Negative factors of beliefs toward advertising on Facebook and their effect on attitudes

  • Received December 16, 2016;
    Accepted April 26, 2017;
    Published September 1, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Hilda Bongazana Dondolo
    ORCID
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(2-2).2017.09
  • Article Info
    Volume 15 2017, Issue #2 (cont. 2), pp. 404-410
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    3 articles
  • 1339 Views
  • 503 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Previous research has studied the effects of materialism, value corruption and falsity, which were identified by Pollay and Mittal (1993) as negatively impacting the beliefs about advertising. Few, if any, assessed negative beliefs about Facebook advertising. This paper assesses such beliefs and how these beliefs influence attitudes toward advertising on Facebook. To meet the objectives of the study, 269 undergraduate students completed the questionnaire. Regression analysis was used to examine a relationship between the beliefs about Facebook advertising and attitudes. In line with hypotheses developed for this study, results showed that respondents of this study view Facebook advertising as promoting materialism, corrupting society’s values and misleading and thus negatively impacting their attitudes toward Facebook advertising. This paper concludes with the discussion of results and offers the limitation of the study. The study also provides directions for future research.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Correlations for the belief toward advertising dimensions
    • Table 2. Regression of negative factors of beliefs toward advertising on Facebook
    • AFKInsider. (2016). Africa Helped 1. AFKInsider. (2016). Africa Helped Facebook Break Ad Revenue Records In Q4. Not Everyone Is Celebrating.
    • Andrews, J. C. (1989). The dimensionality of beliefs toward advertising in general. Journal of Advertising, 18(1), 26-35.
    • Bauer, R. A., & Greyser, S. A. (1968). Advertising in America: the consumer view. Boston, Mass.: Harvard University. Graduate School of Business Administration. Division of Research.
    • Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2004). Advertising and promotion: an integrated marketing communications perspective. 6th ed. Boston, Mass.: Irwin McGraw- Hill.
    • Beltramini, R. F. (1983). Student surrogates in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 11(4), 438-443.
    • Boekaerts, M. (2002). The on-line motivation questionnaire: A self-report instrument to assess students’ context sensitivity. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 12, 77-120.
    • Brackett, L. K., & Carr, B. N. (2001). Cyberspace advertising vs. other media: Consumer vs. mature student attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 23-32.
    • Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2003). The effects of television advertising on materialism, parent – child conflict, and unhappiness: A review of research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 437-456.
    • Bush, A. J., Smith, R., & Martin, C. (1999). The influence of consumer socialization variables on attitude toward advertising: A comparison of African-Americans and Caucasians. Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 13-24.
    • Chia, S. C. (2010). How social influence mediates media effects on adolescents’ materialism. Communication Research, 37(3), 400-419.
    • Chowdhury, H. K., Parvin, N., Weitenberner, C., & Becker, M. (2010). Consumer attitude toward mobile advertising in an emerging market: An empirical study. Marketing, 12(2), 206-216.
    • Chu, S., & 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.
    • Ciochetto, L. (2011). Advertising and value formation: The power of multinational companies. Current Sociology, 59(2), 173-185.
    • Coulter, R. A., Zaltman, G., & Coulter, K. S. (2001). Interpreting consumer perceptions of advertising: An application of the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique. Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 1-21.
    • Ducoffe, R. H. (1996). Advertising value and advertising on the web. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 21-21.
    • Durvasula, S., Mehta, S., Andrews, J., & Lysonski, S. (1997). Advertising Beliefs and Attitudes: Are Students and General Consumers Different. Journal of Asian Business, 13(1), 74-84.
    • eMarketer. (2016). Facebook Continues to Grow, Steadily Adding New Revenue Streams.
    • Galbraith, J. K. (1975). Consumer behavior and the dependence effect. In Mansfield, E. Micro-Economics Selected Readings. Second Edition. USA: WW Norton and Company Inc.
    • Goldstein, R. J. (1986). The limitations of using quantitative data in studying human rights abuses. Human Rights Quarterly, 8(4), 607-627.
    • Lasch, C. (1978). The Culture of Narcissism. New York: W. W. Norton.
    • Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. In L. F. Alwitt & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.). Psychological processes and advertising effects: Theory, research and application (p 4543). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    • Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186.
    • Pollay, R. W. (1986). Quality of life in the padded sell: Common criticisms of advertising’s cultural character and international public policies. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 9(1-2), 173-250.
    • Pollay, R. W., & Mittal, B. (1993). Here’s the beef: factors, determinants, and segments in consumer criticism of advertising. The Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 99-114.
    • Previte, J. (1999). Internet advertising: An assessment of consumer attitudes. Prometheus, 17(2), 199-209.
    • Reichert, T. (2002). Sex in advertising research: A review of content, effects, and functions of sexual information in consumer advertising. Annual Review of Sex Research, 13(1), 241-273.
    • Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303- 316.
    • Singh, J., & Sandhu, N. (2011). Building ethical considerations into advertising practices – An Indian study. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(18), 291-301.
    • Tsang, M. M., Ho, S. C., & Liang, T. P. (2004). Consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising: An empirical study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 65-78.
    • Wang, Y., Sun, S., Lei, W., & Toncar, M. (2009). Examining beliefs and attitudes toward online advertising among Chinese consumers. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(1), 52-66.
    • Wang, Y., & Sun, S. (2010). Assessing beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral responses toward online advertising in three countries. International Business Review, 19(4), 333-344.
    • Wang, F., Zhang, H., Zang, H., & Ouyang, M. (2005). Purchasing pirated software: an initial examination of Chinese consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(6), 340-351.
    • Wolin, L. D., Korgaonkar, P., & Lund, D. (2002). Beliefs, attitudes and behaviour towards Web advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 21(1), 87-113.
    • WorldWideWorx. (2017). South African Social Media Landscape 2017: Executive Summary.
    • Wulfemeyer, K. T., & Mueller, B. (1992). Channel One and commercials in classrooms: Advertising content aimed at students. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 69(3), 724-742.
    • Yang, C. C. (2000). Taiwanese students’ attitudes towards and beliefs about advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 6(3), 171-183.
    • Yang, K. C. (2004). A comparison of attitudes towards Internet advertising among lifestyle segments in Taiwan. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(3), 195-212.
    • Zephoria. (2016). The Top 20 Valuable Facebook Statistics.
Related Articles

  • Quantitative study of selected Facebook marketing communication engagement factors in the optics of different post types

    Ľudovit NastišinORCID , Richard FedorkoORCID Researcher ID, Vladimir VavřečkaORCID , Radovan BačikORCID Researcher ID, Martin RigelskyORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.15(3).2019.02
    Innovative Marketing Volume 15, 2019         Issue #3         pp. 16-25 Views: 4997 Downloads: 638 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The objective of the research was to identify statistically significant differences in selected engagement indicators on Facebook – likes and shares in relation to the different types of content that brands on this platform add to. The analysis was performed on a sample of three global companies from the top 25 most valuable brands in the world and their posts. Using quantitative statistical methods – MANOVA (Multivariate analysis of variance) and Gammes-Howell post hoc test, a total of 1,280 brand posts were analyzed in order to differentiate the liking and sharing of content types. Data collection was carried out in the first half of 2018. The findings pointed to two statistically significant differences that were also interpreted in the discussion of the research. The findings have shown that in case of liking, in two cases out of three, there is a statistically significant difference in terms of the type of content added, when photos came out as those with the greatest potential to get like from Facebook users and fans. At the same time, the same finding appeared in the case of sharing, which is an even stronger form of engagement. Likewise, photos were shown to be the most promising in terms of potential content sharing by Facebook users and fans. The study provided some clues as to where this research should go further and explore the relationship more deeply in view of the more extensive quantitative research, and also the potential qualitative approach. The future research directions include analyzing companies of different types and sizes and also taking into account the contribution from other social networks with the same or similar engagement indicators.

  • The processing of advertising: does a consumer’s level of materialism make a difference?

    Steven Lysonski , Srinivas Durvasula , Ruth Rayner doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.13(1).2017.02
    Innovative Marketing Volume 13, 2017         Issue #1         pp. 11-23 Views: 4722 Downloads: 916 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Materialism has been given great attention in the consumer behavior literature. How materialistic tendencies are shaped by advertising has also been documented. Yet, the impact of consumers’ materialism on their perceptions of ads is not clearly understood. The goal of this research is to examine the relationship between an individual’s materialism and his/her perceptions of various kinds of advertising. Using four specific advertising appeals (i.e., interpersonal, prestige/status, achievement, and appearance-related), attitudes toward the ad, and thoughts elicited by the advertisement were measured and compared across high and low materialism groups. Significant differences were found between respondents from the two groups with respect to the evaluation of each type of appeal. When prestige/status, achievement, and appearance-related appeals were used in advertising, they were evaluated more favorably by consumers with high levels of materialism than by consumers with low levels of materialism. In contrast, advertising that used an interpersonal appeal was viewed more favorably by consumers with low levels of materialism. The results of this research provide implications for marketers on three perspectives: the furthering of our conceptualization of the materialism construct, the design of promotional communication for specific target markets, and the public policy dimension of targeting consumers more vulnerable to certain appeals.

  • Influence of advertisement on customers based on AIDA model

    Mithun S. UllalORCID , Iqbal Thonse Hawaldar ORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(4).2018.24
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 16, 2018         Issue #4         pp. 285-298 Views: 4629 Downloads: 3733 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The paper is based on information which is a combination of store advertisement and consumers’ path inside the store along with product information. With this information, the authors find how advertisement affects the behavior of consumers when making the decision. The findings suggest that advertisement has a small impact on customers inside the stores. Null effect is determined, and one standard deviation in advertising has an impact on store traffic by 1.2%. But the impact at a lower end of the model is observed. One standard deviation in advertisement has impacted the store sales by 8.4%. Based on further data mining, the research has found that there is no significant improvement in the number of customers, but the increase in sales is because of the higher quantity of purchases by the existing consumers. However, the effect of advertisement on products placed in the same or nearby shelf is not found, the impact on product varieties in the same segment is also not found. Based on these research findings, the authors find the right approach towards advertisement.
    The research is limited to consumers of retail industry in a Tier 3 Indian city of a developing geographic segment only.

Download Preview
Close
Problems and Perspectives in Management
Problems and Perspectives in Management