2004
Volume 49, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1384-6930
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7286

Abstract

Samenvatting

Dit experiment bij 171 Vlaamse jongeren (11-15 jaar) onderzoekt door middel van eyetracking-technologie hoeveel aandacht zij besteden aan sociale advertenties die worden aanbevolen door hun beste vrienden. Daarnaast wordt onderzocht in welke mate dit hun reclameverwerking en merkattitudes beïnvloedt, rekening houdend met de rol van positieve en negatieve reacties op de advertenties in het proces van attitudevorming.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2021.3.004.HOLV
2021-01-01
2021-09-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Apestaartjaren. (2020). Onderzoeksrapport Apestaartjaren: de digitale leefwereld van jongeren. https://www.apestaartjaren.be
  2. Bakshy, E., Eckles, D., Yan, R., & Rosenn, I. (2012). Social influence in social advertising: Evidence from field experiments. Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce - EC ’12.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bang, H., & Wojdynski, B. W. (2016). Tracking users’ visual attention and responses to personalized advertising based on task cognitive demand. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 867-876.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beuckels, E., De Jans, S., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2021). Keeping up with media multitasking: An eye-tracking study among children and adults to investigate the impact of media multitasking behavior on switching frequency, advertising attention, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 50(2), 197-206.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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: effects of sponsorship disclosure timing. Psychology & Marketing, 31(3), 214-224.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
  8. Buijzen, M., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Owen, L. H. (2010). Introducing the PCMC model: An investigative framework for young people’s processing of commercialized media content. Communication Theory, 20(4), 427-450.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210-224.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2007). Growing up in a material world: Age differences in materialism in children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 480-493.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cho, C.-H., Lee, J.-G., & Tharp, M. (2001). Different forced-exposure levels to banner advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(4), 45-56.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chu, S.-C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 47-75.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Daugherty, T., Hoffman, E., Kennedy, K., & Nolan, M. (2018). Measuring consumer neural activation to differentiate cognitive processing of advertising: Revisiting Krugman. European Journal of Marketing, 52(1/2), 182-198.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Jans, S., Vanwesenbeeck, I., Cauberghe, V., Hudders, L., Rozendaal, E., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2018). The development and resting of a child-inspired advertising disclosure to alert children to digital and embedded advertising. Journal of Advertising, 47(3), 255-269.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. De Keyzer, F., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2015). Is this for me? How consumers respond to personalized advertising on social network sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 15(2), 124-134.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Devue, C., & Brédart, S. (2008). Attention to self-referential stimuli: Can I ignore my own face?Acta Psychologica, 128(2), 290-297.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2019). I like what I see: Studying the influence of popularity cues on attention allocation and news selection. Information, Communication & Society, 22(2), 286-305.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Frazier, T. W., Klingemier, E. W., Beukemann, M., Speer, L., Markowitz, L., Parikh, S., Wexberg, S., Giuliano, K., Schulte, E., Delahunty, C., Ahuja, V., Eng, C., Manos, M. J., Hardan, A. Y., Youngstrom, E. A., & Strauss, M. S. (2016). Development of an objective autism risk index using remote eye tracking. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(4), 301-309.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gidlöf, K., Holmberg, N., & Sandberg, H. (2012). The use of eye-tracking and retrospective interviews to study teenagers’ exposure to online advertising. Visual Communication, 11(3), 329-345.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hayes, A. F. (2019). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
  22. Hilverda, F., Kuttschreuter, M., & Giebels, E. (2018). The effect of online social proof regarding organic food: Comments and likes on Facebook. Frontiers in Communication, 3, 1-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Huang, B., Juaneda, C., Sénécal, S., & Léger, P.-M. (2021). “Now You See Me”: The attention-grabbing effect of product similarity and proximity in online shopping. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 54, 1-10.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hudders, L., De Pauw, P., Cauberghe, V., Panic, K., Zarouali, B., & Rozendaal, E. (2017). Shedding new light on how advertising literacy can affect children’s processing of embedded advertising formats: A future research agenda. Journal of Advertising, 46(2), 333-349.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Isaksen, K. J., & Roper, S. (2012). The commodification of self-esteem: Branding and British teenagers. Psychology & Marketing, 29(3), 117-135.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jung, A.-R. (2017). The influence of perceived ad relevance on social media advertising: An empirical examination of a mediating role of privacy concern. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 303-309.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kelly, L., Kerr, G., & Drennan, J. (2010). Avoidance of advertising in social networking sites: The teenage perspective. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 16-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Keyes, H., & Zalicks, C. (2016). Socially important faces are processed preferentially to other familiar and unfamiliar faces in a priming task across a range of viewpoints. PLOS ONE, 11(5).
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Knoll, J., & Proksch, R. (2017). Why we watch others’ responses to online advertising – investigating users’ motivations for viewing user-generated content in the context of online advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(4), 400-412.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Koroleva, K., & Kane, G. C. (2017). Relational affordances of information processing on Facebook. Information & Management, 54(5), 560-572.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lawlor, M.-A., Dunne, Á., & Rowley, J. (2016). Young consumers’ brand communications literacy in a social networking site context. European Journal of Marketing, 50(11), 2018-2040.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Li, Y.-M., Lee, Y.-L., & Lien, N.-J. (2012). Online social advertising via influential endorsers. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(3), 119-154.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, Y.-M., Lin, L., & Chiu, S.-W. (2014). Enhancing targeted advertising with social context endorsement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 19(1), 99-128.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Malheiros, M., Jennett, C., Patel, S., Brostoff, S., & Sasse, M. A. (2012). Too close for comfort: A study of the effectiveness and acceptability of rich-media personalized advertising. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’12. The 2012 ACM annual conference, Austin, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mangleburg, T. F., Doney, P. M., & Bristol, T. (2004). Shopping with friends and teens’ susceptibility to peer influence. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 101-116.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(1), 56-60.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ofcom. (2019). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2019. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/190616/children-media-use-attitudes-2019-report.pdf
  39. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Pfiffelmann, J., Dens, N., & Soulez, S. (2020). Personalized advertisements with integration of names and photographs: An eye-tracking experiment. Journal of Business Research, 111, 196-207.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Piacentini, M., & Mailer, G. (2004). Symbolic consumption in teenagers’ clothing choices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(3), 251-262.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sülflow, M., Schäfer, S., & Winter, S. (2019). Selective attention in the news feed: An eye-tracking study on the perception and selection of political news posts on Facebook. New Media & Society, 21(1), 168-190.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tucker, C. (2012).Social Advertising. SSRN eLibrary. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1975897
  44. Van Noort, G., Antheunis, M. L., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Social connections and the persuasiveness of viral campaigns in social network sites: Persuasive intent as the underlying mechanism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), 39-53.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Boerman, S. C., Buijzen, M., & Rozendaal, E. (2017). This is advertising! Effects of disclosing television brand placement on adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 328-342.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Walrave, M., Poels, K., Antheunis, M. L., Van den Broeck, E., & Van Noort, G. (2018). Like or dislike? Adolescents’ responses to personalized social network site advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(6), 599-616.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Walther, J. B., Liang, Y. J., Ganster, T., Wohn, D. Y., & Emington, J. (2012). Online reviews, helpfulness ratings, and consumer attitudes: An extension of congruity theory to multiple sources in Web 2.0. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 97-112.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. WARC. (2020). What we know about dwell time. WARC. https://www.warc.com/content/article/what-we-know-about-dwell-time/107901
  49. Windels, K., Heo, J., Jeong, Y., Porter, L., Jung, A.-R., & Wang, R. (2018). My friend likes this brand: Do ads with social context attract more attention on social networking sites?Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 420-429.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Winter, S., Brückner, C., & Krämer, N. (2015). They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(8), 431-436.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Youn, S., & Shin, W. (2019). Adolescents’ responses to social media newsfeed advertising: The interplay of persuasion knowledge, benefit-risk assessment, and ad scepticism in explaining information disclosure. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 1-19.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Zarouali, B., Poels, K., Walrave, M., & Ponnet, K. (2018). ‘You talking to me?’ The influence of peer communication on adolescents’ persuasion knowledge and attitude towards social advertisements. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(5), 502-516.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Zarouali, B., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M., & Poels, K. (2017). “Do you like cookies?” Adolescents’ skeptical processing of retargeted Facebook-ads and the moderating role of privacy concern and a textual debriefing. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 157-165.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2021.3.004.HOLV
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2021.3.004.HOLV
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error