES, IT'S RELEVANCE HAS NEVER BEEN INVESTIGATED IN AN ADVERTISING CONTEXT.

Source: Sternthal et al. 1978a; 1978b

RESEARCH
QUESTIONS

A) DOES THE EXISTENCE OF SOURCE CREDIBILITY EFFECTS IN CGAs, DEPEND ON THE
INITAL PREDISPOSITION OF THE SPECTATOR TOWARD THE ADVERTISED BRAND?

B) DO CGAs BENEFIT FROM AN INCREASED LEVEL OF PERCEIVED SIMILARITY
BETWEEN THE SPECTATOR AND THE SOURCE?

C) WHICH IMPACT DOES THE LEVEL OF ISSUE INVOLVEMENT HAVE ON THE
EVALUATION OF CGAs?

THE HYPOTHESIS
PART I

H1: Group AB(yes) will attribute a higher level of trustworthiness to H4: Subjects who attribute a high level of source credibility to the
the source of the advertising message than Group AB(no). source of the advertising message will indicate a more favorable
attitude towards the ad (H4a), attitude towards the brand (H4b) and
H2: Group AB(yes) will attribute a lower level of expertise to the purchase intentions (H4c) than subjects who attribute a low level of
source of the advertising message than Group AB(no). source credibility to the source of the advertising message.

H3: Group AB(yes) will indicate a more favorable attitude towards H5: Group AB(yes) will indicate a higher level of perceived similarity
the ad (H3a), attitude towards the brand (H3b) and purchase with the source of the advertising message than Group AB(no).
intentions (H3c) than Group AB(no).

THE HYPOTHESIS
PART II

H6: Subjects who state a high level of perceived similarity with the H8: Attitude towards the ad (H8a), attitude towards the brand (H8b) and
source of the advertising message will indicate a more favorable purchase intentions (H8c) will not differ signiﬁcantly amongst subjects,
attitude towards the ad (H6a), attitude towards the brand (H6b) and irrespective if they indicate a high or a low level of perceived similarity
purchase intentions (H6c) than subjects who state a low level of with the source of the advertising message, if the level of issue
perceived similarity with the source of the advertising message. involvement is high.

H7: Attitude towards the ad (H7a), attitude towards the brand (H7b) H9: Group A(no) will indicate a more favorable attitude towards the ad
and purchase intentions (H7c) will not differ signiﬁcantly amongst (H9a), attitude towards the brand (H9b) and purchase intentions (H9c)
subjects, irrespective if they attribute a high or a low level of source than Group A(yes).
credibility to the source of the advertising message, if the level of
issue involvement is high. H10: Group B(yes) will indicate a more favorable attitude towards the ad
(H10a), attitude towards the brand (H10b) and purchase intentions (H10c)
than Group B(no).

RESEARCH DESIGN
OVERVIEW

• 2 X 2 BETWEEN SUBJECTS EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

• INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
• INITIAL PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS THE BRAND (POSITIVE | NEGATIVE)
• SOURCE IDENTIFICATION (YES | NO)

• SAMPLE SIZE: 200

• SAMPLE FRAME: BUSINESS STUDENTS AT UIBK, 18-26 YEARS OF AGE;

RESEARCH DESIGN
AD SELECTION

• CONSUMER GENERATED SPOT
• HIGH PRODUCTION QUALITY
• IN FAVOR OF THE BRAND
• MATCH CORPORATE COMMUNICATION STYLE
• TARGET MARKET HAST TO APPLY TO SAMPLE FRAME
• BRAND MUST ALLOW FOR BOTH, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, INITIAL PREDISPOSITIONS
• BRAND MUST ALLOW FOR BOTH, HIGH AND LOW, LEVELS OF ISSUE INVOLVEMENT,
IRRESPECTIVE OF GENDER AND AGE

• PRE-TESTS DURING AD SELECTION PROCESS

*RANDOMLY ASSIGNED SOURCE ID
- PRIOR
- VISUAL
- NEUTRAL

RESEARCH DESIGN
THE PROCEDURE
IDyes*

FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE + EVALUATION
GROUPA
POS
IDno*
SCREENING OVERALL
QUESTIONS LIKEABILITY
IDyes*

NEG
GROUPB

IDno*

THE SCALES
SCREENING QUESTIONS

YES/NO
- BUSINESS STUDENT AT UIBK?
- 18 TO 26 YEARS OLD?
- FAMILIARITY WITH BRAND?

THE SCALES
OVERALL LIKEABILITY

INSIGHT
"SINGLE ITEM MEASURES OF LIKEABILITY ARE COMMONLY USED WITHIN VIEWER RESPONSE
RESEARCH AND HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO VALIDATE MULTI-ITEM MEASURES OF LIKEABILITY"

- PRESENTATION OF BRAND LOGO (VISUAL)
- 5-POINT SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE
- FROM "I DO NOT LIKE THE BRAND AT ALL" TO "I DO LIKE THE BRAND A LOT";
- "RIGHT" FROM MEDIAN: GROUPA
- "LEFT" FROM MEDIAN: GROUPB
- "ON" MEDIAN: DISMISSAL

THE SCALES
SOURCE CREDIBILITY

OHANIAN 1990
"IN EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF SOURCE CREDIBILITY, THE SCALE CAN BE USED TO ASSESS
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION."

- 10-ITEM SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE
- 50% TRUSTWORTHINESS, 50% EXPERTISE
- CHECKED FOR RELIABILITY & VALIDITY

Source: Ohanian 1990

THE SCALES

PAEK ET AL. 2011
- "NOT SIMILAR TO YOU" TO "SIMILAR TO YOU"
- "SOMEONE NOT LIKELY TO BE YOUR PEER" TO "SOMEONE LIKELY TO BE YOUR PEER"

Source: Paek et al. 2011

THE SCALES
ISSUE INVOLVEMENT

ZAICHKOWSKY 1985

- RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPT IN AN ADVERTISING CONTEXT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED Source: Petty & Cacioppo 1981

- ISSUE INVOLVEMENT AS MEASURE OF PERSONAL RELEVANCE ATTRIBUTED TO AD Source: Chaiken 1980; Petty &
Cacioppe 1979, 1981, 1990;

THE SCALES
ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE AD

OBJECTIVE: QUANTIFY THE PARTICIPANTS SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS ABOUT THE AD.

SCHLINGER'S VIEWER RESPONSE PROFILE (1979)
- RECEIVED MUCH ATTENTION BY BOTH ACADEMICS AND COMMERCIAL RESEARCH AGENCIES
- USED IN PREVIOUS CGA STUDIES (LAWRENCE ET AL. 2010; STEYN ET AL. 2011)
- 7 DIMENSIONS OF RESPONSES TO COMMERCIALS
- STRASHEIM ET AL. (2007) REDUCED VRP TO 14-ITEM SCALE FOR HIGHER USABILITY
- 7 DIMENSIONS STILL EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTED

Source: Schlinger 1979; Steyn et al. 2011; Lawrence et al. 2010; Strasheim et al. 2007

THE SCALES
ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE BRAND

OBJECTIVE: QUANTIFY THE PARTICIPANTS SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS ABOUT THE BRAND.

LAFFERTY AND GOLDSMITH 1998
- THREE 7-POINT SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALES

- FROM "GOOD" TO "BAD"
- FROM "FAVORABLE" TO "UNFAVORABLE"
- FROM "SATISFACTORY" TO "UNSATISFACTORY"

Source: Lafferty & Goldsmit 1998; Bruner & Hensel 1992;

THE SCALES
PURCHASE INTENT

OBJECTIVE: QUANTIFY THE PARTICIPANTS INTENTIONS TO PURCHASE THE PRODUCT/SERVICE.

Yi 1990
- THREE 7-POINT SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALES

- FROM "VERY LIKELY" TO "VERY UNLIKELY"
- FROM "PROBABLE" TO "IMPROBABLE"
- FROM "POSSIBLE" TO "IMPOSSIBLE"

Source: YI 1990

THE SCALES
DEMOGRAPHICS

THE FINAL SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL
GATHER BASIC DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IN ORDER
TO ALLOW FOR VALIDATION CHECKS OF SAMPLE
HOMOGENEITY.

THE SCALES
MANIPULATION CHECK

WAS THE TREATMENT SUCCESSFUL?

WHO DO YOU THINK PRODUCED THE AD?

THE STRUCTURE
PART I
1. Introduction
1.1 A Changing Communication-Landscape
3. Theoretical Background: Advertising Effectiveness- The Road to Persuasion
1.2 Problem Statement
3.1 Hierarchy-Of-Effects Models
1.3 Aim of the Thesis & Research Questions
3.2 The Elaboration Likelihood Model

1.4 Structure of the Thesis
3.2.1 The Central Route to Persuasion
3.2.2 The Peripheral Route to Persuasion
2. Theoretical Background: User Generated Content
3.2.3 Issue Involvement as Moderating Variable
2.1 Definition
2.2 State of the Art
4. Theoretical Background: The Source Effect
2.3 Consumer Generated Advertising
4.1 Definition
2.3.1 Definition
4.2 Source Credibility
2.3.2 Motivations for Consumer Creativity
4.2.1 Expertise
2.3.3. Types of Consumer-Generated Ads
4.2.2 Trustworthiness

2.3.4. Strategic Stances Towards Consumer-Generated Ads
4.3 The Role of Initial Predisposition: Cognitive Response Theory
4.4 Perceived Similarity

4.5 Revisiting Issue Involvement as Moderating Variable

THE STRUCTURE
PART II
5. Empirical Study
5.1 Research Methodology
5.1.2 Set Up of the Current Research Design
5.1.2.1 The Sample
5.1.2.2. The Scales
5.2.2.3. The Ad
5.2.2.4. The Procedure
5.2.3 Pre-Tests and Results
5.2 Empirical Findings

6. Discussion of the Findings & Management Implications

7. Research Limitations & Agenda for Future Research

8. Appendix

REFERENCE LIST
PART I
Andsager, J. L., Bemker, V., Choi, H. L. & Torwel, V. (2006), ‘Perceived similarity of exemplar traits and behavior’, Communication Research, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 3-18.

Arnhold, U. (2010),’User Generated Branding - Integrating User Generated Content into Brand Management’, Gabler Verlag, Berlin.

Austin, E. W. & Meili, H. K. (1994), ‘Effects of interpretations of televised alcohol portrayals on children’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 417-435.

Berthon, P., Pitt, L. & Campbell, C. (2008), ‘Ad Lib: When Customers Create The Ad’, California Management Review, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 6-30.

Brunel, F., Lawrence, B. & Fournier, S. (2010), ‘Towards A Contingency Theory of Consumers’ Engagement with CGAs’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 37, Special Session
Summary - Consumer-Generated Advertising: Creators and Spectators, pp. 285-286.

Campbell, C., Pitt, L. F., Parent, M. & Berthon, P. R. (2011), ‘Understanding Consumer Conversations Around Ads in a Web 2.0 World’, Journal of Advertising, vol. 40, no. 1, pp.
87-102.

Chaiken, S. (1980), ‘Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 752-766.

Cheon, H. J. & Morrison, M. A. (2010), ‘Consumers’ Reliance on Product Information and Recommendations Found in UGC’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 38-49.

Cho, C. H. (1999), ‘How Advertising Works on the WWW: Modiﬁed Elaboration Likelihood Model’, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 33-50.

Crano, W. D. (1970), Effects of sex, response order, and expertise in conformity: A dispositional approach, Sociometry, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 239-252.

REFERENCE LIST
PART II
Daugherty, T., Eastin, M. S. & Bright, L. (2008), ‘Exploring Consumer Motivations For Creating User-Generated Content’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, vol. 8., no. 2, pp- 16-25.

Ertimur, B. & Gilly, M. C. (2010), ‘The Impact of Consumer-Generated Advertising on Brand Associations’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 37, Special Session Summary -
Consumer-Generated Advertising: Creators and Spectators, pp. 286.

Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A. & Newell, S. J. (2000), ‘The Impact of Corporate Credibility and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements and Brands’, Journal of
Advertising, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 43-54.

Goldsmith, R. E. & Horowitz, D. (2006), ‘Measuring Motivations for Online Opinion Seeking’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1-16.

Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001), ‘The Measurement of Word-of-Mouth Communication and an Investigation of Service Quality and Customer Commitment as Potential Antecedents’,
Journal of Service Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 60-75.

Hearn, G., Foth, M. & Gray, H. (2009), ‘Applications and implementations of new media in corporate communications - An action research approach’, Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 49-61.

Hoffman, D. L. & Novak, T. P. (1997), ‘A New Marketing Paradigm for Electronic Commerce’, The Information Society, vol. 13, pp. 43-54.

Horai, J., Naccari, N., & Fatoullah, E. (1974), The effects of expertise and physical attractiveness upon opinion agreement and liking, Sociometry, vol. 37, pp. 601-606.

Hovland, C., Janis, I. & Kelley, H. (1953), ‘Communication and Persuasion’, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

REFERENCE LIST
PART III
Lafferty, B. A. & Goldsmith, R. E. (1998), ‘Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions When a High versus a Low Credibility Endorser is Used in the
Ad’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 44, pp. 109-116.

Lawrence, B., Fournier, S. & Brunel, F. (2009), ‘Consuming the Consumer-Generated Ad’, Boston University School of Management, viewed 6 May 2012, <http://bit.ly/IvsuYu>

McDaniel, C. Jr & Gates, R. (2010), ‘Marketing Research - 8th Edition’, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

Mills, J. & Harvey, J. (1972), ‘Opinion change as a function of when information about the communicator is received and whether he is attractive or expert’, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 52-55.

Muniz, A. M. Jr. & Schau, H. J. (2007), ‘Vigilante Marketing and Consumer-Created Communications’, Journal of Advertising, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 35-50.

Muniz, A. M. Jr. & Schau, H. J. (2011), ‘How to inspire value-laden collaborative consumer-generated content’, Business Horizons, vol. 54, pp. 209-217.

Newell, S. J. & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001), ‘The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 52, pp. 235-247.

OECD (2007), ‘Participative Web: User-Created Content (UCC)’, DSTI/ICCP/IE(2006)7/FINAL, viewed 5 May 2012, <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/14/38393115.pdf>.

Ohanian, R. (1990), ‘Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’ Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness’, Journal of Advertising, vol.
19, no. 3, pp. 39-52.

REFERENCE LIST
PART IV
Otto, P. A. & Bois, J. R. (2001), ‘Brand Management Facilitation: A System Dynamics Approach for Decision Makers’ Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at
Albany, State University of New York, viewed 5 May 2012, <http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2001/papers/Otto_1.pdf>.

Paek, H., Hove, T., Jeong, H. J. & Kim, M. (2011), ‘Peer or expert? The persuasive impact of You Tube public service announcement producers’, International Journal of Advertising,
vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 161.188.

Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979), ‘Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol. 37, pp. 1915-1926.

Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981), ’Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 8, pp.
20-24.

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, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 135-146.

Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990), ‘Involvement and Persuasion: Tradition Versus Integration’, Psychological Bulleting, vol. 107, no.3, pp. 367-374.

Petty, R. E., Heesacker, M. & Hughes, J. N. (1997), ‘The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Implications for Practice of School Psychology’, Journal of School Psychology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp.
107-136.

Price, L. L., Feick, L. F., & Higie, R. A. (1989), ‘Preference Heterogeneity and Coorientation as Determinants of Perceived Informational Inﬂuence’, Journal of Business Research, vol.
19, no. 3, pp. 227-242.

REFERENCE LIST
PART IV
Schlinger, M. J. (1979), ‘A Profile of Responses to Commercials’, Journal of Advertising Research, vol.19, pp. 37-46.

Scott, L. M. (1994), ‘The Bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader-Response Theory to Consumer Research’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 21, pp. 461-479.

Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R. & Leavitt, C. (1978), ‘The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 4, pp. 252-260.

Sternthal, B., Phillips, L. W. & Dholakia, R. (1978), ‘The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: A Situational Analysis’, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 285-314.

Steyn, P., Wallström, A. & Pitt, L. (2010), ‘Consumer-generated content and source effects in financial services advertising: An experimental study’, Journal of Financial Services
Marketing, vol. 15, pp. 49-61.

Steyn, P., Ewing, M. T., van Herden, G., Pitt, L. F. & Windisch, L. (2011), ‘From whence it came - Understanding source effects in consumer-generated advertising’, International
Journal of Advertising, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 133-160.

Strasheim, A., Pitt, L. & Caruana, A. (2007), ‘Psychometric properties of the Schlinger viewer response profile (VRP)’, Journal of Advertising, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 101-114.

Ward, C. & McGinnies, E. (1974), ‘Persuasive Effects of Early and Late Mention of Credible and Non-Credible Sources’, Journal of Psychology, no. 86, pp. 17-23.

Yi, Y. (1990), ‘Cognitive and Affective Priming Effects of the Context for Print Advertisements’, Journal of Advertising, vol. 19, pp. 40-48.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985), ‘Measuring the Involvement Construct’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 12, pp. 341-352.

The Impact of Source Identification on the Evaluation of Consumer Generated Advertising

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (17)

Similar a The Impact of Source Identification on the Evaluation of Consumer Generated Advertising

Similar a The Impact of Source Identification on the Evaluation of Consumer Generated Advertising (20)

Último

Último (20)

The Impact of Source Identification on the Evaluation of Consumer Generated Advertising