Journal of Promotion Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

Predicting Consumer Avoidance of Native

Advertising on Social Networking Sites: A Survey of
Facebook Users

Yoo Jin Chung & Eunice Kim

To cite this article: Yoo Jin Chung & Eunice Kim (2020): Predicting Consumer Avoidance of
Native Advertising on Social Networking Sites: A Survey of Facebook Users, Journal of Promotion
Management, DOI: 10.1080/10496491.2020.1809590

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1809590

Published online: 19 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjpm20
JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1809590

Predicting Consumer Avoidance of Native Advertising

on Social Networking Sites: A Survey of Facebook Users
Yoo Jin Chunga and Eunice Kimb
a
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA; bEwha Woman’s University, Seoul, South Korea

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
As a result of constant efforts to improve consumers’ online Native advertising; social
advertising experiences, native advertising has started to gain networking sites; Facebook;
popularity on social networking sites (SNSs). This survey study ad avoidance;
consumer skepticism
examined antecedents of avoidance of native advertising on
SNSs and the moderating role of consumer skepticism toward
native advertising. Our findings suggest perceived intrusive-
ness and perceived informative and entertainment advertising
value as major antecedents of consumer advertising avoid-
ance. Additionally, the number of brands that consumers are
following on SNSs and negative communication among peers
on SNSs were found to be factors affecting native advertising
avoidance. Finally, consumer skepticism toward native adver-
tising was found to be an important moderating variable in
the mechanism of advertising avoidance on SNSs.

Introduction
Since the introduction of Internet advertising, advertisers have offered vari-
ous new ad formats, including banner and pop-up ads, in an attempt to
attract consumers’ attention. However, the intrusive nature of online ads
has reduced consumers’ receptivity to advertising in online environments,
particularly when ads are not related to their personal consumer activities
(Cho & Cheon, 2004). In order to improve consumers’ experiences with
online advertising and mitigate their negative reactions, advertisers intro-
duced an online advertising format called native advertising, which has
started to gain popularity, particularly on social networking sites (SNSs;
Campbell & Marks, 2015; Wojdynski, 2016). Native advertising continues
to be a bright spot in the digital media marketplace, and it is rapidly gain-
ing importance among both marketers and advertising practitioners. Native
advertising is taking the lead in SNSs because it delivers persuasive mes-
sages to consumers with few interruptions and well-integrated content
(Peterson, 2015).

CONTACT Eunice Kim eunicekim@ewha.ac.kr Department of Psychology, Ewha Woman’s University,

Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, South Korea.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

In the related literature, some scholars have defined native advertising as

being similar to sponsored content, which is “any paid advertising that takes
the specific form and appearance of editorial content from the publisher
itself” (Wojdynski & Evans, 2016, p. 2). However, in practice, native adver-
tising takes on various forms in social media environments, including
advertorials, displayed advertising, or posts on brand pages; these forms of
ads actively involve publishers in creating and executing such ads in social
media (Campbell et al., 2014; Peterson, 2015). Campbell and Marks (2015)
explained that native advertisements on SNSs are a product of “the conver-
gence of advertorial concepts and the social media environment” (p. 2).
The unique placement of native advertising within users’ SNS feeds helps
marketers and advertisers to achieve their goals of promoting brands or
products as part of social media users’ SNS activities (Dvorkin, 2013).
Furthermore, SNS developers and practitioners widely welcome the in-feed
placement of native advertising, as it minimizes the disruption of ads and
provides sufficient ad exposure to SNS users (Matteo & Zotto, 2015;
Peterson, 2015).
Therefore, considering native advertising’s characteristics, it is important
to examine the unique factors that influence consumers’ avoidance of such
advertising in social media environments. This study aims to address a gap
in the literature by building on previous research regarding the antecedents
of advertising avoidance (Cho & Cheon, 2004; Kim et al., 2013; Li et al.,
2002), which include the perceived value and intrusiveness of advertising.
Although a well-articulated body of research on ad avoidance exists, little
attention has been paid to consumers’ avoidance of native advertising on
SNSs with a focus on brand-related factors in the social media context.
Our study proposes that consumers’ use of SNSs for brand-related activities
adds a unique component to predictions of native advertising avoidance; it
is thus important to consider how brand-related SNS activities, such as
peer communication about products and brands in social media, can influ-
ence consumer attitudes (Wang et al., 2012). This study also includes the
number of brands that consumers follow on SNSs, which may lead to
favorable attitudes toward the brands (Chu & Sung, 2015), as part of their
brand-related social media activities and as a predictor of consumers’
avoidance of native advertising.
The avoidance of online advertising remains a major obstacle in native
advertising, along with the growing consumer skepticism regarding native
ads. The constant practice of native advertising including deceptive and
irrelevant content annoyed consumers and led them to question its proper
sponsorship disclosure and manipulation intentions (Taylor, 2017). The
advertising industry has adopted various ad formats and persuasive strat-
egies that are meant to override consumers’ negative reactions to
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 3

advertising (Campbell et al., 2014); in response, consumers have developed

skepticism toward advertising (Friestad & Wright, 1994) to cope with
advertisers’ tactics. The embeddedness of native advertising could be a dou-
ble-edged sword, where in-feed placement and intermingled content with
the native format could increase consumer acceptance and positive adver-
tising outcomes, such as positive attitudes or purchase intentions (Kim,
Choi, et al., 2019; Kim, Youn, et al., 2019). At the same time, it discloses
sponsorship, which activates advertising recognition that leads to a subse-
quent negative reaction toward advertising and the brand (Boerman et al.,
2014; Wojdynski & Evans, 2016). Regarding the design and content aspects
of native advertising, growing concerns exist within the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) regarding the possible deceitful and misleading nature
of native advertising (FTC, 2015), which may increase skepticism among
consumers (Lee et al., 2016). Considering skepticism’s role in evaluating
persuasive messages in native advertising, this study examines the role of
consumer skepticism as a moderator in understanding the relationships
between the antecedents and consumers’ avoidance of native ads on SNSs.
This study aims to elucidate the mechanisms that underlie SNSs users’
avoidance of native advertising by identifying the potentially unique predic-
tors of SNS users’ native ad avoidance and examining consumer skepti-
cism’s moderating role toward native ads on SNSs. The findings offer
theoretical implications in an attempt to identify predictors of online adver-
tising avoidance and those linked to the current social media usage of con-
sumers. This study also provides meaningful practical implications to help
practitioners take advantage of the “native” format of advertising and
implement effective native advertising strategies on SNSs by reducing con-
sumers’ overall incidence of ad avoidance by shedding light on the import-
ance of the transparency of native advertising and examining the
moderating role of consumer skepticism incorporated in native ad avoid-
ance and its predictors.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Consumers’ avoidance of native advertising on SNSs
Ad avoidance often occurs in reaction to persuasive attempts or intentions
based on various psychological mechanisms (Baek & Morimoto, 2012). To
explain how consumers react to such attempts, existing research on ad
avoidance has focused on the psychological reactance theory and on why
they avoid ads (e.g., Baek & Morimoto, 2012; Edwards et al., 2002; McCoy
et al., 2017; Ying et al., 2009). According to psychological reactance theory
(Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981), individuals who perceive threats to
their freedom resist their circumstances and adjust their attitudes and
4 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

behaviors to regain autonomy. When ads are perceived as restricting their

psychological and behavioral freedom, consumers induce psychological
resistance toward the ads.
In response to the proliferation of ad clutter on the Internet, consumers
have developed ad avoidance strategies to reduce their exposure to advertising
(Li et al., 2002). Ad avoidance is defined as “all actions by media users that
differentially reduce their exposure to ad content” (Speck & Elliott, 1997, p.
61). There are three components—cognitive, affective, and behavioral—of con-
sumers’ responses and reactions to ads (Cho & Cheon, 2004; Li et al., 2002;
Seyedghorban et al., 2016). Cognitive ad avoidance is based on consumers’
beliefs associated with an object; when such an association is negative, the con-
sumers develop unfavorable cognitions, which lead to cognitive avoidance
responses, such as intentionally ignoring an ad (Cho & Cheon, 2004;
Seyedghorban et al., 2016). Affective ad avoidance is an expression of negative
feelings toward an ad (Alwitt & Prabhanker, 1992; Cho & Cheon, 2004).
Behavioral avoidance involves actual engagement in target avoidance behav-
iors, such as “zapping” television or radio commercials, scrolling down on a
webpage, unsubscribing from promotional emails, or using ad-blocking tools
(Abernethy, 1991; Baek & Morimoto, 2012; Cho & Cheon, 2004). In most
cases, consumers’ ad avoidance is triggered by the mere recognition of
Internet advertisements, and they usually do not deliberately evaluate the
informational aspect of the ads (Abernethy, 1991; Cronin & Menelly, 1992).
Such ad avoidance markedly hinders the delivery of advertising messages (Li
et al., 2002).
Because native advertising on SNSs allows advertisers’ messages to appear (in
various formats) within users’ feeds, exposure to native ads occurs among con-
sumers who use SNS platforms for various goals and purposes. Online consum-
ers generally perceive Internet ads as interruptions that hinder their online
activities, and they avoid all forms of online ads (known as “banner blindness”;
Benway, 1999). However, they may react differently to native advertising on
SNSs than to traditional online ads because SNS ads take on various formats
(e.g., paid articles and sponsored posts) and are designed to mimic the original
content of the SNS environments (Campbell & Marks, 2015; Kim, Choi, et al.,
2019; Lee et al., 2016; Tutaj & Van Reijmersdal, 2012) . Thus, consumers may
view native advertising on SNSs as minimally intrusive, as it neither blocks the
social media content on their feeds nor interrupts their SNS activities. On the
other hand, because native advertising on SNSs offers seamless integration of
sponsored content (e.g., advertising) into social media content, platforms often
disguise that sponsored content as regular content (e.g., news stories, editorials,
entertainment, opinions, or comments) without disclosing its role as marketing,
thus resulting in lower consumer recognition of the ads (Attaran et al., 2015).
When consumers recognize such paid advertising content, they often perceive
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 5

it as misleading and deceptive (An et al., 2018), which can lead them to avoid
further native advertising on SNSs.
Therefore, given the unique characteristics of native advertising on SNSs,
there is a need to examine the mechanisms that underlie consumers’ avoidance
of it. Drawing upon the previous literature on ad avoidance in both traditional
and online media, this study is focused on identifying the antecedents that are
vital to consumers’ avoidance of native advertising on SNSs.

Predictors of native advertising avoidance on SNSs

Perceived intrusiveness of native advertising on SNSs
One of the factors believed to contribute to consumers’ ad avoidance is their
perception of ad intrusiveness, defined as “the degree to which advertisements
in a media vehicle interrupt the flow of an editorial unit” (Ha, 1996, p. 77).
The concept of perceived intrusiveness, the extent to which an individual may
perceive an advertisement to be disruptive of their goal-related activities or
thought processes, offers a feasible explanation of why consumers avoid adver-
tising (e.g., Cho & Cheon, 2004; Edwards et al., 2002; Krugman, 1983; Park &
McClung, 1985; Soldow & Principe, 1981). A consumer’s perception of ad
intrusiveness is distinguishable from his or her negative emotional reaction
toward advertisements as a consequential perception or a psychological reac-
tion when there is interruption in the consumer’s cognitive process or desired
activity (Li et al., 2002).
With the evolution of social media technologies and the growing need for
creative ad formats, native advertising on SNSs is known to improve ad pene-
tration by reducing consumers’ perceived intrusiveness of the ads. However,
because various aspects of ad execution may affect ad intrusiveness, such as ad
type or exposure frequency (Li et al., 2002), intrusiveness may continue to
play a significant role in this new form of advertising on SNSs. Hence, this
study examines the role of ad intrusiveness as a key predictor of native adver-
tising avoidance, with the goal of understanding ad intrusiveness in native
advertising on SNSs, and presents the following hypothesis:
H1: Perceived intrusiveness of native advertising on SNSs will positively influence
native advertising avoidance on SNSs.

Perceived value of native advertising on SNSs

Although ad avoidance is prevalent among consumers in both traditional
and online media (Cho & Cheon, 2004), consumers appreciate advertising
and perceive it as effective when they find that the advertising provides
value (Ducoffe, 1996). The value of advertising can be defined as “a
6 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

subjective evaluation of the relative worth or utility of advertising to con-

sumers” (Ducoffe, 1995, p. 1).
A consumer’s assessment of advertising can be determined by its inform-
ativeness and entertainment value (Ducoffe, 1996). Informative value
reflects the legitimate role of advertising (Rotzoll et al., 1989), which serves
as a primary factor in accounting for consumers’ approval of advertising
(Bauer & Greyser, 1968). When consumers perceive the usefulness of ads,
they perceive them to be less irritating (Edwards et al., 2002), which
reduces the likelihood of ad avoidance (Aaker & Bruzzone, 1985; Lee &
Lumpkin, 1992; Pasadeos, 1990). Another key aspect of advertising value is
its entertainment value (Ducoffe, 1996). This induces positive reactions
among consumers through enhancing their experience with the ad (Alwitt
& Prabhaker, 1992) and fulfilling their esthetic enjoyment or emotional
needs (McQuail, 1983). Consequently, advertising that is believed to pro-
vide entertainment value is perceived as less intrusive (Edwards et al.,
2002) and likely to be more acceptable to consumers (Phillips & Noble,
2007), which enhances the ad’s effectiveness (Ducoffe, 1996).
Native advertising on SNSs not only offers information through an editorial
format but also provides informative value by displaying relevant content to
SNS users by means of providing customized information to each consumer
(e.g., showing advertisements based on the user’s search record). In a study by
Wang and Li (2017), information that encouraged consumers’ immediate
action and how-to advice were identified as major attributes of native advertis-
ing, and such information appealed to consumers because of its genuine intent
to provide benefits to them. The advancement in ad creation technology has
led to the development of various entertaining native ad formats and content
(e.g., promoted video clips or images, interactive native ads). Following the
previous literature on online advertising that has consistently documented the
significant role of informative and entertainment value as key antecedents in
evaluating the effectiveness of advertising and ad avoidance (e.g., Ducoffe,
1996, Kim et al., 2013; Ying et al., 2009), this study examines whether con-
sumers’ perceived value of native advertising predicts their native ad avoidance
on SNSs as hypothesized below:
H2: The perceived informative value of native advertising on SNSs will negatively
influence native advertising avoidance on SNSs.
H3: The perceived entertainment value of native advertising on SNSs will negatively
influence native advertising avoidance on SNSs.

Consumers’ Brand-related activities on SNSs

Social media environments provide a venue for consumers to engage in a
variety of brand-related activities (Muntinga et al., 2011). Consumers
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 7

participate in brand-related activities by reading content posted by the

brands or sharing opinions through posting comments on the brand page
(Rui & Whinston, 2012) and “follow” brands (akin to “likes”) on SNSs to
get involved with the brand community. This indicates that SNSs are an
effective medium on which consumers voluntarily engage in peer-to-peer
communication about brands with other consumers and choose to learn
brand information, facilitating a new form of consumer socialization
(Wang et al., 2012). In the current study, we incorporate brand-related fac-
tors in the SNS context into the existing framework of consumer ad avoid-
ance by examining two aspects of consumers’ brand-related activities on
SNSs: brand-related communication in which consumers engage with their
peers on SNSs and the number of brands they follow on SNSs.

Brand-related Peer communication on SNSs. In social media environments in

which consumers are socially connected and exchange information between
close peers (Coulter & Roggeveen, 2012), they share their evaluations of
brands and products with their peers and adopt information (Wang et al.,
2012). According to consumer socialization theory (Ward, 1974), peers
serve as an important social agent in influencing consumers’ attitudes and
behaviors related to consumption and brand-related activities, including
their acceptance and sharing intention of advertising (e.g., Chu & Sung,
2015; Kwon et al., 2014; Sung & De Gregorio, 2010). Specifically, consum-
ers perceive brand-related information shared among peers as more trust-
worthy (Feick & Price, 1987).
Consumers tend to rely on their social relations within their social net-
works (i.e., friends or followers) during information searching and purchas-
ing decision making (Chu & Kim, 2011) on SNSs. Thus, there is a need to
investigate whether consumers’ avoidance of commercial messages dis-
guised as organic content on SNSs is influenced by the valence of their
communication with their peers regarding brands or products, as part of
brand electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) communication. As defined by
Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004), eWOM refers to “any positive or negative
statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product
or company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institu-
tions via the internet” (p. 39). In addition, the valence of eWOM commu-
nication with peers allows consumers to accept both the positive and
negative evaluations of a product or service (East et al., 2007; Wangenheim
& Bayon, 2004). When consumers are influenced by positive peer commu-
nication about brands or products on SNSs, they are less likely to avoid
native advertising that appears within their social media feeds. However,
negative brand-related communication with peers might increase consum-
ers’ likelihood of avoiding native ads on SNSs, presumably because of
8 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

negative attitudes developed by the negative information from their peers.

Therefore, this study examines the effect of the communication of positive
and negative messages or experiences about brands or products among
peers on SNSs on native ad avoidance and suggests the follow-
ing hypotheses:
H4: Positive brand-related peer communication on SNSs will negatively influence
native ad avoidance on SNSs.
H5: Negative brand-related peer communication on SNSs will positively influence
native ad avoidance on SNSs.

Number of brands consumers follow. In a similar manner to the influence of

peer communication about brands exchanged on SNSs, consumers’ ten-
dency to avoid advertising may be influenced by the number of brands
they follow on SNSs. That is, consumers following many brands on SNSs
are expected to be receptive to brands’ communication and messages
because they choose to receive updates from several brands and agree to
have brand content appear on their social media feeds. Therefore, it might
be reasonable to assume that their voluntary subscription to brand pages
by “following” brands on SNSs lowers ad avoidance. The study by Chu and
Sung (2015) found that SNS users that followed more brands were more
likely to share brand-related information. In the current context, the num-
ber of brands a consumer follows on SNSs is predicted to reduce his or her
likelihood of avoiding native advertising. Therefore, the following hypoth-
esis is put forth:
H6: The number of brands that consumers follow on SNSs will negatively influence
native ad avoidance on SNSs.

The moderating role of consumer skepticism

According to the persuasion knowledge model (PKM), consumer persua-
sion knowledge allows consumers to recognize, analyze, interpret, evaluate,
and memorize persuasion attempts and to select coping tactics based on
effectiveness and appropriateness (Friestad & Wright, 1994). After a con-
sumer recognizes the presence of persuasion attempts in a message, the
consumer’s attitude changes (Friestad & Wright, 1994) and the effectiveness
of the persuasive message is diminished (William et al., 2004). A consum-
er’s perception of marketers’ manipulating intentions may generate a nega-
tive attitude toward the persuasion agents engaged in the communication
(Campbell, 1995; Campbell & Keller, 2003; Jain & Posavac, 2004).
Consumers’ perceptions of ads supposedly containing specific manipulat-
ing motives, such as persuading or selling intentions, and their distrust of
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 9

the persuasive attempts activate consumer resistance or skepticism

(Mangleburg & Bristol, 1998). Skepticism, one of the sub-concepts of per-
suasion knowledge (Tutaj & Van Reijmersdal, 2012), is understood as a
questioning or doubting mindset, which relates to attitudes toward adver-
tising and marketing (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Obermiller et al.,
2005). Consumer attitudes toward advertising messages can be determined
by different levels of individual skepticism: whether consumers process
advertising messages while being wary of potentially manipulative attempts,
readily refuse any attempts, or are predisposed to believe their claims
(Boush et al., 1994; Lee et al., 2016). Consumer socialization research sug-
gests that consumers may develop overall skepticism toward advertising
claims over time as a result of socialization through constantly coping with
persuasive attempts (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998). Socialization agents
such as peer communication or mass media influence consumer beliefs,
attitudes, and behaviors (Lueg & Finney, 2007; Moschis & Moore, 1979).
Consumers acquire consumer skills through socialization agents and
actively use information or value provided in advertising in their evaluation
of ads (Mangleburg et al., 1997; Moschis & Moore, 1979).
In the processing and evaluation of ad messages, ad skepticism is often
associated with consumers’ negative responses toward advertising, as con-
sumers who are highly skeptical are less likely to be in favor of ads and to
use information from them (Obermiller et al., 2005). Consumers with high
skepticism are also less likely to express purchase intentions (Amyx &
Lumpkin, 2016). With regard to the native advertising context, consumers
who are highly skeptical about native advertising have more negative atti-
tudes toward native advertising and are less likely to share it (Lee et al.,
2016). Therefore, consumers who are highly skeptical toward native ads are
more likely to be influenced by the proposed antecedents to avoid such ads
than less skeptical consumers are.
Among the various types of advertising and marketing communication
practices on SNSs, native advertising, in which paid advertising is disguised
as regular social media content, is concerned for its misleading nature and
association with consumer skepticism due to its characteristic of blurring
the boundaries between journalism, promotional messages, and user-gener-
ated content (Lee et al., 2016; Matteo & Zotto, 2015; Wojdynski & Evans,
2016). This increases the probability that consumers get confused between
native ad and original content (e.g., news articles, user postings) and have
difficulty in recognizing the true intention of the messages in the content.
Therefore, there is growing concern that consumers may become suspicious
of its true intent and, over time, develop disbelief toward advertising, which
is skepticism. Consumers would have perception of native advertising as
inappropriately manipulating and a mean for misleading consumers that is
10 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

solely designed to serve the advertiser’s interest in the face of original con-
tent (Lee et al., 2016; van Reijmersdal et al., 2005).
However, the design elements of native advertising, such as in-feed place-
ment and following the original content format and layout, encourage con-
sumers to engage more because it seems to be original content created by a
publisher or another user. The highly relevant context of the information
and content provided within native advertising surrounded by the publish-
er’s original content also causes consumers to be more engaged with native
advertisements without realizing that they are paid messages (Hoofnagle &
Meleshinsky, 2015; Tutaj & Van Reijmersdal, 2012; Wojdynski & Evans,
2016; Wojdynski & Golan, 2016). Indeed, concerns about native advertising
potentially misleading consumers and increasing consumers’ skepticism in
the evaluation of advertising have been growing. Thus, in this study, we
examine whether the effects of the proposed antecedents of native advertis-
ing avoidance will be moderated by consumer skepticism toward the ad.
Hence, the following hypothesis is presented:
H7: A consumer’s skepticism toward native advertising on SNSs will moderate the
influences of the aforementioned antecedents on native ad avoidance.

Method
Sample and procedure
A total of 394 Facebook users were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk
(MTurk) in an exchange for a small monetary compensation. Age ranges of
participants were from 20 to 74 (M ¼ 35.08; SD ¼ 11.55) and gender distri-
bution was relatively even between male (50.3%) and female (49.7%).
White/Caucasian (78.9%) was the majority, followed by Asian or Asian
American (11.7%), Black/African American (4.1%), Hispanic/Latino(a)
(3.6%), and others (9%). Facebook users were deemed appropriate to par-
ticipate in this study because 83% of the ad format used in Facebook is
native advertising (Cohen, 2016). Most of the participants were active users
of Facebook who identify themselves as visiting Facebook every day
(43.6%) or several times a day (35.2%) with an average of 37 minutes spent
per each log in.
Prior to the survey, screening questions were administered to ensure the
participants were Facebook users and had been exposed to native advertis-
ing on Facebook. Following this, participants were provided with the defin-
ition of native advertising and two examples of native advertising on SNSs
(for fictitious brands) to ensure that they fully understood the concept of
native advertising before responding to the survey questions.
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 11

Measures
Scales used in this study were adapted from existing literature and they
were modified to fit the context of the current study. All items were meas-
ured with seven-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 as “strongly disagree”
to 7 as “strongly agree”.
Perceived ad intrusiveness of native advertising was measured with seven
items developed by Li et al. (2002) to assess the extent to which the partici-
pants regarded native advertising on SNSs as intrusive (a ¼ .92,
M ¼ 4.80, SD ¼ 1.36).
Perceived informative and entertainment values of native advertising on SNSs
were measured by four items of informative and four items of entertainment
used in Edwards et al. (2002), respectively, which were originally developed by
Ducoffe (1996) (Perceived informativeness: a ¼ .86, M ¼ 3.34, SD ¼ 1.40; per-
ceived entertainment values: a ¼ .94, M ¼ 2.97, SD ¼ 1.53).
Brand-related communication among peers assessed the participants’
degree of engagement in positive and negative communication about
brands or products with their peers on Facebook using three items, respect-
ively (Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Wang et al., 2012) (Positive brand-related
peer communication: a ¼ .93, M ¼ 3.48, SD ¼ 1.55; negative brand-related
peer communication: a ¼ .95, M ¼ 3.10, SD ¼ 1.55).
The number of brands consumers follow was measured by the number of
brands that the participants reported they follow on Facebook at the time
of the survey. The participants were asked to answer a single open-ended
question: “Approximately, how many brands do you follow on Facebook?”
The average number of brands followed by the participants on Facebook
was 17.71 (SD ¼ 32.88).
Consumer skepticism toward native advertising was measured with nine-
items developed by Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998). The wordings in
the original items were modified for better reflection of the context of cur-
rent study to measure consumer skepticism in regard to truthfulness and
believability of native advertising and its claims in general (Tutaj & Van
Reijmersdal, 2012) (a ¼ .95, M ¼ 4.73, SD ¼ 1.29).
Avoidance of native advertising on SNSs was measured with scales from
Cho and Cheon (2004), which was intended to measure cognitive, affective,
and behavioral ad avoidance. Eight items were selected and modified to fit
the context of native advertising (a ¼ .95, M ¼ 5.08, SD ¼ 1.41).

Results
A preliminary analysis of correlation was performed among five predicting
variables (i.e., perceived ad intrusiveness, perceived information ad value,
perceived entertainment ad value, positive brand-related peer
12 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

Table 1. Correlation among variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Perceived ad intrusiveness 1.00
2. Perceived information ad value -.64 1.00
3. Perceived entertainment -.63 .82 1.00
ad value
4. Positive brand-related peer -.33 .52 .53 1.00
communication
5. Negative brand-related -.06 .14 .18 .51 1.00
communication
6. Skepticism .56 -.72 -.69 -.47 -.10 1.00
7. Native ad avoidance .71 -.71 -.70 -.41 -.07 .59 1.00
Notes:.
Significant at .05;.
Significant at .01;.
Significant at .001 (2-tailed).

communication, and negative brand-related peer communication) and

skepticism and native ad avoidance. Table 1 illustrates correlational rela-
tionships among the variables.

Confirmatory factor analysis for measurement

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of our measures indicates that the
overall model fit of the measurement model was satisfactory: v2 (1602.02)/
df (644) ¼ 2.49; RMSEA ¼ .06; CFI ¼.93; IFI ¼ .93; NFI ¼ .89; SRMR ¼
.05 Furthermore, all factor loadings were statistically significant within an
acceptable range.

Predicting native advertising avoidance

A three-step hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to test the pro-
posed hypotheses regarding the effects of antecedents of native advertising
avoidance on SNSs. Three factors previously examined in the ad avoidance
literature— perceived intrusiveness of native advertising and perceived
informative and entertainment value of native advertising—were entered
first into a regression analysis. In the second step of the hierarchical regres-
sion analysis, consumers’ brand activity-related predictors (i.e., positive and
negative brand-related peer communication and the number of brands con-
sumers follow on SNSs) were included. To test H7 regarding the moderat-
ing effects of skepticism toward native advertising on SNSs, interaction
terms were created by centering each predictor and included in the last
step of the regression model to examine the moderating effects of con-
sumer skepticism toward native advertising on the relationships between
native ad avoidance and the suggested antecedent variables.
Overall, the regression model was significant. The first step of the regres-
sion model examined perceived ad intrusiveness, informative value, and
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 13

entertainment value as determinants, which explained 63.0% of the variance

in avoidance of native advertising, F (3, 390) ¼ 224.09, p < .001. The
results showed that perceived intrusiveness of native advertising was found
to be a significant antecedent of native ad avoidance on SNSs (b ¼ .39,
t ¼ 9.43, p < .001); thus, H1 was supported. This suggested that the more
the native ads were perceived as intrusive, the more native ad avoidance
occurred among consumers on SNSs. As predicted, informative value (b ¼
 .27, t ¼ 4.77, p < .001) and entertainment value (b ¼  .24, t ¼
4.26, p < .001) of native advertising on SNSs negatively influenced ad
avoidance, supporting H2 and H3.
The second step in the model explained 63.4% of the variance in avoid-
ance of native advertising, F (6,387) ¼ 114.59, p < .001. The results
showed that positive peer communication on SNSs related to brands or
products did not have a significant impact on native ad avoidance on SNSs
(b ¼  .05, t ¼ 1.25, p > .05). Therefore, H4 was not supported.
Regarding H5, negative brand-related peer communication was found to
predict native ad avoidance on SNSs (b ¼ .07, t ¼ 2.02, p < .05). That is,
the more a consumer engaged in negative communication about brands or
products with peers on SNSs, the more likely he or she was to avoid native
advertising on SNSs, confirming H5. As predicted in H6, the number of
brands consumers followed on SNSs was found to be a significant predictor
of native ad avoidance (b ¼ .06, t ¼ 1.98, p < .05), indicating that con-
sumers following a large number of brands on SNSs were less likely to
avoid native advertising on SNSs. Thus, H6 was supported.
After including the moderating variable, the regression model jointly
explained 64.2% of the variance in avoidance of native advertising, F (12,
381) ¼ 59.66, p < .001. The results revealed that there were significant
moderating effects of consumer skepticism on the influences of the per-
ceived intrusiveness of native ads (b ¼ .09, t ¼ 2.01, p < .05) and the
entertainment value of native ads (b ¼ .15, t ¼ 2.36, p < .05) on native
ad avoidance on SNSs. In other words, the effects of consumers’ perceived
intrusiveness and entertainment value of native ads on ad avoidance varied
depending on the level of the skepticism toward native ads. Specifically,
perceived intrusiveness of native advertising on SNSs served as a positive
predictor of ad avoidance among skeptical consumers but not among less
skeptical ones. As shown in Figure 1, skeptical consumers tended to avoid
native advertising on SNSs when their perceived entertainment value of
native advertising was low. However, there was no significant difference in
native advertising avoidance among less skeptical consumers. No significant
moderating effects of skepticism were found on the influences of the
informative value of native advertising, positive and negative peer commu-
nication on SNSs, or the number of brands a consumer followed on
14 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

Figure 1. Moderating role of consumer skepticism on the effects of entertainment value of

native ads on native ad avoidance on SNSs.

Facebook on native ad avoidance on SNSs (all p > .05). Therefore, H7 was

partially supported. Table 2 presents a summary of the relationships between
the proposed antecedents and native advertising avoidance on SNSs.

Discussion
Among the proposed antecedents, the results reveal that perceived intru-
siveness is the most influential factor in predicting native advertising avoid-
ance on SNSs. In line with the findings from previous research (e.g., Cho
& Cheon, 2004; Kim et al., 2013), the perceived intrusiveness of native
advertising on SNSs plays a significant role in consumers’ avoidance of
native ads.
Consistent with the results of previous ad avoidance studies (e.g., Aaker
& Bruzzone, 1985; Bauer & Greyser, 1968), this study’s results indicate that
native advertising’s perceived informative value and entertainment value
are primary factors that mitigate consumers’ avoidance of native advertising
on SNSs. Native advertising on SNSs shares characteristics with advertori-
als, in which paid advertising is integrated into editorial content using a
similar format, particularly in print media (e.g., magazines and newspa-
pers). Consumers perceive an advertisement as an advertorial when it
presents relevant messages in an editorial rather than commercial format—
even when the content is not labeled as an ad (Matteo & Zotto, 2015; van
Reijmersdal et al., 2005). Although these findings support the value of
informativeness in native advertising, its entertainment value was also
determined to be a primary factor in diminishing resistance to native
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 15

Table 2. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for antecedents predicting avoidance of

native advertising on SNSs (n ¼ 394).
Native Ad Avoidance
Predictor Variables B SE R2 D R2
Block 1 .630
Perceived ad intrusiveness .389 .043
Perceived information ad value -.267 .056
Perceived entertainment ad value -.237 .051
Block 2 .634 .004
Positive brand-related peer communication -.053 .039
Negative brand-related peer communication .074 .033
Number of brands consumers follow -.063 .001
Block 3 .642 .008
Intrusiveness X skepticism -.091 .036
Information ad value X skepticism .060 .051
Entertainment ad value X skepticism -.146 .044
Positive brand-related peer communication X skepticism -.036 .030
Negative brand-related peer communication X skepticism -.004 .024
Number of brands consumers follow X skepticism .035 .001
Significant at .05.
Significant at .01.
Significant at .001.

advertising on SNSs. Unlike traditional advertising content, social media

utilize various interactive features with enhanced entertainment elements
(e.g., video clips in native ad articles, hashtag challenges, in-feed games;
Arli, 2017; Meola, 2016).
Given the key role of social media as a venue where consumers actively
participate in a variety of brand-related activities, this study serves to iden-
tify the unique antecedents of SNS users’ native advertising avoidance by
examining the role of consumers’ brand-related SNS communication with
peers (Lueg et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2012). Positive peer communication
did not significantly reduce users’ avoidance of native advertising on SNSs
as expected. The nonsignificant influence of positive brand-related peer
communication on reducing native ad avoidance might have been due to
the source of the marketing messages. In a survey on social media market-
ing and advertising communications among Facebook users, the authors
identified two types of promotional communication based on source: user
re-promoted (i.e., “liked” by users and friends) and marketer-promoted
(i.e., banner ads and suggested posts) (Morris et al., 2016). They also found
that user re-promoted posts were perceived as having higher credibility and
lower intrusiveness compared to marketer-promoted posts. Therefore, for
those who proactively use SNSs to share information about products,
brands, or their own consumption activities, the source of this information
could be more important than if it were done through native advertising.
Consumers might still accept the same native advertisements if they have
been liked or shared by their friends because the messages are considered
more trustworthy and less irritating. Perceptions of native advertising could
differ depending on the source but not significantly affect cognitive,
16 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

affective, and behavioral avoidance of native advertising itself among SNSs

users who actively share positive brand-related peer communication.
On the other hand, negative brand-related peer communication on SNSs
is positively related to the avoidance of native advertising on SNSs, indicat-
ing that SNS users who actively engage in such negative communication
are more likely than other users to avoid native advertising on SNSs.
Consumers participate in negative brand eWOM when they are dissatisfied
or after negative consumption experiences, and such consumers often carry
over their negativity to overall brand evaluation (Kim et al., 2016;
Verhagen et al., 2013; Zeelenberg & Pieters, 2004). As accumulated negative
experiences with a brand or product can lead consumers to avoid ads (Cho
& Cheon, 2004), engaging in negative peer communication about brands or
products should also increase their tendency to avoid such commercial
messages. Although researchers have found inconsistent results with regard
to the impacts of both positive and negative brand eWOM, they have
placed more weight on the persuasive influence of negative brand eWOM
than positive brand eWOM. This is because consumers tend to utilize
negative information more often than positive information when evaluating
a product and forming attitudes toward it (Ahluwalia, 2002; Herr et al.,
1991). Scholars have provided several potential explanations for these nega-
tive effects, including the theory that negative information is more powerful
than positive information because of its overpowering psychological effects
(Skowronski & Carlston, 1989; Wu, 2013), scarcity (as less common infor-
mation is more useful and informative; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989), and
diagnosticity (as it is useful to apply negative evaluations directly to prod-
ucts; Herr et al., 1991).
This study’s results also show that the number of brands that consumers
follow on SNSs is a negative predictor of their native ad avoidance. In
other words, consumers who voluntarily use SNSs to reach out for brand
information are a potential target audience for native advertising, as they
are less likely than other consumers to avoid SNS ads.
Specifically, consumers’ perceptions regarding the intrusiveness and
entertainment value of native advertising affects their avoidance behaviors
to varying degrees depending on their level of skepticism toward native
advertising on SNSs. Consumers who are highly skeptical toward such
native advertising are more sensitive than less skeptical consumers to the
perceived intrusiveness of native ads on SNSs, as measured in terms of ad
avoidance. In addition, highly skeptical consumers are more likely than less
skeptical ones to avoid native advertising on SNSs when those ads are per-
ceived as having low entertainment value. These findings suggest the
importance of ensuring that native ads provide nonintrusive and entertain-
ing ad experiences. These findings shed light on consumer skepticism’s
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 17

significant role in native advertising on SNSs, which is often disguised as

organic social media content and thus can mislead consumers, potentially
leading to increased ad avoidance.
However, consumer skepticism does not moderate all the predictors of
SNS ad avoidance. That is, consumer skepticism does not influence the
effects of consumers’ perceptions regarding native advertising’s informative
value or their brand-related SNS activities. A possible explanation is that
native ads’ informative value may override the influence of skepticism
toward such ads because skepticism leads consumers to consistently diag-
nose the authenticity and accuracy of the advertising claims (Boush et al.,
1994). When a native ad is perceived as delivering useful information, the
perception contradicts the expectations of highly skeptical consumers,
thereby enhancing consumer evaluations of the advertisers’ persuasive
intentions (Amyx & Lumpkin, 2016). Therefore, consumer skepticism may
not affect highly informative native advertising. Similarly, skepticism may
not significantly influence consumers’ brand-related activities related to ad
avoidance if those consumers are altruistically motivated to participate in
peer communication (Zhang et al., 2016) or if they show high levels of
trust and engagement (Pentina et al., 2013).

Conclusions
The results indicated that among six antecedents of the native advertising
avoidance on SNSs—perceived ad intrusiveness of native advertising on
SNSs, perceived informative value of native advertising on SNSs, perceived
entertainment value of native advertising on SNSs, positive brand-related
peer communication, negative brand-related peer communication, and
number of brands that consumers follow on SNSs—five antecedents (all
except positive brand-related peer communication) were significant predic-
tors of native advertising avoidance on SNSs. The findings revealed that the
extent to which a consumer considers native advertising to be intrusive
positively influences native ad avoidance on SNSs, while the consumer’s
perceived value of native advertising as informative and entertainment
negatively influences native ad avoidance on SNSs. Moreover, consumers’
brand-related activities on social media, such as negative brand-related peer
communication and brand-following behaviors on SNSs, have potential to
impact consumers’ avoidance of native advertising on SNSs. Finally, this
study revealed the moderating role of skepticism on the influence of sug-
gested antecedents of native advertising avoidance on SNSs in that the
influence of intrusiveness and entertainment value of native advertising on
native ad avoidance varied by level of skepticism toward native advertising
on SNSs among users. Overall, this study aimed to understand the
18 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

mechanisms underlying SNS users’ avoidance of native advertising and

identify potential unique predictors of native advertising avoidance on SNSs,
incorporating existing ad avoidance variables and brand-related factors in
the SNS context. Moreover, by demonstrating the moderating role of con-
sumer skepticism on native ad avoidance on SNSs, the importance of includ-
ing proper sponsorship disclosure in native advertising was emphasized.

Theoretical and practical implications

The findings of this study make theoretical contributions to the advertising
avoidance literature and social media marketing research. Specifically, this
study provides two meaningful theoretical contributions to the literature on
native advertising avoidance on SNSs: (a) Predictors of advertising avoidance
of native ads in social media include those of online advertising avoidance,
such as advertising intrusiveness and advertising value, and (b) predictors that
reflect the most recent phenomena of consumer situational use of advertis-
ing—that is, negative brand-related peer communication on SNSs—are strongly
related to native ad avoidance. However, when consumers follow more brands
on SNSs, they are less likely to avoid native ads in social media environments.
Along with its support for ad avoidance literature, the positive relation-
ship between the perceived intrusiveness of native ads on SNSs and native
ad avoidance has meaningful practical implications for understanding native
ad avoidance in social media environments. Despite native advertising’s in-
feed placement—which is designed to fit seamlessly within other social
media content—it is critical that social media marketers and advertising
practitioners develop native advertising strategies on SNSs that minimize
consumers’ perceptions of intrusiveness and enhance consumers’ experience
by ensuring the ads occur in a highly relevant context. This study’s findings
also emphasize the importance of delivering information and entertainment
in native advertising on SNSs to reinforce the traditional role of advertising
value in meaningful communication between consumers and advertisers in
social media environments (Ducoffe, 1995). Therefore, incorporating these
theoretical findings into practice, marketing and advertising practitioners
should utilize ad formats that minimize the interruption of consumers’ SNS
experience and focus on legitimate and value-delivering approaches to native
advertising on SNSs to attract consumers in social media environments.
In terms of predictors with regard to the social media context in advertising
avoidance, the positive relationship between negative brand-related peer com-
munication and native ad avoidance on SNSs is noteworthy, as it provides a
meaningful guideline that practitioners can apply to enhance the effectiveness
of native advertising. Preventing negative impressions and monitoring the
spread of negativity among SNS users (e.g., by responding to critical
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 19

comments in a prompt manner and appropriately managing negative customer

reviews) can reduce consumers’ negative reactions and SNS ad avoidance.
Moreover, the number of brands that consumers follow on SNSs being a nega-
tive predictor of native ad avoidance on SNSs provides support for the previ-
ous finding that there is a positive relationship between consumers’ attention
to a brand and engagement in communication with that brand (Chu & Sung,
2015). This also provides practical implications that active engagement in com-
munication with brands by following, liking, or sharing could indicate con-
sumers’ overall potential acceptance of commercial messages and further
actions. Therefore, brands should continue to monitor consumer engagement
and feedback on social media and appeal to consumers with exclusive content
and value, which promotes brand engagement, in turn maximizing the accept-
ance and effectiveness of further marketing messages.
Finally, the moderating effect of consumer skepticism toward native
advertising among the consumers explored in this study further elucidates
consumer skepticism. Even though SNS environments mandate sponsorship
disclosure, many native ads’ sponsorship disclosure remains in question.
That is, many native advertisements appear within SNS users’ feeds without
a specific statement about sponsorship disclosure and without their opt-in
consent. Practitioners should be more aware that skepticism demonstrates
an overall negative reaction toward native advertising in general. Moreover,
its manipulative and covert nature increases ethical concerns and distrust
among consumers. Therefore, the practice of native advertising should
emphasize the importance of transparency in sponsorship disclosure and
should be practiced according to FTC guidelines and ethical standards to
mitigate consumers’ ad avoidance and enhance ad effectiveness.
Overall, the findings of this study suggest how to break down the bar-
riers to effective native advertising practice on social media based on the
understanding that skepticism is inherited among consumers and by incor-
porating identified predictors of native ad avoidance. That is, as long as
native advertising involves proper sponsorship disclosure and contains use-
ful information or is entertaining, consumers might welcome native ads
into their feeds. Native advertising content creators and advertisers should
focus on creating added value when providing native advertising and be
aware of the long-term negativity and avoidance that might build up
among consumers due to exaggerated or baited advertising.

Limitations and future research

Although this research presents findings that provide meaningful implica-
tions on native ad avoidance on SNSs, it also has several limitations. First,
the assessment of native ad avoidance relied on participants’ self-reported
20 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

responses (i.e., intention to avoid native advertising on SNSs) rather than

actual observations of ad avoidance behaviors. Even though behavioral inten-
tion has been shown to precisely predict the target behavior (Bagozzi, 1981),
an experimental study that measures actual behaviors of native ad avoidance
on SNSs would be valuable in generalizing the findings of this study.
Second, this study did not consider the various situations in which SNS
users were exposed to the ads or their different motivations. Consumers’
ad avoidance might have varied with the specific situations on SNSs in
which the ads were viewed: for example, differences in usage of SNSs might
have resulted in varying degrees of native ad avoidance (Shin & Lin, 2016).
Moreover, consumers’ different motivations for engaging on SNSs might
have influenced native ad avoidance on SNSs. For example, some Facebook
users perceive Facebook as a venue for personal communication with their
peers and self-expression (Stern & Taylor, 2007), and such users might not
be in favor of commercial messages that appear on their personal spaces
on SNSs (McCorkindale et al., 2013; Sung & Kim, 2014). Thus, it is
important to examine, in future research, how various consumer motiva-
tions for using SNSs (e.g., brand-related or non-brand related) influence
consumers’ avoidance of native advertising on SNSs.
Furthermore, increasing privacy concerns among social media users need
to be considered that perceived risks in privacy is found to be a positive
predictor of advertising avoidance and skepticism (Baek & Morimoto,
2012). Marketers’ efforts to deliver native advertising to their niche market
might not be effective enough since many social media users have concerns
for their privacy that limits their personal information on SNSs (Oghazi
et al., 2020). Future studies on how privacy concerns affect the effectiveness
of native advertising in social media context would advance our current
understanding of consumer skepticism toward native advertising on SNSs.
Among the various SNS platforms, this study examined native advertis-
ing avoidance particularly on Facebook. The different SNSs, such as
Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, hold unique characteristics and user pro-
files, and their users differ in terms of personality and informational use of
SNSs (Hughes et al., 2012). Moreover, each social network platform
employs its own format of native advertising, with the goal of embedding
native advertising into that platform such that it looks like “native” content.
Future research should examine consumers’ native ad avoidance behaviors
across various social network platforms to provide a comprehensive under-
standing of native ad avoidance in social media environments.

ORCID
Eunice Kim http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4407-0484
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 21

References
Aaker, D. S., & Bruzzone, D. E. (1985). Causes of irritation in advertising. Journal of
Marketing, 49(2), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900204
Abernethy, A. M. (1991). Physical and mechanical avoidance of television commercials: An
exploratory study of zipping, zapping and leaving. In R. Holman (Ed.), Proceedings of
the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 223–231). The American Academy of
Advertising.
Ahluwalia, R. (2002). How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments?
Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1086/341576
Alwitt, L. F., & Prabhaker, P. R. (1992). Functional and belief dimensions of attitudes to
television. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(5), 30–42.
Amyx, D. A., & Lumpkin, J. R. (2016). Interaction effect of ad puffery and ad skepticism
on consumer persuasion. Journal of Promotion Management, 22(3), 403–424. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10496491.2016.1154920
An, S., Kerr, G., & Jin, H. S. (2018). Recognizing native ads as advertising: Attitudinal and
behavioral consequences. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 53(4), 1421–1442.
Arli, D. (2017). Does social media matter? Investigating the effect of social media features
on consumer attitudes. Journal of Promotion Management, 23(4), 521–539. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10496491.2017.1297974
Attaran, S., Notarantonio, E. M., & Quigley, C. J. Jr., (2015). Consumer perceptions of
credibility and selling intent among advertisements, advertorials, and editorials: A per-
suasion knowledge model approach. Journal of Promotion Management, 21(6), 703–720.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2015.1088919
Baek, T. H., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me. Journal of Advertising, 41(1),
59–76. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367410105
Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.41.4.607
Benway, J. P. (1999). Banner blindness: What searching users notice and do not notice on
the World Wide Web (UMI No. 9928505) [Doctoral dissertation, Rice University].
https://hdl.handle.net/1911/19353
Bauer, R. A., & Greyser, S. A. (1968). Advertising in America consumer view. Harvard
University.
Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2014). Effects of sponsorship dis-
closure timing on the processing of sponsored content: A study on the effectiveness of
European disclosure regulations. Psychology & Marketing, 31(3), 214–224. https://doi.org/
10.1002/mar.20688
Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV adver-
tising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 165–175.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209390
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of Freedom and
Control. Academic Press.
Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer infer-
ences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327663jcp0403_02
22 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

Campbell, C., Cohen, J., & Ma, J. (2014). Advertisements just aren’t advertisements any-
more: A new typology for evolving forms of online “advertising. Journal of Advertising
Research, 54(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-54-1-007-010
Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects.
Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/376800
Campbell, C., & Marks, L. J. (2015). Good native advertising isn’t a secret. Business
Horizons, 58(6), 599–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.06.003
Cho, C.-H., & Cheon, H. J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the Internet?
Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2004.10639175
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. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075
Chu, S.-C., & Sung, Y. (2015). Using a consumer socialization framework to understand
electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) group membership among brand followers on twit-
ter. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(4), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.elerap.2015.04.002
Cohen, D. (2016, April 5). Native advertising dominates Facebook audience network.
Adweek. https://www.adweek.com/digital/native-advertising-facebook-audience-network-
study/
Coulter, K. S., & Roggeveen, A. (2012). “Like it or not” Consumer responses to word-of-
mouth communication in on-line social networks. Management Research Review, 35(9),
878–899. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211256587
Cronin, J. J., & Menelly, N. E. (1992). Discrimination vs. avoidance: ’Zipping’ of television
commercials. Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1992.
10673363
Ducoffe, R. H. (1996). Advertising value and advertising the web. Journal of Advertising
Research, 36(5), 21–35.
Ducoffe, R. H. (1995). How consumers assess the value of advertising. Journal of Current
Issues & Research in Advertising, 17(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.1995.
10505022
Dvorkin, L. (2013, July 8). Inside Forbes: What’s next for native ads? Controversy gives
way to market realities. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lewisdvorkin/2013/07/08/
inside-forbes-whats-next-for-native-ads-controversy-gives-way-to-market-realities/
East, R., Hammond, E., & Wright, M. (2007). The relative incidence of positive and nega-
tive word of mouth: A multi-category study. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 24(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.12.004
Edwards, S. M., Li, H., & Lee, J.-H. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reactance:
Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of
Advertising, 31(3), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2002.10673678
Federal Trade Commission. (2015, December). Native advertising: A guide for business.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/native-advertising-guide-
businesses.
Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987). The market maven: A diffuser of marketplace informa-
tion. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251146
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with
persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/
209380
Ha, L. (1996, July/August). Advertising clutter in consumer magazines: Dimensions and
effects. Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 76–83.
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 23

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-
of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52. https://doi.
org/10.1002/dir.10073
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attri-
bute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of
Consumer Research, 17(4), 454. https://doi.org/10.1086/208570
Hoofnagle, C. J., & Meleshinsky, E. (2015). Native advertising and endorsement: Schema,
source-based misleadingness, and omission of material facts. Technology Science. http://
techscience.org/a/2015121503/
Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs.
Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(2), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001
Jain, S. P., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). Valenced comparisons. Journal of Marketing Research,
41(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.1.46.25080
Kim, J., Choi, D., & Kim, H. (2019). Advertising nativeness as a function of content and
design congruence. International Journal of Advertising, 38(6), 845–822. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02650487.2018.1535224
Kim, E., Choi, S. M., Kim, S., & Yeh, Y.-H. (2013). Factors affecting advertising avoidance
on online video sites. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 2(1), 87–121. https://doi.org/10.
14377/JAPR.2013.3.30.87
Kim, S. J., Wang, R. J.-H., Maslowska, E., & Malthouse, E. C. (2016). Understanding fury
in your words: The effects of posting and viewing electronic negative word-of-mouth on
purchase behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2015.08.015
Kim, S., Youn, S., & Yoon, D. (2019). Consumers’ responses to native vs. banner advertis-
ing: Moderation of persuasion knowledge on interaction effects of ad type and placement
type. International Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02650487.2018.1451208
Krugman, H. E. (1983). Television program interest and commercial interruption. Journal
of Advertising Research, 23(1), 21–23.
Kwon, E. S., Kim, E., Sung, Y., & Yoo, C. Y. (2014). Brand followers: Consumer motivation
and attitude towards brand communications on Twitter. International Journal of
Advertising, 33(4), 657–680. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-33-4-657-680
Lee, J., Kim, S., & Ham, C.-D. (2016). A double-edged sword? Predicting consumers’ atti-
tudes toward and sharing intention of native advertising on social media. American
Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1425–1441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764216660137
Lee, S., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1992). Differences in attitudes toward TV advertising: VCR usage
as a moderator. International Journal of Advertising, 11(4), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02650487.1992.11104509
Li, H., Edwards, S. M., & Lee, J.-H. (2002). Measuring the intrusiveness of advertisements:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00913367.2002.10673665
Lueg, J. E., & Finney, Z. (2007). Interpersonal communication in the consumer socializa-
tion process: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 15(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679150102
Lueg, J. E., Ponder, N., Beatty, S. E., & Capella, M. L. (2006). Teenagers’ use of alternative
shopping channels: A consumer socialization perspective. Journal of Retailing, 82(2),
137–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2005.08.002
24 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

Mangleburg, T. F., & Bristol, T. (1998). Socialization and adolescents’ skepticism toward
advertising. Journal of Advertising, 27(3), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1998.
10673559
Mangleburg, T. F., Grewal, D., & Bristol, T. (1997). Socialization, gender, and adolescent’s
self-reports of their generalized use of product labels. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(2),
255–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1997.tb00391.x
Matteo, S., & Zotto, C. D. (2015). Native advertising, or how to stretch editorial to spon-
sored content within a transmedia branding era. In G. Siegert, K. Forster, S. M. Chan-
Olmsted, & M. Ots (Eds.), Handbook of media branding (pp. 169–185). Springer
International Publishing.
McCorkindale, T., Distaso, M. W., & Sisco, H. F. (2013). How millennials are engaging and
building relationships with organizations on Facebook. The Journal of Social Media in
Society, 2(1), 66–87.
McCoy, S., Everard, A., Galleta, D. F., & Moody, G. D. (2017). Here we go again! The
impact of website ad repetition on recall, intrusiveness, attitudes, and site revisit inten-
tions. Information & Management, 54(1), 14–24.
McQuail, D. (1983). Mass communication theory: An introduction. Sage.
Meola, A. (2016, May 19). Video ads are taking over instagram. Business Insider, http://
www.businessinsider.com/video-ads-are-taking-over-instagram-2016-5.
Morris, J. D., Choi, Y., & Ju, I. (2016). Are social marketing and advertising communica-
tions (SMACs) meaningful?: A survey of Facebook user emotional responses, source
credibility, personal relevance, and perceived intrusiveness. Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising, 37(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2016.1171182
Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. Jr., (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and
empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(4), 599–609. https://doi.org/10.
2307/3150629
Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. L. (1979). Decision making among the young: A socialization
perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1086/208754
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring
motivation for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1),
13–46. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer
skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159–186. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E. R., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The conse-
quences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00913367.2005.10639199
Oghazi, P., Schultheiss, R., Chirumalla, K., Kalmer, N. P., & Rad, F. F. (2020). User self-dis-
closure on social network sites: A cross-cultural study on Facebook’s privacy concepts.
Journal of Business Research, 112, 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.006
Park, C. W., & McClung, G. W. (1985). The effect of TV program involvement on involve-
ment with commercials. In R. J. Lutz (Ed.), Proceedings of association of consumer
research (pp. 544–547). Association of Consumer Research.
Pasadeos, Y. (1990). Perceived informativeness of and irritation with local advertising.
Journalism Quarterly, 67(1), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909006700107
Pentina, I., Zhang, L., & Basmanova, O. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of trust in a
social media brand: A cross-cultural study of Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior,
29(4), 1546–1555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.045
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 25

Peterson, T. (2015, August 4). New York Times plans to make its mobile ads more native,
less interruptive. Advertising Age. http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-plans-add-
mobile-native-ads-september/299814/.
Phillips, J., & Noble, S. M. (2007). Simply captivating: Understanding consumers’ attitudes
toward the cinema as an advertising medium. Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 81–94.
https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360106
Rotzoll, K., Haefner, J. E., & Sandage, C. J. (1989). Advertising and the classical liberal
worldview. In R. Hovl and & G. Wilcox (Eds.), Advertising in society (pp. 27–41). NTC
Publishing Group.
Rui, H., & Whinston, A. (2012). Information or attention? An empirical study of user con-
tribution on Twitter. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 10(3), 309–324.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-011-0164-6
Shin, W., & Lin, T. T.-C. (2016). Who avoids location-based advertising and why?
Investigating the relationship between user perceptions and advertising avoidance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.036
Seyedghorban, Z., Tahernejad, H., & Matanda, M. J. (2016). Reinquiry into advertising
avoidance on the internet: A conceptual replication and extension. Journal of
Advertising, 45(1), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1085819
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression
formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 131–142. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131
Soldow, G. F., & Principe, V. (1981). Response to commercials as a function of program
context. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(2), 59–65.
Speck, P. S., & Elliott, M. T. (1997). Predictors of advertising avoidance in print and broad-
cast media. Journal of Advertising, 26(3), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1997.
10673529
Stern, L. A., & Taylor, K. (2007). Social networking on Facebook. Journal of the
Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 20, 9–20.
Sung, Y., & De Gregorio, F. (2010). Understanding attitudes toward and behaviors in
response to product placement. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 83–96.
Sung, K.-H., & Kim, S. (2014). I want to be your friend: The effects of organizations inter-
personal approaches on social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations Research,
26(3), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908718
Taylor, C. R. (2017). Native advertising: The black sheep of the marketing family.
International Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.
2017.1285389
Tutaj, K., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Effects of online advertising format and persua-
sion knowledge on audience reactions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1),
5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.620765
van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2005). Readers’ reactions to mixtures
of advertising and editorial content in magazines. Journal of Current Issues & Research
in Advertising, 27(2), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2005.10505180
Verhagen, T., Nauta, A., & Feldberg, F. (2013). Negative online word-of-mouth: Behavioral
indicator or emotional release? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1430–1440. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.043
Wangenheim, F., & Bayon, T. (2004). Satisfaction, loyalty and word of mouth within the
customer base of a utility provider: Differences between stayers, switchers and referral
switchers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(3), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.135
26 Y. J. CHUNG AND AND E. KIM

Wang, Y., & Li, Y. (2017). Understanding “native advertising” from the perspective of com-
munication strategies. Journal of Promotion Management, 23(6), 913–929. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10496491.2017.1323264
Wang, X., Yu, C., & Wei, Y. (2012). Social media Peer communication and impacts on
purchase intentions: A consumer socialization framework. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26(4), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2011.11.004
Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1086/208584
Williams, P., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Block, L. G. (2004). When consumers do not recognize
“benign” intention questions as persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer Research, 31(3),
540–550. https://doi.org/10.1086/425088
Wojdynski, B. W. (2016). The deceptiveness of sponsored news articles: How readers recog-
nize and perceive native advertising. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1475–1491.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764216660140
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1115380
Wojdynski, B. W., & Golan, G. J. (2016). Native advertising and the future of mass com-
munication. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1403–1407. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0002764216660134
Wu, P. F. (2013). In search of negativity bias: An empirical study of perceived helpfulness
of online reviews. Psychology & Marketing, 30(11), 971–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.
20660
Ying, L., Korneliussen, T., & Grønhaug, K. (2009). The effect of ad value, ad placement,
and ad execution on the perceived intrusiveness of web advertisements. International
Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 623–638. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048709200795
Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2004). Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: A review
and new findings on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed serv-
ices. Journal of Business Research, 57(4), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-
2963(02)00278-3
Zhang, J., Ko, M., & Carpenter, D. (2016). Development of a scale to measure skepticism
toward electronic word-of-mouth. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 198–208. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.042