This study examined how sponsorship disclosure on television influences persuasion knowledge and brand responses (i.e., brand memory and brand attitude). Moreover, we tested whether extending disclosure duration increases its effect. By conducting an experiment (N = 116) we compared the effects of no disclosure to a 3‐second and a 6‐second disclosure. Results showed that especially a 6‐second disclosure activates conceptual and consequently attitudinal persuasion knowledge. Regarding brand responses, we found that disclosure directly increased brand memory, regardless of duration. In addition, a 6‐second disclosure indirectly resulted in less favorable brand attitudes through higher rates of attitudinal persuasion knowledge. Theoretically, this study provides insights into how sponsorship disclosure influences the persuasion process and the role of persuasion knowledge within this process.

The aim of the present study was to gain a better understanding of the content characteristics that make online consumer reviews a useful source of consumer information. To this end, we content analyzed reviews of experience and search products posted on Amazon.com (N = 400). The insights derived from this content analysis were linked with the proportion of 'useful' votes that reviews received from fellow consumers. The results show that content characteristics are paramount to understanding the perceived usefulness of reviews. Specifically, argumentation (density and diversity) served as a significant predictor of perceived usefulness, as did review valence although this latter effect was contingent on the type of product (search or experience) being evaluated in reviews. The presence of expertise claims appeared to be weakly related to the perceived usefulness of reviews. The broader theoretical, methodological and practical implications of these findings are discussed.Key words: Online Consumer Reviews, Electronic Word-of-Mouth Communication, Content Characteristics, Content Analysis. doi:10.1111/j. 1083-6101.2011.01551.x With the emergence of consumer-generated media platforms, word-of-mouth conversations have migrated to the World Wide Web (Brown, Broderick, & Lee, 2007), creating a wealth of product information that is often articulated in the form of online consumer reviews (Schindler & Bickart, 2005). These reviews provide product evaluations from the perspective of the customer, and have a strong influence on consumers' product and brand attitudes and purchase behavior (Chevelier & Mayzlin, 2006;D.-H. Park & Kim, 2008;Senecal & Nantel, 2004), even more so than marketer-generated information (Chiou & Cheng, 2003). The persuasive impact of online consumer reviews, as well as of other forms of word-of-mouth, is often attributed to the perceived non-commercial nature of their authors. Consumers are believed to have no vested interest in recommending a product or brand, and their implied independence renders reviews more credible and consequently more useful than marketer-generated information (Bickart & Schindler, 2001;Ha, 2002;Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991).As reviews gain in popularity, it becomes harder for consumers to find their way in the wealth of reviews and to assess the usefulness of the information offered (D. - 19the problem of information overload, many review websites have invested in peer-rating systems that enable consumers to vote on whether they found a review useful in their purchase decision-making process. These votes serve as an indicator of review diagnosticity, and are used as a signaling cue to users to filter relevant opinions more efficiently (Ghose & Ipeirotis, 2008;Mudambi & Schuff, 2010).Variations in the proportion of 'useful' votes provide evidence that 'all reviews are not created equal' (Godes & Mayzlin, 2004;D.-H. Park, Lee, & Han, 2007) and, hence, that all reviews are not evaluated as equal. Consumers do not follow a structured format when posting their product evaluat...

No abstract

How much time do you spend online? Understanding and improving the accuracy of self-reported measures of internet use Araujo, T.B.; Wonneberger, A.; Neijens, P.C.; de Vreese, C.H. : 10.1080/19312458.2017.1317337 Link to publication Published in: Communication Methods and Measures DOI Citation for published version (APA):Araujo, T., Wonneberger, A., Neijens, P., & de Vreese, C. (2017). How much time do you spend online? Understanding and improving the accuracy of self-reported measures of internet use. Communication Methods and Measures, 11(3), 173-190. DOI: 10.1080173-190. DOI: 10. /19312458.2017 General rights 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), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. Given the importance of survey measures of online media use for communication research, it is crucial to assess and improve their quality, in particular because the increasingly fragmented and ubiquitous usage of internet complicates the accuracy of self-reported measures. This study contributes to the discussion regarding the accuracy of self-reported internet use by presenting relevant factors potentially affecting biases of self-reports and testing survey design strategies to improve accuracy. Combining automatic tracking data and survey data from the same participants (N = 690) confirmed low levels of accuracy and tendencies of over-reporting. The analysis revealed biases due to a range of factors associated with the intensity of (actual) internet usage, propensity to multitask, day of reference, and the usage of mobile devices. An anchoring technique could not be proved to reduce inaccuracies of reporting behavior. Several recommendations for research practice follow from these findings.

Augmented Reality (AR) enables consumers to virtually try products on their own face or surroundings in real time (e.g., make-up, furniture), which could help providing consumers a 'try before you buy' experience when shopping online. In an online experiment, we examined the potential positive and negative effects of online product presentation with AR, compared to two non-AR product presentations on a picture of the self or a model. Results suggest that AR enhances perceived informativeness and enjoyment of the shopping experience, as opposed to both non-AR product presentations. Consequently, perceived informativeness leads to a cognitive process which enhances purchase intention and willingness to share personal data with the brand, while perceived enjoyment leads to an affective process which enhances attitude towards the brand. At the same time, AR is perceived as more intrusive, but against expectations, this does not lead to any negative effects.

No abstract

This study investigates whether the timing of sponsorship disclosure affects viewers’ processing of sponsored content, and whether a disclosure influences the persuasive effect of the sponsored content. A model is proposed in which sponsorship disclosure enhances the recognition of sponsored television content as advertising, which leads to critical processing of the sponsored content. Ultimately, this negatively affects the attitude toward the brand in the sponsored content. This model was supported, but only when the disclosure was displayed prior to or concurrent with the sponsored content. These effects were not found for a sponsorship disclosure shown at the end of the program after the sponsored content. Theoretically, the findings emphasize the importance of disclosure timing. A disclosure displayed prior to or concurrent with the sponsored content, primes the sponsored content and provides sufficient processing time, so viewers recognize the content as advertising and can process it critically. In addition, the findings show that persuasion knowledge and critical processing are important underlying mechanisms for the effect of sponsorship disclosure on brand attitude. Regarding the practical implications for legislators and advertisers, this research demonstrates that sponsorship disclosure can make viewers aware of the sponsored content in television programs. Furthermore, this changes the processing of sponsored content and can also ultimately lead to resistance against persuasion.

Although "evidence" is often used as an important argument in persuasive health campaigns, it remains unclear what type of evidence has the strongest impact on particular outcome variables. We conducted a meta-analysis in which the effects of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention were separately compared. Statistical evidence was found to have a stronger influence than narrative evidence on beliefs and attitude, whereas narrative evidence had a stronger influence on intention. We explain these findings in terms of the match between the specific characteristics of the two types of evidence and those of the outcome variables. Statistical evidence, beliefs, and attitude all relate primarily to cognitive responses, whereas both narrative evidence and intention relate more specifically to affective responses. We conclude that communication professionals developing health campaigns should match the type of evidence to the main communication objectives.