Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-12
Resisting Covert Persuasion in Digital News: Comparing Inoculation and Reactance in the Processing of Native Advertising Disclosures and in Article Engagement Intentions
An online experiment (N = 931) assessing recognition of and responses to native advertising sought to explore how disclosures affect behavioral intent in digital news contexts. Findings suggest that resistance to persuasive attempts conferred by native advertising disclosures is explained by both inoculation and reactance processes and demonstrates how a simple, or generic, disclosure can inoculate people against a type of message (covert advertising mimicking authentic journalism) rather than the content of the message. Furthermore, the attenuating effect of a simple disclosure on behavioral intent is fully and serially mediated through advertising recognition, increased perception of threat to freedom, and increased reactance.
AmazeenM. A. (2020). News in an era of content confusion: Effects of news use motivations and context on native advertising and digital news perceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(1), 161–187. doi.org/10.1177/1077699019886589
2.
AmazeenM. A.BucyE. P. (2019). Conferring resistance to digital disinformation: The inoculating influence of procedural news knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(3), 415–432.
3.
AmazeenM. A.MuddimanA. R. (2018). Saving media or trading on trust? The effects of native advertising on audience perceptions of legacy and online news publishers. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 176–195.
4.
AmazeenM. A.WojdynskiB. W. (2018). The effects of disclosure format on native advertising recognition and audience perceptions of legacy and online news publishers. Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918754829
5.
AmazeenM. A.WojdynskiB. W. (2019). Reducing native advertising deception: Revisiting the antecedents and consequences of persuasion knowledge in digital news contexts. Mass Communication and Society, 22(2), 222–247.
6.
AnS.KangH.KooS. (2019). Sponsorship disclosures of native advertising: Clarity and prominence. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 53(3), 998–1024.
7.
BanasJ. A.MillerG. (2013). Inducing resistance to conspiracy theory propaganda: Testing inoculation and metainoculation strategies. Human Communication Research, 39, 184–207.
8.
BanasJ. A.RichardsA. S. (2017). Apprehension or motivation to defend attitudes? Exploring the underlying threat mechanism in inoculation-induced resistance to persuasion. Communication Monographs, 84(2), 164–178.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368.
11.
BoermanS. C.van ReijmersdalE. A.NeijensP. C. (2014). Effects of sponsorship disclosure timing on the processing of sponsored content: A study of the effectiveness of European disclosure regulations. Psychology & Marketing, 31(3), 214–224.
12.
BrehmJ. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
13.
BurgoonM.PfauM.BirkT. S. (1995). An inoculation theory explanation for the effects of corporate issue/advocacy advertising campaigns. Communication Research, 22(4), 485–505.
14.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1981). Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought-listing technique. In MerluzziT. V.GlassC. R.GenestM. (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 309–342). Guilford Press.
15.
CameronG. T.CurtainP. A. (1995). Tracking sources of information pollution: A survey and experimental test of print media’s labeling policy for feature advertising. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(1), 178–189.
16.
CampbellM. C.KirmaniA. (2008). I know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it: The use of the persuasion knowledge model in consumer research. In HaugtvedtC. P.HerrP.KardesF. R. (Eds.), The handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 549–573). Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
CarlsonM. (2015). When news sites go native: Redefining the advertising-editorial divide in response to native advertising. Journalism, 16, 849–865.
18.
ComptonJ.IvanovB. (2012). Untangling threat during inoculation-conferred resistance to influence. Communication Reports, 25, 1–13.
19.
ComptonJ. A.PfauM. (2004). Use of inoculation to foster resistance to credit card marketing targeting college students. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 343–364.
20.
ComptonJ. A.PfauM. (2005). Inoculation theory of resistance to influence at maturity: Recent progress in theory development and application and suggestions for future research. In KalbfleischP. J. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 29, pp. 97–145). Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168.
22.
EdgerlyS.VragaE. K. (2019). News, entertainment, or both? Exploring audience perceptions of media genre in a hybrid media environment. Journalism, 20(6), 807–826.
23.
EinsteinM. (2016). Black ops advertising: Native ads, content marketing, and the covert world of the digital sell. O/R Books.
HassR. G.GradyK. (1975). Temporal delay, type of forewarning, and resistance to influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 459–469.
29.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30.
IsaacM. (2016, December15). Facebook mounts effort to limit tide of fake news. The New York Times. http://nyti.ms/2hKDeO2
31.
IvanovB.SimsJ. D.ComptonJ.MillerC. H.ParkerK. A.ParkerJ. L.HarrisonK. J.AverbeckJ. M. (2015). The general content of post-inoculation talk: Recalled issue-specific conversations following inoculation treatments. Western Journal of Communication, 79, 218–238.
32.
IversenM. H.KnudsenE. (2019). When politicians go native: The consequences of political native advertising for citizens’ trust in news. Journalism, 20, 961–978. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916688289
JohnsonB. K.PotockiB.VeldhuisJ. (2019). Is that my friend or an advert? The effectiveness of Instagram native advertisements posing as social posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 24, 108–125.
35.
KimB. H.PasadeosY.BarbanA. (2001). On the deceptive effectiveness of labeled and unlabeled advertorial formats. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 265–281.
36.
KimS. J.HancockJ. T. (2017). How advertorials deactivate advertising schema: MTurk-based experiments to examine persuasion tactics and outcomes in health advertisements. Communication Research, 44, 1019–1045.
37.
KolodinskyJ.LuskJ. L. (2018). Mandatory labels can improve attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Science Advances, 4, Article eaaq1413. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq1413
38.
KrouwerS.PoelsK. (2017). Article or ad? Readers’ recognition and evaluations of native advertisements on online news websites. In ZabkarV.EisendM. (Eds.), Advances in advertising research VIII, challenges in an age of dis-engagement (pp. 17–30). Springer Gabler.
39.
KrouwerS.PoelsK.PaulussenP. (2020). Moving towards transparency for native advertisements on news websites: A test of more detailed disclosures. International Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 51–73.
40.
LiY. (2019). Contest over authority: Navigating native advertising’s impacts on journalism autonomy. Journalism Studies, 20(4), 523–541.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 433–442.
43.
McGuireW. J. (1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry, 24, 184–197.
44.
McGuireW. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). Academic Press.
45.
McGuireW. J. (1989). Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In RiceR. E.AtkinC. K. (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (pp. 43–65). Sage.
46.
MillerC. H.IvanovB.SimsJ. D.ComptonJ.HarrisonK. J.ParkerK. A.ParkerJ. L.AverbeckJ. M. (2013). Boosting the potency of resistance: Combining the motivational forces of inoculation and psychological reactance. Human Communication Research, 39, 127–155.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1977). Forewarning, cognitive responding, and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 645–655.
49.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer.
50.
PfauM.ComptonJ.ParkerK. A.WittenbergE. M.AnC.FergusonM.HortonH.MalyshevY. (2004). The traditional explanation for resistance versus attitude accessibility: Do they trigger distinct or overlapping processes of resistance?Human Communication Research, 30, 329–360.
51.
PfauM.SzaboE. A.AndersonJ.MorrillJ.ZubricJ.WanH. H. (2001). The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 27, 216–252.
52.
QuickB. L.StephensonM. T. (2007). Further evidence that psychological reactance can be modeled as a combination of anger and negative cognitions. Communication Research, 34, 255–276.
53.
RichardsA. S.BanasJ. A. (2015). Inoculating against reactance to persuasive health messages. Health Communication, 30(5), 451–460.
54.
RichardsA. S.BanasJ. A.MagidY. (2017). More on inoculating against reactance to persuasive health messages: The paradox of threat. Health Communication, 32, 890–902.
55.
RosemanI. J.AntoniouA. A.JoseP. E. (1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions: Constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory. Cognition & Emotions, 10, 241–277.
56.
SheehanK. B. (2018). Crowdsourcing research: Data collection with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Communication Monographs, 85, 140–156.
57.
ShenL. (2015). Antecedents to psychological reactance: The impact of threat, message frame, and choice. Health Communication, 30, 975–985.
TorresI. M.SierraJ. J.HeiserR. S. (2007). The effects of warning-label placement in print ads: A social contract perspective. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 49–62.
62.
TutajK.van ReijmersdalE. A. (2012). Effects of online advertising format and persuasion knowledge on audience reactions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18, 5–18.
63.
van ReijmersdalE. A.FransenM. L.van NoortG.OpreeS. J.VandebergL.ReuschS.van LieshoutL.BoermanS. C. (2016). Effects of disclosing sponsored content in blogs: How the use of resistance strategies mediates effects on persuasion. American Behavioral Scientist, 60, 1458–1474.
64.
WojdynskiB. W.EvansN. 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.
65.
WojdynskiB. W.EvansN. J. (2020). The Covert Advertising Recognition and Effects (CARE) model: Processes of persuasion in native advertising and other masked formats. International Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 4–31.
66.
WuM.HuangY.LiR.BortreeD. S.YangF.XiaoA.WangR. (2016). A tale of two sources in native advertising: Examining the effects of source credibility and priming on content, organizations, and media evaluations. American Behavioral Scientist, 60, 1492–1509.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
